hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 802 of 901 FirstFirst ... 302702752792799800801802803804805812852 ... LastLast
Results 16,021 to 16,040 of 18006

Thread: US Politics Thread, 2.0

  1. #16021
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,579
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Kill their ad revenue with data laws instead of expecting them to do the right thing in their current configuration.
    "Do the right thing" is?


  2. #16022
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    22,810
    Not empowering the far right.

    It's not like those platforms can ever be used to build a positive democratic movement for the left. They're structurally incompatible.
    Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.

  3. #16023
    Jack Coutu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 9, 2011
    Location
    marketjacker
    Posts
    2,213
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Not empowering the far right.

    It's not like those platforms can ever be used to build a positive democratic movement for the left. They're structurally incompatible.

  4. #16024
    The Pube Whisperer Maximillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,158


    The USA has gone down a deep rabbithole when it comes to the electrol process. I think the shock isn't that the result of the Presidential poll is disputed, it's the fact that people were prepared to invade congress in such a manner.

    Heaps of people believed that Bush stole the election from Gore using the courts.

    Heaps more didn't so much protest the result but instead denied that Obama even had a Constitutional right to run with the birther shit.

    Heaps more believed that Trump only won as a result of Russian collusion.

    And heaps more now believe that Biden won due to fraud.

    Up until this point all these disputes were fought out in the courts, with the loser eventually conceded to the winner, though that didn't change the opinion of a lot of the public.

    And it isn't as though there hasn't been constant talk of voter suppression, voter roll purges, gerrymandering, and every kind of electoral fuckery like forever in the USA.

    So this shitstorm hasn't come out of the blue, it has been building up over decades and goes hand-in-hand with the hyper-partisan nature of current politics.

    Trump being tossed on the trashheap won't address this, the question is whether people draw back a little and reflect on the horror they have created or whether it's fullsteam head to collapse.

    Having a electorial system designed in the 18th century in the 21st century certainly doesn't help either.

  5. #16025

    Join Date
    July 14, 2013
    Posts
    2,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Ok Liare, whatever you say.
    It does sound a little wild to suggest that banning someone from facebook is a free speech issue, but I think there's a valid issue to at least consider:

    We've seen a number of stories about facebook pandering to the right, discriminating against the sharing of left-leaning news articles (iirc they limited how many people would see links to Mother Jones, for example) etc.

    It's easy to just say, "Welp, they're a private company, they can do what they want."

    The problem is that Facebook (and twitter to a lesser extent) have the reach and power to have a major impact on things like elections. Monopolies with that kind of power are a demonstrably Bad Thing™ and we have laws regulating their behavior for a reason.

    Those laws have not kept up with the era of social media.


    This particular instance doesn't seem like one to get up in arms over, obviously. Banning someone for inciting violence and insurrection is never going to be a bad thing. But there are still meaningful problems with someone who can say "Here's the broadest communication platform in the world, the best way to reach people that's ever been made-- and we've decided you can't use it," without any kind of accountability. Monopolies like that need regulation and oversight or Bad Shit™ happens in the long run.
    Quarantined and loving life.

  6. #16026

    Join Date
    November 5, 2011
    Posts
    14,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Steckersaurus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Ok Liare, whatever you say.
    It does sound a little wild to suggest that banning someone from facebook is a free speech issue, but I think there's a valid issue to at least consider:

    We've seen a number of stories about facebook pandering to the right, discriminating against the sharing of left-leaning news articles (iirc they limited how many people would see links to Mother Jones, for example) etc.

    It's easy to just say, "Welp, they're a private company, they can do what they want."

    The problem is that Facebook (and twitter to a lesser extent) have the reach and power to have a major impact on things like elections. Monopolies with that kind of power are a demonstrably Bad Thing™ and we have laws regulating their behavior for a reason.

    Those laws have not kept up with the era of social media.


    This particular instance doesn't seem like one to get up in arms over, obviously. Banning someone for inciting violence and insurrection is never going to be a bad thing. But there are still meaningful problems with someone who can say "Here's the broadest communication platform in the world, the best way to reach people that's ever been made-- and we've decided you can't use it," without any kind of accountability. Monopolies like that need regulation and oversight or Bad Shit™ happens in the long run.
    This indeed.

    Facebook and Twitter have a disturbingly big impact on how we perceive the world today and their effects are everywhere, so they should absolutely be responsible for said effect and take the negatives with it too.

    You shouldn't get to influence the development of the world and its politics so much but wash your hands of it. If you're gonna have a tangible effect on the politics of the world you have to play by different rules.

  7. #16027
    The Pube Whisperer Maximillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Steckersaurus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Ok Liare, whatever you say.
    It does sound a little wild to suggest that banning someone from facebook is a free speech issue, but I think there's a valid issue to at least consider:

    We've seen a number of stories about facebook pandering to the right, discriminating against the sharing of left-leaning news articles (iirc they limited how many people would see links to Mother Jones, for example) etc.

    It's easy to just say, "Welp, they're a private company, they can do what they want."

    The problem is that Facebook (and twitter to a lesser extent) have the reach and power to have a major impact on things like elections. Monopolies with that kind of power are a demonstrably Bad Thing™ and we have laws regulating their behavior for a reason.

    Those laws have not kept up with the era of social media.


    This particular instance doesn't seem like one to get up in arms over, obviously. Banning someone for inciting violence and insurrection is never going to be a bad thing. But there are still meaningful problems with someone who can say "Here's the broadest communication platform in the world, the best way to reach people that's ever been made-- and we've decided you can't use it," without any kind of accountability. Monopolies like that need regulation and oversight or Bad Shit™ happens in the long run.
    The problem with social media is that they were - in the US at least - giving special rules that they were a platform not a publisher. The idea behind this was that it was impossible for a social media platform with millions of users to moderate content.

    That no longer is the case. Algorithms allow real time monitoring and legislators have increasingly demanded that social media act as publishers.

    So the simple solution is to redraw the legislation to bring it in line with today.

    Of course social media has used its special status to build up monopolist powers and can use censorship against anyone campaigning to reform the laws governing it.

    Good example was Google and Facebooks campaign against the Australian Government and the media regulator over moves to make them pay for publishing 3rd party news content. As an Australian opening Google gave you a big message asking your to protest against the change to the Government. They didn't go as far as censoring the otherside but you can be pretty sure shadowbanning was taking place.

  8. #16028

    Join Date
    November 5, 2011
    Posts
    14,040
    All you need is to bump the opposing/undesirable side down a little in results and immediately people will feel it has little support etc.

    It's really fucking vicious.

  9. #16029
    The Pube Whisperer Maximillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Isyel View Post
    All you need is to bump the opposing/undesirable side down a little in results and immediately people will feel it has little support etc.

    It's really fucking vicious.
    It's all about the clicks. Probably the greatest reason out of a huge list of reasons that I am pleased to see Trump go is that I am so sick of hearing about every little stupid thing he did. The Australian media was obsessed with Trump and you couldn't open a newspaper or watch TV news without seeing Trump or hearing about Trump or people complaining about Trump or editorialising about Trump.

    But Trump sells media, the Trump-Bump was real, and hence we had Trump shoved down our throats even before he was elected.

    Social media is the same - what people click on is fed to them to have them click again. Until everyone is divided up into little bubbles that are easier to market to. A great business model but shit for society.

  10. #16030

    Join Date
    November 5, 2011
    Posts
    14,040
    All fine but I was replying to your bit about them running their own political campaigns. Guess I should have quoted that bit specifically.

    TBH the whole Trump thing goes way back, its not even a modern media thing when you get down to it. In the end he's only ever been truly relevant because of his media presence, for decades. He benefited greatly from them, and they benefited greatly from him.
    Last edited by Isyel; January 11 2021 at 09:52:03 AM.

  11. #16031
    Duckslayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 23, 2017
    Posts
    2,806


    Both Sides

  12. #16032

    Join Date
    July 3, 2014
    Posts
    5,499

  13. #16033
    Duckslayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 23, 2017
    Posts
    2,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    Oh look, casual racism!

  14. #16034
    Jack Coutu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 9, 2011
    Location
    marketjacker
    Posts
    2,213
    Quote Originally Posted by Duckslayer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    Oh look, casual racism!
    Oh look Candy being trash again.

  15. #16035
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    18,144
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Just an observation: the complete lack of understanding on the right as to what "freedom of speech" means is, honestly, spectacularly funny and depressing at the same time.

    They seem to think it guarantees them not just access to private business entities platforms, but also shields them from criticism, complaint or ramification for the thing they say.

    They literally have no idea what that right means. At all.
    there is no misunderstanding on their part, since we have privatized and monopolized every aspect of political expression deplatforming trump IS hella problematic. the FOSS movement spend something like 25 years talking about, and warning about the ramifications of this. talking about "well, its privately owned so they can do what they want :Smugface:" entirely misses the argument made in the first place. Twitter and Facebook aren't newspapers, they're the town square. by denying people access to it, you are no different than the absolutist tyrants of the 1800's denying liberals and socialists the right to express themselves on the basis of their ideas being "dangerous". the proverbial crowd might indeed run them out of the square, but that is a collective act of the "people" not the act of a singular "tyrant".

    social media serves as a supercharger on regular expression, it is not the "top down" structure of traditional media and cannot be compared to such, by denying people access to this supercharger are you not also silencing their ability to freely express themselves now that it has become the norm ? does its removal not silence them in comparison to their peers ?

    now, we can discuss the acceptability of their abhorrent viewpoints and how "freedom of speech" without guard rails is a terrible idea, but the outright rejection you're putting up here indicate you haven't really thought trough the implications of the argument made.
    This.

    "It's a private entity so free speech doesnt apply" is just the left wing equivalent of "ISLAM isnt a race so its not racism". Sure you're technically correct but also totally missing the point.

    The intelligent debate needs to be over whether "the 'good thing' that the constitutional right to free speech in the US is seeking to protect" is undermined by comprehensively deplatforming the figurehead of a movement who 40-odd percent of people typically agree with, and if it is, whether that matters/is persuasive in light of other impacts to other 'good things' by doing so
    Last edited by Lallante; January 11 2021 at 01:47:44 PM.

  16. #16036
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    18,144
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Coutu View Post

    it wouldn't, the sooner people stop pretending these are town squares and not just factories of shit, the sooner people can stop pretending they "need" them as platforms for viable discussion. Nothing any local comunnity I've been a part of doing anything meaningful in the past 10 years has organized itself via Facebook or Twitter, and you'd have to be insane to think regulatating them would suddenly improve the shit tier discourse on a platform made for short quips, or a platform made for funneling idealogy into further rabbit holes. If you are so naive to think they are "town squares" you really need to take apart that cognitive dissonance.

    twitter banning trump is too little too late, but they hosted it because it's a platform for exactly that style of shit, not for meaningful free speech. Facebook hasn't been an avenue of free speech and intellectual thought, well ever. Keep thinking they are or ever were anything other the platforms they have aimed to be. They didn't ban Trump earlier becuase it wasn't profitable, not because they care about controlling free speech.
    Imagine being so out of touch with the modern world that you don't think political speech on twitter, or the ability to run your own service such as Parler, has any real impact on wider political discourse.

  17. #16037

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Pizza delivery van
    Posts
    7,900
    Trump himself could always just hold a press conference instead of tweeting...

  18. #16038
    DerWish's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Budapest
    Posts
    1,817
    First rule of committing a crime: don't post on social media.


  19. #16039
    Donor Pattern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Just an observation: the complete lack of understanding on the right as to what "freedom of speech" means is, honestly, spectacularly funny and depressing at the same time.

    They seem to think it guarantees them not just access to private business entities platforms, but also shields them from criticism, complaint or ramification for the thing they say.

    They literally have no idea what that right means. At all.
    there is no misunderstanding on their part, since we have privatized and monopolized every aspect of political expression deplatforming trump IS hella problematic. the FOSS movement spend something like 25 years talking about, and warning about the ramifications of this. talking about "well, its privately owned so they can do what they want :Smugface:" entirely misses the argument made in the first place. Twitter and Facebook aren't newspapers, they're the town square. by denying people access to it, you are no different than the absolutist tyrants of the 1800's denying liberals and socialists the right to express themselves on the basis of their ideas being "dangerous". the proverbial crowd might indeed run them out of the square, but that is a collective act of the "people" not the act of a singular "tyrant".

    social media serves as a supercharger on regular expression, it is not the "top down" structure of traditional media and cannot be compared to such, by denying people access to this supercharger are you not also silencing their ability to freely express themselves now that it has become the norm ? does its removal not silence them in comparison to their peers ?

    now, we can discuss the acceptability of their abhorrent viewpoints and how "freedom of speech" without guard rails is a terrible idea, but the outright rejection you're putting up here indicate you haven't really thought trough the implications of the argument made.
    This.

    "It's a private entity so free speech doesnt apply" is just the left wing equivalent of "ISLAM isnt a race so its not racism". Sure you're technically correct but also totally missing the point.

    The intelligent debate needs to be over whether "the 'good thing' that the constitutional right to free speech in the US is seeking to protect" is undermined by comprehensively deplatforming the figurehead of a movement who 40-odd percent of people typically agree with, and if it is, whether that matters/is persuasive in light of other impacts to other 'good things' by doing so
    The intelligent debate should be over whether monopolistic entities of such importance shouldn't just be nationalised.

    Because if corporations are people*, denying their right to choose who and what happens on their own platform is in of its self, a greater violation of the first amendment, in actuality as well as in principle.
    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Not Larkonnis View Post
    at least we're not Greece.

  20. #16040
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    22,810
    What's the point of tech if you can't use it to make everyone feel insecure about themselves and then serve them ads for products which claim to fill the void of emptiness social media created in the first place?
    Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •