Gene Frenkle Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: We could, but that does nothing to address the issues from within our own borders. Plus, putting up barriers to information, regardless of its quality, seems deeply problematic to a country like ours which values free speech, expression, and thought. Yeah dude, you're the RIAA going after Napster if you're going after the big 3 today. It's a game of whack-a-mole. Better to just adapt to the new reality and be a part of it. The singularity is coming.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 Just now, Gene Frenkle said: Yeah dude, you're the RIAA going after Napster if you're going after the big 3 today. It's a game of whack-a-mole. Better to just adapt to the new reality and be a part of it. The singularity is coming. What's the new reality in your mind?
Gene Frenkle Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 And as far as Trump trying to convince people that he can do anything about it, that's a complete joke. Just now, Deranged Rhino said: What's the new reality in your mind? The ultimate worldwide free market.
GG Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 1 minute ago, Gene Frenkle said: And as far as Trump trying to convince people that he can do anything about it, that's a complete joke. The ultimate worldwide free market. Then why are the social media platforms moderating usage? 2
Deranged Rhino Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 2 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said: The ultimate worldwide free market. Meaning what, in regards to information and speech?
Gene Frenkle Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 They're running their private companies exactly as they see fit. 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: Meaning what, in regards to information and speech? Whatever the market decides.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 1 minute ago, Gene Frenkle said: They're running their private companies exactly as they see fit. Like the baker who won't bake cakes for people whose lifestyles they disagree with, right? It's too easy.
Warren Zevon Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 Just now, Joe in Winslow said: Like the baker who won't bake cakes for people whose lifestyles they disagree with, right? It's too easy. You're leaving out some important context about religion you refuse to acknowledge.
LeGOATski Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 3 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said: Whatever the market decides. oy..... I think we need to unplug from the Matrix.
B-Man Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 Twitter’s Head of Site Integrity Yoel Roth is in charge of “developing and enforcing rules,” which means he likely had a say in fact-checking President Donald Trump’s tweets about mail-in ballots. But can we truth Roth to enforce these rules across the board? He has a long history of attacking Trump and other Republicans. (more…)
Warren Zevon Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 1 minute ago, B-Man said: Twitter’s Head of Site Integrity Yoel Roth is in charge of “developing and enforcing rules,” which means he likely had a say in fact-checking President Donald Trump’s tweets about mail-in ballots. But can we truth Roth to enforce these rules across the board? He has a long history of attacking Trump and other Republicans. (more…) You should start your own social media site - "Boy Man's Twitter" - and enforce rules as you see fit.
B-Man Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 “Twitter Falsely Undermined the Truth… Thereby Misleading the American Public” – Senior Legal Adviser to @TeamTrump Responds to Twitter’s ‘Blatantly Partisan’ Attack on President
Deranged Rhino Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 1 minute ago, Gene Frenkle said: Whatever the market decides. And what if the "market" decides that it will censor and ban certain information, while supporting/elevating other information? I presume, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that your personal values and principles (which are left of center/liberal leaning) value the protection of freedom of thought and expression above most all else. History shows us that nothing is more fundamental to not only advancing society, but preserving civil liberties, civil rights for all people. Keeping people ignorant has long been a tool of oppression. I grant you that when it's a private board like TSW (as an example), that's not very problematic. SDS can, and should, run this board however he sees fit. But very few people, if any, rely on TSW as their primary source of information (for news, not Bills). However, Google as an example, is a different beast due to the omnipresence of its services and how intertwined it is with millions of people's consumption of information. If Google censors information, that has a tremendous ripple effect that filters down into actual media coverage and reporting, let alone individual news consumption. I'm not trying to be pedantic or trap you at all, sincerely. I've always enjoyed our interactions and your posts even when we disagree. This is an issue that goes well beyond any partisan lines. 1
GG Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 29 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said: They're running their private companies exactly as they see fit. Whatever the market decides. Shouldn't moderation be up to the market then?
Magox Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 Terrible decision by Twitter. They just went down that slippery slope. The day of reckoning for social media is quickly approaching. They wield too much power to go left unchecked. Once they decided to move from being simply a social media platform provider to then move into the editorial business of becoming the arbiter of what is true or not, then the ball game changed. They should be treated as a public utility. 2 3
Gene Frenkle Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 12 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: And what if the "market" decides that it will censor and ban certain information, while supporting/elevating other information? I presume, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that your personal values and principles (which are left of center/liberal leaning) value the protection of freedom of thought and expression above most all else. History shows us that nothing is more fundamental to not only advancing society, but preserving civil liberties, civil rights for all people. Keeping people ignorant has long been a tool of oppression. I grant you that when it's a private board like TSW (as an example), that's not very problematic. SDS can, and should, run this board however he sees fit. But very few people, if any, rely on TSW as their primary source of information (for news, not Bills). However, Google as an example, is a different beast due to the omnipresence of its services and how intertwined it is with millions of people's consumption of information. If Google censors information, that has a tremendous ripple effect that filters down into actual media coverage and reporting, let alone individual news consumption. I'm not trying to be pedantic or trap you at all, sincerely. I've always enjoyed our interactions and your posts even when we disagree. This is an issue that goes well beyond any partisan lines. Personally, I think disinformation should be combated and this is a good method because it doesn't even censor the statement. Opinion is one thing, calculated lying is another. Try focusing on the mechanism. It could become a wiki sort of thing or something else. We'll see, but this idea is overdue. Wait till deepfake videos become the norm. Social media need this. The internet has been fine, is fine and will be fine. It's the biggest thing in the world and there's not much anyone can do but see where it goes and try to help shape it. Kind of like a free market. 3 minutes ago, Magox said: Terrible decision by Twitter. They just went down that slippery slope. The day of reckoning for social media is quickly approaching. They wield too much power to go left unchecked. Once they decided to move from being simply a social media platform provider to then move into the editorial business of becoming the arbiter of what is true or not, then the ball game changed. They should be treated as a public utility. I wonder what the next wave of unregulated social media giants will be called? 1
LeGOATski Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 3 minutes ago, Magox said: Terrible decision by Twitter. They just went down that slippery slope. The day of reckoning for social media is quickly approaching. They wield too much power to go left unchecked. Once they decided to move from being simply a social media platform provider to then move into the editorial business of becoming the arbiter of what is true or not, then the ball game changed. They should be treated as a public utility. As an impartial non-user of social media, fact-checking highly influential users seems like the correct slope to me. I wonder if there is a way to make an exception for that code, which could have more oversight from outside stake-holders. 1
Gene Frenkle Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 1 minute ago, LeGOATski said: As an impartial non-user of social media, fact-checking highly influential users seems like the correct slope to me. I wonder if there is a way to make an exception for that code, which could have more oversight from outside stake-holders. Yeah, like Wikipedia. That's where this goes at some point I bet.
Recommended Posts