131–140 of 192 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there's a market for something like it, there will exist something like it. The interesting question is how to make something like it so uncompetitive that nothing like it can survive.
Create a cryptocurrency which you mine based on limiting social media usage
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Constitutional guarantee of free speech mandates the behavior of the government to not interfere with the rights of private actors . When a private actor (such as Facebook) chooses to publish or suppress content from a third party, that is a voluntary exercise of Constitutionally protected speech . Social media services have neither a moral nor legal obligation to publish hate speech.
Correct. But private corporations can choose whether or not to follow in the path of liberal democracy or authoritarianism in how they relate to their customers. Facebook has more customers than any country has citizens so this question is of great importance to how their service continues to grow and impact the world.
Liberal Democracy can also be authoritarian. The words you're thinking of are libertarian and authoritarian. Liberty as in free, authority as in ruled.
>Facebook can no longer deny its moral responsibility to try to understand how cyberspace, law, and politics collide in each of the countries where it operates, nor its responsibility to do something about it. That sentence doesn't make sense. Do something about what? How those things collide? It's very unclear what the author thinks Facebook is supposed to do, or what he thinks Facebook is actually responsible for.…
Yes, it is interesting that the author sees no place in the modern world for the kind of free speech enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. They are happy with a giant global monopolist controlling all speech, as long as they use that power to enforce their political agenda. That is an incredibly dangerous mindset and one that seems to be becoming more pervasive in respectable circles.
Send one off to seminary and they speak the Bible. Send one off to American business schools and they speak “sound economics”
What dominates the news at night? Economy and stock market
Not “we built how every many hospitals and schools we needed”.
Free speech is gone. We only discuss certain ideas most of the time.
TV propaganda helped soften the public up for internet propaganda
That sounds dramatic but since I cut out TV (including Netflix) and social media, and only use the internet for my job as a coder or learning new math kind of tasks, thoughts in my head are very different.
I’ve cut out a lot of people, but I am way way happier
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it is interesting that the author sees no place in the modern world for the kind of free speech enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. They are happy with a giant global monopolist controlling all speech, as long as they use that power to enforce their political agenda. That is an incredibly dangerous mindset and one that seems to be becoming more pervasive in respectable circles.
The Constitutional guarantee of free speech mandates the behavior of the government to not interfere with the rights of private actors . When a private actor (such as Facebook) chooses to publish or suppress content from a third party, that is a voluntary exercise of Constitutionally protected speech . Social media services have neither a moral nor legal obligation to publish hate speech.
So yeah you can make that claim based upon the current legal thinking and protected by university economics courses and the law...
But there are convincing arguments out there that government protection of corps undermines speech and thus should be seen as a violation of the first amendment
Except we took the utilitarian sacrifice path for the purposes of capitalism (again the government protecting one sort of economy over another, guiding speech)
Yeah you’re so smart right. Cause you see the idea we all do. It’s not the only one
The biggest idea humanity has discovered is that human society need not look like the status quo
It doesn’t have to look like the Bible or capitalism
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> YouTube had a bit of reputation for some of the lowest-quality comment sections anywhere Has this reputation changed much?
I found top Youtube comments to be more or less funny/enjoyable now. The shitty comments got downvoted so I no longer see them unless I delibrately try to see them, they don't appear. It's very different from youtube comments back then. But then they are still mostly unhelpful/uninformative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand why do you think that. The biggest problem of big companies is when they hurt consumers with predatory practices. With Facebook I fail to see how that's the case. Everybody is perfectly capable of not being hurt by their own accord by just no using it. If the problem is how it influences politics and government, I think that's even a point against letting the government mess with it, as it is a pow…
Yeah, why don’t opioid addicts just stop? And why don’t fat people just lose weight and eat healthy? And why don’t poor people just stop being poor? Clearly every issue in society is a result of a lack of personal responsibility.
Poor people don't have a direct choice. Fat people don't complain about beeing fat. And opiod addicts can get help easily.
Nothing even remotely similar to just not using Facebook.
As much as I dislike Facebook. We have to stop to tell them they are responsible for anything. It's fully our fault whatever one can say is Facebooks. Everything else is just censorship and just as bad. There is no such thing as responsible censorship. One side will always get pissed and who are we or Facebook to decide what's right.
If a user on Facebook posts aggressive and distasteful white identity propaganda which begins alienating other users, do Facebook and its advertisers not have the right to use the platform they created to exclude such content should they desire to do so? Does a fictitious "right to be heard" from a privately-administered entity supersede Facebook's actual right to property and self-determination over that property?
If "censorship" is truly a problem here, only another free-market alternative to Facebook is the correct solution. Gab did it with Twitter. Now, whether or not Gab will ever be as successful as Twitter because of the userbase it curates is an entirely different story. One is not entitled to a specific outcome, and if rejecting racism is what makes big business big, there's not much left that the other side of this debate can complain about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct. But private corporations can choose whether or not to follow in the path of liberal democracy or authoritarianism in how they relate to their customers. Facebook has more customers than any country has citizens so this question is of great importance to how their service continues to grow and impact the world.
> can choose whether or not to follow in the path of liberal democracy or authoritarianism Liberal Democracy can also be authoritarian. The words you're thinking of are libertarian and authoritarian. Liberty as in free, authority as in ruled.
"William Safire points out that liberalism is attacked by both the Right and the Left: by the Right for defending such practices as abortion, homosexuality, and atheism, by the Left for defending free enterprise and the rights of the individual over the collective."
I am still unconvinced Facebook played any role in the outcome of the 2016 election. It played a role in the the form of the discussion but the actual outcome it didn't. Most people vote based on some very personal and everyday issues. Things they experience in their lives not discussions on facebook no matter how many times they like it.