161–170 of 261 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> IMO if you can't even try to use an alternative microblogging platform for fear of being labeled an extremist by "polite company" I downvoted you because this is a ridiculous claim. If you use a platform like Gab that embraces bigots and extremists perhaps, but that's not the only other platform.
What if a video producer uses PornHub because YouTube keeps demonetizing them for, for example, gun reviews?
> For instance, if you’re a journalist and you want to promote your work, there is simply no viable alternative to Twitter at the moment. No other microblogging platform comes even close to having the number of users Twitter does, and most of the alternatives are hotbeds of extremism, so that anyone who joins them is thereby disqualified in polite company. IMO if you can't even try to use an alternative microblogging…
What right do journalists have to have a platform for promotion and advertising? Either before or after the Internet and Twitter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What right do journalists have to have a platform for promotion and advertising? Either before or after the Internet and Twitter.
We're not talking about inalienable rights. That's implied in the title of the linked post. If you don't care about "good"/"bad" decisions and just care about the legal bounds, just say so and dismiss the article out of hand. Your roundabout question just drags discussion down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The author supposes that there are some mustache-twirling masterminds behind the scenes at Google, Twitter, and Facebook, picking and choosing what content is promoted. But the algorithms, at there most basic sense, promote what is popular. Hardly. The algos have programmers thumbs on them heavily. A hilarious example was when Reddit was trying to deal with the_donald successfully spamming reddits hot algorithm. But…
That just proves my point. the_donald had to find an exploit and resort to spamming in order to get the algorithm to push them onto the front page. They couldn't get there on the basis of, you know, actually being popular because a large number of people want to read them.
It proves that reddit admins didn't like right wing shit posting and were willing to rewrite the algo to deal with it. Which is completely the opposite of the point you were making that these algos are somehow neutral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Freedom comes with responsibility. The idea that they are not responsible for the content (i.e. you can't hold Youtube/Google legally responsible for the content they have on their platforms) while at the same time they make profit on the very same content and can censor it as they see fit -- this is idiocy in its purest form. We hold newspapers or TV station legally liable for the content they serve. This is fair. S…
Power comes with responsibility, not freedom. Where did you even get that phrase? And, does this imply that slavery comes with blissfull carelessness?
And yes, if you have no freedom you cannot be considered responsible for what you do or don't. A slave cannot be held responsible for actions he's been ordered to perform. This might not be "blissful carelessness" but certainly is lack of responsibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I run a website, why doesn't my free association right extend to kicking people off it?
you are absolutely free to - but in that case you should be held to the same legal standards as newspapers who edit their content.
You're proposing something that will kill the literal forum that you're posting it on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That just proves my point. the_donald had to find an exploit and resort to spamming in order to get the algorithm to push them onto the front page. They couldn't get there on the basis of, you know, actually being popular because a large number of people want to read them.
>That just proves my point It proves that reddit admins didn't like right wing shit posting and were willing to rewrite the algo to deal with it. Which is completely the opposite of the point you were making that these algos are somehow neutral.
If their content was so compelling, why did they have to spam it? Why wouldn't it just attract users organically the way other content does?
Microblogging platforms aren't the only venue for journalists to promote their work.
But, even if that wasn't the case, that's not an argument that private censorship is bad but that private monopolies are bad, and that censorship by monopolies on essential communications mechanisms (public or private) is bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That just proves my point It proves that reddit admins didn't like right wing shit posting and were willing to rewrite the algo to deal with it. Which is completely the opposite of the point you were making that these algos are somehow neutral.
It proves that reddit admins take steps to deal with people who abuse the site with spam, which is what one would expect of any forum administrator for any spam content. If their content was so compelling, why did they have to spam it? Why wouldn't it just attract users organically the way other content does?
[[citation needed]] Would you like to present proof that t_d did not grow organically in 2015/2016?
So far you're heavy on claims and light on proof.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you are absolutely free to - but in that case you should be held to the same legal standards as newspapers who edit their content.
No, that's patently ridiculous. The internet is a new medium; things scale so vastly differently here. Your proposal is literally impossible to enforce at the scale of major platforms. To force everyone to choose between "hands off, no moderation" and "you are responsible for all content" is a thinly veiled attempt to force the big players to not moderate, and therefore host extremist content - because they literally…