Okay" rel="nofollow">https://www.latestjobvacancies.com/nigerian-immigration-serv... these" rel="nofollow">https://www.latestjobvacancies.com/icpc-past-questions/">the... tips" rel="nofollow">https://www.latestjobvacancies.com/">tips are" rel="nofollow">https://www.latestjobvacancies.com/trcn-examination-past-que... great" rel="nofollow">https://www.latestjobvacancies.com/civil-defence-past-questi....
Mark Zuckerberg Is an Arbiter of Truth–Whether He Likes It or Not
51–60 of 96 posts
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is an Arbiter of Truth–Whether He Likes It or Not
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is considered propaganda or hatred has become increasingly subjective
No it hasn't. Propaganda and hatred has just become more sophisticated and super-charged by new tools (social media, Internet etc.) in order to maximize it's spread among the community. These new tools also allow bigots to self-organize, privately in ways never before possible.
I think where you are running into trouble is that you have made the assumption (your own subjectivity) that these are just bigots with no validity.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is an Arbiter of Truth–Whether He Likes It or Not
#53> Zuckerberg should take note. Yes, it’s crazy for one person to have such massive control over what people say online. But like it or not, our system gives leaders of huge corporations massive power. In his total control of Facebook, he must be the arbiter—of harm. We must demand that he perform that role in the best possible way, minimizing the toxic speech posted by his customers, whether they are peons or preside…
I'd argue that Zuckerberg was elected. People voted by signing up for his website and using it regularly because it was better than the alternatives at the time.
People are free to stop using facebook and move to a different site, as many have. This only requires a few clicks.
I overwhelmingly prefer the option of having many companies to choose from vs. having the government or laws determine what is truth. Switching governments often requires either a revolution or a decade-long immigration process.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is an Arbiter of Truth–Whether He Likes It or Not
#54Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is an Arbiter of Truth–Whether He Likes It or Not
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
You did not really show that "doing something" is better than inaction (see politician's fallacy). For example for a long time reddit was very hands-off at the global level and left moderation to the indiviual subreddits and in my opinion that worked fine for most. Sure, there were some very disagreeable ones, but you still had to deliberately enter them to see their content. Division of labor does not necessarily me…
I didn't say it did. All I'm saying is that advocating for it does not necessarily mean that you hate democracy.
The issue being discussed is not any form of moderation though but centralized regulation of speech (i.e. censorship).
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is an Arbiter of Truth–Whether He Likes It or Not
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are clamoring for facebook to censor, mostly because they think that facebook will censor in their political favor
The real problem is that ~40% of America supports/votes for the POTUS, following him on social media, re-shares his memes, etc. People are looking to generally open communications platforms like Facebook and asking them to censor, but if they carried their logic to its conclusion, the President’s emails, texts, mobile Apps, and press releases should all be censored or blacklisted by communications providers. If the p…
You want to censor 40% of the country? How can that be logical
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is an Arbiter of Truth–Whether He Likes It or Not
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it hasn't. Propaganda and hatred has just become more sophisticated and super-charged by new tools (social media, Internet etc.) in order to maximize it's spread among the community. These new tools also allow bigots to self-organize, privately in ways never before possible.
And what does sophistication of means has to do with the subjectivity mentioned?
Bigotry and it's resulting political/social forms have and will evolve, constantly adapting to retain and grow. Hatred is not "increasingly subjective", hatred has become more sophisticated making it harder to detect.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is an Arbiter of Truth–Whether He Likes It or Not
#58The only concession I want from the pro-censorship crowd is that they oppose democracy. If you want unaccountable private social media corporations to be the arbiters of what is allowed to be discussed so be it, but just admit that you hate democracy and that you are a die hard technocrat.
Nobody wants them "to be the arbiters of what is allowed to be discussed". People want platforms to take responsibility for how they are used to spread misinformation. They want leaders held to the same standards as everyday users.
If pg came onto this site and started trolling people, throwing around insults, and spreading lies, what would it do to this community? And if dang responded by doing nothing?
It's so bizarre to me how common the "pro free speech" argument is on this site of all places. There is valuable and interesting discussion here precisely because it's heavily moderated. Facebook and Twitter are moderated too, the problem is they do it inconsistently. And despite Zuck's commitment to "allowing all voices to be heard", Facebook will remain moderated, or else it will turn into voat or 4chan.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is an Arbiter of Truth–Whether He Likes It or Not
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
You did not really show that "doing something" is better than inaction (see politician's fallacy). For example for a long time reddit was very hands-off at the global level and left moderation to the indiviual subreddits and in my opinion that worked fine for most. Sure, there were some very disagreeable ones, but you still had to deliberately enter them to see their content. Division of labor does not necessarily me…
I didn't say it did. All I'm saying is that advocating for it does not necessarily mean that you hate democracy.
Maybe it doesn't mean you hate democracy per say, but what you are advocating means removing the control of a vast amount of information out of people's hands and moving it to a small relatively homogeneous group with their own political will.
Which in turns looks very much authoritarian and undemocratic.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is an Arbiter of Truth–Whether He Likes It or Not
#60In the realm of corporate censorship, I still believe that politics is much less important to companies than profits. My takeaway from censorship on YouTube and other social media is that it's levied at content that could reflect poorly on advertisers. Inconvenient and controversial content more so than any specific political views. Granted, controversial does overlap with politic and especially fringe politics. Pers…
Right, this is the hard part and I don't understand what the law says so far and what may need changed. Imo, if you won't publish my book, I still have free speech, but if no one will sell me paper, then I don't.