61–70 of 96 posts
We already have plenty of curated news outlets. It's entirely possible we will simply end up with another one.
The 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.
If I tell your neighbor that you are molesting his daughter, and he kills you, will your family find that acceptable?
If a politician tells your neighbor that you are molesting his daughter, and he kills you, will your family find that acceptable?
If that word is flagged maybe you'd still be alive because the neighbor would have some doubt as to your guilt.
> 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…
Alex Jones is the new CEO of Twitter. How would we think differently about the real problem here?
That is a useful question to showcase an important aspect that I don’t see discussed.
There is a single government, while there must be multiple competing private corporations.
Twitter vs. Gab, Youtube vs. Liveleak: each corporation is defined by what it refuses, NOT by what it accepts.
So, if Alex Jones becomes CEO of Twitter and puts “Did you know? The Earth is flat.” on all tweets mentioning SpaceX, users will simply move to a greener pasture. Twitter will die when its business model loses viability.
Twitter’s moves are not political, they are economical first and foremost! The same goes with Nike’s Kaepernick ad: greenlit because the corporation estimated that being on the right side of history would bring more value long-term.
> [T]he company claimed $163 million in earned media, a $6 billion brand value increase, and a 31% boost in sales.
– https://www.fastcompany.com/90399316/one-year-later-what-did...
The 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.
So commentators who are saying that Facebook should not be responsible for the veracity of posts made by powerful politicians or rich advertisers on Facebook, can you please explain how users of Facebook should differentiate between truth, falsehoods or purposeful twisting of facts? Genuine question.
If they start editing and fact checking then that's their content and they'd be legally responsible for that. Which you would want because if Zuck was far right you'd want to sue him for his fact check errors.
They should also not prevent third party fact checkers from posting on their platform. I'd also love to see them allow for third party plugins of fact checkers which allow people to directly post snopes or something on a comment with the click of a button.
This would serve to keep Facebook as close to pure content host as possible, and still offer fact checking solutions.
The fact that there is even bias in fact checking tools shows how twisted this can be. Many fact checkers argue over semantics but still it's incredible that we think there is one view of the facts out there. It would be easier to have a falsehood finder than a fact checker. I digress. Anyway, I like the idea of third party plugs which directly push to these services.
I'd even be ok with facebook/twitter creating a special area for this and ratings for fact checks etc. But they still need it to be user driven content or they're at risk of being liable.
The 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.
If you come to my website to post and I delete it, thats just me taking out the trash as I see fit. You're not being censored. No one suppressed your speech or expression. In fact you said or wrote it and faced zero repercussions and ramifications. Me saying you can can't come on my property or giving you a time out isn't your rights being infringed on.
Not allowing me to delete your post would be the literal definition of censoring MY speech and expression and the SCOTUS has already ruled on this. You can't have it both ways bud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alex Jones is the new CEO of Twitter. How would we think differently about the real problem here?
> Alex Jones is the new CEO of Twitter. How would we think differently about the real problem here? That is a useful question to showcase an important aspect that I don’t see discussed. There is a single government, while there must be multiple competing private corporations. Twitter vs. Gab, Youtube vs. Liveleak: each corporation is defined by what it refuses, NOT by what it accepts. So, if Alex Jones becomes CEO of…
2016: Facebook rigged an election. They are awful. 2020: Facebook won't rig an election. They are awful.
Moving the public square to the corporate world's data gathering arm was a terrible idea.