401–410 of 763 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any reason to think the NY Post didn't get a notification with a reason why?
GP is arguing there should be a user-facing notification.
I could imagine there are also cases where people are happy there is no public notification. If I get in a heated twitter argument and say something over the line, I'd probably prefer Twitter just let me fix it quietly
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's not at all what you said. The cost of entering the mass-scale social media market is basically zero, since you can do that in a day with minimal cost other than a domain name and a server (or VPS or AWS/Azure account or similar), and you can scale your costs as you grow, but your costs don't grow as fast as your customer base. A natural monopoly's costs start high , and just scales from there. It costs ten…
That isn't "mass-scale", because you don't have any users. Sorry, but I'm going to quote my original comment: >The barrier to creating a new social network once network effects have locked in a few major players is enormous. So...that is what I said, that the barrier to entering the market is enormous.
I'm definitely dating myself here, but Livejournal, Blogger, Myspace, Frienster, DailyBooth, Friendfeed, Yikyak, Snap, Vine, were all once the dominant social media website before losing to new entrants.
Facebook was started in a college dorm room. Twitter launched as an employee's side project. Instagram began with two roommates sharing an apartment. WhatsApp began as one guy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven, but more and more often, it seems that they release primary sources of information (especially videos) much earlier than other news outlets will, if the other news outlets do so at all. Interesting... after reading this, I immediately thought: same as Zero Hedge (also often criticised). But then again, that shouldn't be a surprise - b…
ZH was talking about coronavirus way earlier than anyone else, which is bound to happen if you don’t validate as well—sometimes you do strike gold. A comment I saw once about them was “ZH has reported five of the last three catastrophes”.
People like to write off 4Chan for all the shit posting and racism, etc. But if you can ignore all that there are truly some amazing Gems to be found.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly this. Medium that uses censorship for any reason, they think you are too stupid to understand the content in front of you so they take that decision from you to delete something. That should be illegal with few exceptions.
> That should be illegal with few exceptions. And thus the right wing comes around to centralized government control of companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This still reeks of hypocrisy. For example almost any large and "reputable" outlet writes outright lies about drugs and their effects or use them to sensationalise the event (for example if there was an accident there is almost always a mention that someone had cannabis in their system even if it was obviously not related to anything). This is extremely harmful as it creates stigma for people who need cannabis or oth…
There isn't a binary outcome here. Twitter can stop an account which causes harm without being immediately required to block all accounts which may cause harm.
The Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven, but more and more often, it seems that they release primary sources of information (especially videos) much earlier than other news outlets will, if the other news outlets do so at all. There have been multiple times when I've seen an insane video of something happening spreading around Twitter or WorldStar or some other "raw video" agg…
> The Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven, but more and more often, it seems that they release primary sources of information (especially videos) much earlier than other news outlets will, if the other news outlets do so at all. Interesting... after reading this, I immediately thought: same as Zero Hedge (also often criticised). But then again, that shouldn't be a surprise - b…
Mainstream US media are not trustworthy, period. Repeated cases of going beyond bias and into simply parroting government or political party claims with no evidentiary basis, merely for influencing public opinion one way or another. Often, one would guess, while fully knowing the claims are baseless. The omission of coverage of various issues also contributes to the 'trust-unworthiness'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You honestly don't see a difference between net neutrality and platform content moderation? This is like not seeing the difference between allowing anyone to drive on a public road verse forcing everyone to pick up all hitchhikers.
Sure I see a difference, but I don't think it's nearly as significant as you seem to. These corporations wield an immense amount of power, and although they don't (individually) have the ability to completely silence anyone, neither do ISPs.
I just feel that the issue of blocking a particular site is tangental to the real issue of the power these companies have. I am much more worried about the way their algorithms work for choosing who sees what, but that is not a concern based on 'free speech'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" the NYPost has a narrative, with physical evidence, corrobrated by actual non-anonymous people alleging very bad things about a presidential candidate " Which is so obviously fake it isn't even funny. I'm getting very tired of the GOP's shameless tendency of creating controversies out of nothing. This is just another Benghazi or Hillary's Emails or Migrant Caravan.
is it fake or is it russian disinformation? I can't keep up with you types.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven Implying that every other major MSM organization doesn't do the same exact garbage and aren't deserving of the same treatment. Edit: the point is that rules should not favor one MSM corporation over the other. It should be neutral.
The New York Times once allowed itself to be used as a mouthpiece for Stalin, publishing Walter Duranty's denials of famine in Ukraine. They didn't come clean on this until 1990: https://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/24/opinion/the-editorial-not... More recently, they allowed themselves to be used as the uncritical mouthpiece of the American federal government when they were starting an illegal war predicated on lies: http…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there needs to be rules about transparency for media companies. In court you have to argue about and explain any disallowance of evidence; however in the court of public opinion, the media, no such rules apply. Obviously you have to be careful when coming up with rules for government regulation of media, but the laissez faire thing we're doing now doesn't seem to be heading on a positive trendline.
You are describing the abridging private organizations' right to free speech by congress... Twitter isn't the government, and they don't control speech anywhere but on the platform that they own. They could ban the American Flag and they still wouldn't owe anyone an explanation short of their stakeholders who are going to want to know how this factors into Twitter's only business: Selling ads.
Many people and organizations have their free speech regulated because of the ability of speech to do harm (e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater).
Saying something trite about rights is not an argument. these companies have a huge responsibility to our democracy, and treating them as if they're just another company is exactly what allows them to be so cynical about making decisions calculated to increase ad revenue even when they're harmful to democracy.