251–260 of 290 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of what experience you came to that conclusion may I ask? We are talking about experts here not newbies.
Experts in what? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...either CNN or Fox... You'll notice they've also neglected to mention the 250M people on strike in India right now and for the last several weeks . Certain reports do not harmonize with the corporate narrative.
American news outlets generally don't report on issues outside their borders unless it's relevant to them. But as of late, there's been a lot of noise about FAANGS, and even some political issues around content, it's just odd that there isn't more widespread coverage. I'm really curious as to the underlying impetus for this, it's not clear to me. Zuckerberg at 'hearings' being grilled by GOP Senators about ostensible…
American news outlets generally don't report on anything that they aren't getting press releases and phone calls about from companies and organizations that they're friendly with. They only do it if so many other outlets are reporting the story that they'd look bad, and then they just copy the story directly from those other outlets.
They don't report negatively on sponsors, other parts of their very large and diverse companies, or any other companies that their owners or important employees are associated with, unless forced. If forced, they copy what has been reported and add nothing but mild apologia and FUD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s wild to me that regulators have (for all intents and purposes) caught up with tech. Noone is claiming the internet is a series of tubes. But tech’s swing towards AI-weighted vector graphs seems to be out of the regulator’s view. It’s almost like they are back at square one again.
I think both assertions are wrong: Regulators still have no real conception of how any of this technology works, and you can watch the congressional hearings with Facebook for evidence that mostly they didn't really have a clue what to do once they had him in the room, or how exactly Facebook even makes money. The court system only confirmed your rights to use webcrawlers within the last year, and webcrawlers have be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pre social media, we lived in a world where information was generally separated by geography. Your comment suggests that by returning to such a state, it would result in increased radicalisation. The implication is therefore that social media has decreased radicalisation. I’m not sure I agree.
Social media has both increased and decreased radicalization at the same time. For those who already had radical ideas, who previously couldn't find others with the same ideas, they are now more radicalized (think conspiracy theories and so on). For those with open minds, it's allowed them to learn new things from people far away with very different ideas.
If it was initiated by Congress, it would not be surprising: the GOP-controlled Senate is not nearly as anti-regulation as Trump. (And certainly the Democractic controlled House is very pro-regulation.) But the FTC is (typically) is under direct control of the administration, at least to the extent that its leadership is appointed by the White House.
Facebook, WhatsApp, Snap, Twitter, YouTube, ByteDance, Twitch, Reddit, and Discord.
Why list Facebook, then list WhatsApp, but not Instagram? Is Instagram not part of it then? If WhatsApp wasn't there, I'd assume they're both under FB but listing WhatsApp separately is strange.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The friction was both a drag on productivity AND a safety mechanism to prevent mass spread of inaccurate or low quality content. I don't think this is correct. I remember a bunch of outlets from the seventies and eighties which had all of: far reach, inaccurate and low quality content. It was just restricted to few influential people with enough money. I think this is the reason why social media are fought that har…
I agree that it wasn't perfect, no doubt about that. It definitely restricted the ability to mass communicate into fewer hands. In general, the reduction in communication friction is THE big advance brought about by the Internet. Instant, effortless, and basically free communication for everyone everywhere. Businesses like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are economically incentivized to push as hard as possible to get…
Just recently the Spiegel (a somewhat reputable weekly journal in Germany) had a series of completely or partial made up stories. The maker was able to place them because they fit so well into Spiegel's narrative. Such that (almost) nobody asked questions.
We are lied to from all sides.
Had a good laugh at the bottom of the release: "Like the FTC on Facebook(link is external), follow us on Twitter(link is external), get consumer alerts, read our blogs, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources." Like us on the platforms we're issuing orders to.
"Yet you participate in society. Curious! I am very intelligent."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
iMessage is a pure messaging service - there are no recommendations, no feed, no following friends, no status updates, no likes, no profiles, no stories, and no connection to Facebook at all. Most importantly, no advertising since they actually make money off the products, which means no incentive for gaming engagement metrics. They want you to have a good time and sell you another device next year, not glue your eye…
Apple's great luck here is that everyone thinks of social media primarily in aesthetic ways that are linked to ideas of social media that they don't like. > there are no recommendations, no feed, no following friends, no status updates, no likes, no profiles, no stories, and no connection to Facebook at all. So because Apple doesn't have, in your view, some of the above, extremely limited, set of things they have no…
Debate that fits the pattern of,
1. Apple good (Because it's my tribe etc.)
2. Work backwards to find reasoning
is not a good thing.