221–230 of 451 posts
The US is de facto converting to the Chinese model for the internet: All communication must be monitored, damaging content must be erased, and in serious cases, those responsible must be punished.
If Parler gets a foreign data center, I expect a "Great Firewall of China" with American characteristics will soon follow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The opposite of a contradiction is another contradiction. Why are people that believe in regulation of the world's largest corporations suddenly laissez-faire libertarians? If you have opposed the Citizen's United ruling for a decade, don't suddenly act like you care about a corporation's civil liberties, including freedom of association and freedom of expression. The answer is obvious: both sides want power more tha…
I fully support regulating and/or breaking up Facebook. However, my preferred regulation would not prevent them from moderating misinformation on their platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay. A non-friend was able to view it a few seconds ago, so it's definitely not totally invisible. But I only have about 600 friends (haha) so I guess they don't care about small fry. If they have 1.73 billion daily users, that's a lot of data to scan. I'm guessing they'll only go after the big fish.
Facebook's shadowban mechanism is more elaborate than that. They will still show the post to people they think you are closest to, while hiding it from the general newsfeed where most things show. The Facebook newsfeed is quite similar to TV, because you can only change channels, but have very little control over what is displayed.
This almost makes me suspect that the Facebook executives behind this decision are secretly die hard pro-Trumpers. Sure, it's definitely a bit spooky that people are going around saying the election was stolen when, as far as I can tell, there's no hard evidence of widespread cheating. (I'm open to changing my mind given sufficient evidence, I'm just saying that I haven't seen it yet.) But this is the equivalent of F…
Should the US government make its own social network? That would cut off all kinds of issues. Only content that is literally illegal would be removed. Everyone would be guaranteed access.
Tell me how this is wrong: The US is de facto converting to the Chinese model for the internet: All communication must be monitored, damaging content must be erased, and in serious cases, those responsible must be punished. If Parler gets a foreign data center, I expect a "Great Firewall of China" with American characteristics will soon follow.
Are we really so stupid that we cannot see through this kind of thing and need to actively censor it to have civilized society continue to function? When do we just give up on democracy completely?
Have you checked the news the last few days? Plenty of people out there are stupid enough to fall for this and much worse.
Tell me how this is wrong: The US is de facto converting to the Chinese model for the internet: All communication must be monitored, damaging content must be erased, and in serious cases, those responsible must be punished. If Parler gets a foreign data center, I expect a "Great Firewall of China" with American characteristics will soon follow.
Tell me how this is wrong: The US is de facto converting to the Chinese model for the internet: All communication must be monitored, damaging content must be erased, and in serious cases, those responsible must be punished. If Parler gets a foreign data center, I expect a "Great Firewall of China" with American characteristics will soon follow.
Why should Facebook and Amazon use their resources to help this cause?
im saying this because it seems like such an obvious point but i havent seen it here- why are people who want the government to be replaced by the "free market" allowed to be upset that private companies are silencing them? what is the rationale for squaring this circle
The opposite of a contradiction is another contradiction. Why are people that believe in regulation of the world's largest corporations suddenly laissez-faire libertarians? If you have opposed the Citizen's United ruling for a decade, don't suddenly act like you care about a corporation's civil liberties, including freedom of association and freedom of expression. The answer is obvious: both sides want power more tha…
I would also argue that there are a lot of folks (myself included) that see the curtailing of speech - regardless of "side", as a real long-term threat to productive and open communication. We need actual discourse and understanding, or all we're going to get is more us-vs-them polarization and ramping up of rhetoric and violence.
I strongly disagree with most of the opinions being voiced on the (far) right, but if they don't happen in the open they will fester into something grotesque and far more dangerous. Just because I'm disgusted by the opinions of a group of people doesn't it's a good idea for me to make the situation worse by silencing them. Not least of all because we will eventually reap what we've sowed once they grab power again.
I still can't help but shake the feeling that there are those with a real vested interest in a continuing and growing divide (and conquering) of the populace, regardless of the (externalized) cost.