281–290 of 451 posts
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.
1st.gov would be a neat domain name.
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.
Spam alone would eliminate its utility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As long as we’re talking about banning people for saying things against the consensus view, we can wipe the books of Galileos name
This is a false equivalency. Facebook, unlike the Catholic Church 500 years ago, doesn't rule anything.
Edit: these aren’t nazis were taking about, they’re people who get a kick out of using the scientific method in a mistaken way
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.
Facebook is not a country, it's a website, trying to characterize Facebook's business decisions as U.S policy is a dishonest rhetorical tactic.
Facebook 2019 revenue was 71 billion or so, which would put it at number 70 worldwide if it were a country. Maybe we should start to treat it like one.
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.
Yup this is coming. The "slippery slope" is real and recent actions confirm it. This is scary and these actions are unprecedented. The USA has never seen such restrictions on free speech in its history
What is unprecedented is giving these loonies a huge platform that helps them find like-minded loonies to organize while keeping them in an information bubble that shields them from corrections.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the question really is are they liable for the violence that's produced through their algorithms?
Or you know, as US based companies with large US citizen workforces and executives, they possibly have some actual strong opinions about a despotic regime taking over their country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suggest we make individuals or organizations that spread lies without evidence liable on a civil or criminal basis. The root reason for the violent riot at the Capitol last week was that many people have been lied to, and the lies are things that would incite people to fight. If you believed that America's democracy is no longer in place and has been replaced by a deep state dictatorship, you would probably fight a…
What mechanism would you propose to implement your suggestion? Some kind of Ministry of Truth, or Council of Honesty? Or maybe just run everything everyone says through a fact-checker app and if they fail, lock them up? We have laws for actual harmful lies, such as falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. But beyond that, it's a grey area, slippery slope, etc.
You have to take each case on an individual basis, meet a standard of proof, follow strong processes, convince a jury, survive appeals, so it’s not easy.
But it can handle the grey areas that worry you. And while we’ve had ample opportunity, it doesn’t look like we’ve gone down a slippery slope.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely agree. I would like to see some of the other replies here comment on how democracy can function if the citizens are incompetent/stupid. If they can't be trusted to be knowledgeable, then how can they make informed decisions, including voting? And of course, who decides which people hold legitimate positions and which people are ignorant?
It is well known that an educated, free people are necessary for the functioning of democracy. It's part of the justification for the 1st Amendment. We have new technologies which are being leveraged to intentionally misinform people, in a society that has degraded public education and raised the cost of higher education to levels prohibitive for the majority of the population, and as a result, the society (as a whol…
We’re way ahead of Germany or Italy.
The America that sent a man to the moon had around 5% of people with a college degree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In most cases you'd be shadow-banned. (The post looks fine to you, but is invisible to everyone else.) Or, they just put their thumbs on the scale and make sure your post isn't shown to anyone (or very few people) rather than your typical audience.
Shadow banning is some real underhanded sh#t. On reddit I explained that mayor Pete's M4A wasn't the same M4A as the world understood it. A user immediately responds accusing of me editing my comment to deceive. I say prove it you f#cking liar, there are services that archive. Then I'm hit with the ban for being profane and harassing. Yup, turns out the comment had been very quickly shadow-banned lol. I should have k…
A shadowban reduces the incentive to dodge bans via new usernames. Reddit mods don’t have Ip address access or other tools, so shadowbans are a necessary tool.
You weren’t banned for speaking contrary to the mainstream. You were banned for insults and personal attacks, indicating you weren’t likely to lead to productive conversations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While we're at it, let's remove internet access from everyone with mental disorders. Clearly they can't handle the responsibilities of internet access. /s
We could just start requiring a university account for connection to the internet and finally end the eternal September! /s