61–70 of 340 posts
What did you expect? Several years ago Google openly declared that they are turning evil :)
The "And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!"[1] line is still in Google's Code of Conduct. All they did is remove a line from near the start; it's always been there at the end as well. [1] https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/
Just 3 hours ago a group of teens live streamed themselves stabbing a 15 year old girl to death in Louisiana [1]. Like twitch swatting this is not a new phenomenon. Clearly something needs to be done to discourage or eliminate such content. [1]: https://www.fox13memphis.com/news/trending/4-teen-girls-char...
What do you plan to do, Dr. Manhattan? Because you're talking about human nature... and even you can't change that.
You said so yourself.
My question to everyone supporting restrictions on speech and supporting privacy violations, even for good reasons, is this: are you prepared to have these tools fall into the wrong hands? The same methods used to quickly shut down a dangerous website or to track down a terrorist by their online posts can be used to silence protests and to hunt down political opposition.
Like, the problems you're describing are real but they aren't new, and aren't particularly a bigger threat now than they were before.
To Jordan Chariton exclaiming in all caps: > How are journalists supposed to chronicle history if YouTube — and others — are outlawing it? Regardless of what YouTube says, they are an advertiser-friendly entertainment website. Why in God's name would you use it to "chronicle history"?
> Why in God's name would you use it to "chronicle history"? Because for better or for worse these platforms have become the public square. They are where modern life happens.
My question to everyone supporting restrictions on speech and supporting privacy violations, even for good reasons, is this: are you prepared to have these tools fall into the wrong hands? The same methods used to quickly shut down a dangerous website or to track down a terrorist by their online posts can be used to silence protests and to hunt down political opposition.
But these platforms are owned by these companies.
What rules do we put in place that they have to host some of this content? Blatant misinformation, vague encouragement of violence... hate?
Is the price of free speech that someone has to host it? Who doesn't want to?
...speech loopholes? Oh that's right... The first amendment only applies to printed materials and live spoken word. The founding fathers couldn't have foreseen social media, and certainly would have worded the amendment differently if they saw how powerful Twitter was.
There's certainly a question of public policy here, but that result will be unlikely to turn on the First Amendment.
It's simply irresponsible for so-called "independent journalists" to cover material that neither they nor their audiences are in a position to understand. We've seen what several decades of totally unregulated broadcasting have done, to the detriment of our society - without well-funded expert guidance, conspiracy theories and extremism run rampant. Platforms must be restricted to those who prove they can use them ap…
Okay, you probably are not opposed to democracy. But if not, why not? If the people are too stupid to choose to consume good journalism and ignore bad journalism, how can they be considered wise enough to elect good legislators instead of bad ones?
The US system of government is predicated on having a populace that is sufficiently intelligent, prudent, and moral that it will not give in to mob excess. If we the people no longer possess that sort of character, restricting the speech of said people will not be sufficient to solve the problem. A full dictatorship will be the only solution.
Your point about the character of the people is a good one. But if you jettison free speech, you have jettisoned the entirety of democratic government with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clearly YouTube doesn’t want to be a public square.
In that case, they should forgo their section 230 protections and stand boldly as the *publisher* they want to be.
It’s not clear to me that section 230 has anything to do with public squares, can you elaborate on your position? Why can’t they be neither a publisher nor a public square?
I’m by no means an expert on this bit of legislation; Wikipedia just says:
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
My question to everyone supporting restrictions on speech and supporting privacy violations, even for good reasons, is this: are you prepared to have these tools fall into the wrong hands? The same methods used to quickly shut down a dangerous website or to track down a terrorist by their online posts can be used to silence protests and to hunt down political opposition.
What everyone's been talking about the past few weeks has absolutely nothing to do with shutting down dangerous websites, and any terrorist who leaves a trail of online posts that can be used to track them doesn't need anything special to be done to make that possible.
People have been talking about the major social media platforms—who are, arguably, already pretty high up there on the list of "the wrong hands"—deplatforming users actively supporting attacks—physical attacks, in some cases—on our government, our democracy, and our Constitution.
I mean, there is stuff to be genuinely concerned about in all of this as regards the future, and there's a real discussion to be had here, but frankly, I don't think this is it.
This is a good thing. It was only a matter of time before the perceived total unlimited sense of freedom of speech that pervaded the internet turned toxic. There's an expression "free as in speech or free as in beer," but in reality both of those things cost money.
"Free as in pony" is my favorite phrase to convey cost of otherwise "free" things
"Free", but there's the associated cost of upkeep... a barn, it has to be washed, dried, groomed, fed, vaccinated, check-ups, exercised, and lastly, you have to deal with the horseshit... and best part of your expression, is it means you have to deal with both the literal and metaphorical horseshit. :)
Bravo sir or madam.