401–410 of 654 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are absolute right. Censorship is... A STRANGE GAME. THE ONLY WINNING MOVE IS NOT TO PLAY.
Except that's not a winning move either, because (currently) you'll be heavily criticized for it as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is an increasing infantilization world-wide where some group thinks it needs to "protect the others", assuming they are the single source of truth and that it's obvious they are. It's a well known bias which for some reason aligns with the current zeitgeist. As everything before, it shall too pass at some point.
Yes. 'some group thinks it needs to "protect the others"'. Virtual signaling and safetyism. Hilarious how the virtue signaling elite regularly close their conference calls with "everyone stay safe". Oh, I know you (don't) care about me.
Facebook seems to be censoring so much because Facebook believes that most people will actually believe whatever bits of misinformation are floating around out there. But is everyone that easily manipulated? More importantly, does everyone actually believe that they can be easily manipulated, or do they just think that everyone else is so easily manipulated, but somehow they're above the fray? And at what point does…
Their pivot into a news aggregator / news feed is what is slowly eroding trust because of easy manipulation by nefarious actors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Institutions of ordered information (papers, publishers, tv) have been disrupted by a New tech - the internet What we see now is a knee-jerk reaction to reestablish order by the establishment. This happened too with the creation of the gutenberg printing press. New tech disrupted established information sources. Approx 60 years after the printing press creation, a relatively minor religious squabble ended up in a hug…
What institutions and who's the establishment? Facebook is the censor but also the disruptor of those institutions, so it can't be them. The world isn't necessarily controlled by some illuminati-like organization. That belief comes from a cognitive bias called "Agent-detection bias" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection It may simply be that free information created a bit of a power vacuum (perhaps the same a…
Its a free for all. Winner takes all. High stakes in play
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of this is also true for our actual government[0]. I have zero confidence that if our government were in charge of running Facebook/Twitter/any other social media app the results would be better. [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/16/white-house-says-facebook-ne...
The government, in theory, is bound by the first amendment. FB being run by a government bound by traditional first amendment restrictions would be worlds better than what we have now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook is removing content because that is ground they want to stand on. Removing content feels like censorship, so it lends itself to political grandstanding in their favor. Millions of people get upset and demand that Facebook handle all content neutrally, which is exactly what Facebook wanted everyone to think in the first place. The real issue with Facebook is the editorial decisions they make about promoting s…
Nobody actually wants an "uncensored" Facebook. If you went there and your feed were full of spam, porn, and shock videos, you'd stop going.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We need to differentiate the recommendation algorithm parts of these products from the communication parts. If Facebook is recommending something, that's on them, and if they want to not recommend my content to anyone, so be it; but I should be able to post something seen only by the people who opted in to following me without them getting in the way.
That's how facebook works, no? There are two (or more) feeds of information on facebook: - The main one, which only shows posts sent to the "recommend this to people queue" based on facebooks recommendation algorithms. - Messenger, which directly sends messages to people in a FIFO fashion, which I assume facebook doesn't censor as heavily (though I can't say I've tested). The fact that the recommendation based stream…
Facebook wants to recommend content to me from random people: that's their issue, and they should take responsibility for it--whether legally or simply morally--and thereby should have to be careful with what they show people (maybe to the point where they simply can't scale it to the scale they are at automatically! I will not cry over their loss). Facebook also shows me content from my "friends"... I opted in to the content from my friends: if I don't like my friends, I can and should unfriend them, as they were my responsibility, not Facebook's (in the same sense that if I call someone on the phone I don't whine to AT&T about how much they suck). I should not get labels from Facebook telling me my friends' content--content I explicitly wanted to see--is scary or wrong, and they certainly should not be banned from showing it to me.
I think the most egregious category error you are making here is to equate messaging with communication... the entire mechanism of social media to followers is primarily direct communication! We can see how ridiculous this has become by looking at how, even if you have a private account--one random people aren't even allowed to see!--Facebook, Twitter, and Google currently consider it their business what we post there... an account you post things to and which other people follow is identical to a chat channel that happens to maintain a buffer.
(FWIW, to steel man your argument as best I can, "yes": Facebook also applies recommendation algorithms to friend feeds. Twitter I believe still doesn't. Instagram didn't, but then started... AFAIK people don't like it that much, but it might be more profitable for Facebook? Either way: it is helping me reorder content I already curated, and so I don't feel a need to claim that this is something they published. There is simply still a fundamental difference from platforms surfacing "trending" content or suggesting new people or channels I might want to follow / posts I might want to see, and acting as an intermediary for content from people I was directly linked to from people I am communicating with. The former might as well be illegal as far as I am concerned, while the latter needs to be sacrosanct.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Institutions of ordered information (papers, publishers, tv) have been disrupted by a New tech - the internet What we see now is a knee-jerk reaction to reestablish order by the establishment. This happened too with the creation of the gutenberg printing press. New tech disrupted established information sources. Approx 60 years after the printing press creation, a relatively minor religious squabble ended up in a hug…
The internet will kill most every institution that predated it. Citizen journalism killed media. Netflix/YouTube killed Hollywood. Blockchains will replace 51% democracy with 100% democracy. Dying inherited institutions are grasping to stay relevant with appeals to authoritarianism. Free speech is now a hinderance and a liability to their existence. As their relevance dwindles, tyranny becomes their only tool.
