101–110 of 233 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Private platforms can choose not to amplify hateful shit.
Define `hateful` or `harmful`. And would your definition reflect Instagram's definition, as seen in the following example? https://twitter.com/GaiaRiot10/status/1468787960216797190
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can stop using Google, Facebook, or Apple and not be a customer. You do not get this choice with your government, regardless of the electoral process.
Is that actually true? Don't those companies (maybe not Apple) maintain "shadow profiles" to track non-users? https://reclaimthenet.org/google-is-building-shadow-profiles... https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/facebook-shadow-profiles/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Systemic lopsided moderation (i.e. censorship) of one political viewpoint is absolutely denying people the right to participate in the democratic process. Just because we disagree with their viewpoint does not make censorship justified, nor does it take away from the fact that it is currently happening.
>Systemic lopsided moderation (i.e. censorship) of one political viewpoint is absolutely denying people the right to participate in the democratic process. I still see plenty of content from various political viewpoints, far left to far right, on every forum and social media platform I visit. This "systemic lopsided moderation of one political viewpoint" you're referring to doesn't really exist apart from right-wing…
Someone just posted this in another comment thread: https://twitter.com/GaiaRiot10/status/1468787960216797190
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article is factually incorrect. For instance, the Russian journalist did not mention Silicon Valley companies nor did he intend to mean that social networks are promoting authoritarianism and waging war. Instead, he referred multiple times to the mainstream media in Russia that is tightly controlled by the state and is acting as a propaganda device that serves short-term goals of the ruling elite, promoting war i…
Seems like the title is based on Ressa’s quote: "Silicon Valley's sins came home to roost in the United States on January 6 with mob violence on Capitol Hill," she said. "What happens on social media doesn't stay on social media."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct. I am absolutely done with this level of doublespeak.
The article is factually incorrect. For instance, the Russian journalist did not mention Silicon Valley companies nor did he intend to mean that social networks are promoting authoritarianism and waging war. Instead, he referred multiple times to the mainstream media in Russia that is tightly controlled by the state and is acting as a propaganda device that serves short-term goals of the ruling elite, promoting war i…
it's critical to the survival of the traditional news businesses that social media remains under attack, otherwise the grip that outlets like npr has on the collective zeitgeist will weaken into irrelevance. that's what they're fighting for, not freedom of speech or journalistic integrity. it's for relevance, which translates into money and power.
> How can you have election integrity if you don't have integrity of facts? This one is easy. There is no integrity of facts. No matter what standard you use you will have cases where reasonable people disagree. Historians argue about interpretation of facts all the time. There is no universal objective truth. You can argue that you don't need absolute integrity and just clamp down on the fringe stuff but that just s…
I'd agree to that if we add a "No Acceptable Candidate" option, and if it gets the majority of the vote the parties are forced to present new candidates and try again.
Just to make sure I understand this — the argument is that in order to combat authoritarianism, Silicon Valley companies should censor more content?
Private platforms can choose not to amplify hateful shit.
You should make a distinction here, because I think most people assume you mean censorship.
Just to make sure I understand this — the argument is that in order to combat authoritarianism, Silicon Valley companies should censor more content?
Authoritarians use the framework of a free society to rise to power until they are strong enough to topple it. A free society must be able to defend itself against that approach, even if it might seem contrary to its own values.
Here's the way he formulated it:
> Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
> In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Just to make sure I understand this — the argument is that in order to combat authoritarianism, Silicon Valley companies should censor more content?
Refraining from wildly amplifying is not censorship
Just to make sure I understand this — the argument is that in order to combat authoritarianism, Silicon Valley companies should censor more content?