tl;dr: I'm from Turkey and "orange man bad" So boring and unoriginal, missing one side completely and spinning it as unbiased, when it's borderline propaganda. C'mon.
It's an opinion piece. It's not required to show both sides.
The Silicon Oligarchy
11–20 of 96 posts
Re: The Silicon Oligarchy
#12I love this new narrative that allowing the president of the USA to communicate on the largest platform in the world is siding with him or being in alliance with him. At least be honest and say that you want Zuckerberg to censor and police trump. That’s the truth. But don’t pretend that somehow it’s immoral to allow the US President to post on your platform. He’s the president, whether you like it or not.
I think it depends how you understand the president. One view is authoritarian, a person with lots of power who can do whatever he wants. The other view is democratic, a person employed by citizens to be a representative and have some managerial role. In the second view, he should have (unless it's required by his job) exactly the same permissions as any other citizen.
It won't be much of a democracy if a few SV oligarchs decide what politicians are allowed to say.
Re: The Silicon Oligarchy
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do rules not apply to US presidents?
In much the same way that even laws do not apply to anything said in Congress, because the power to control political debate is the power to control government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause
Except wasn't that clause to stop the Executive Branch (and anyone else) from using the machinery of the state to interfere with Congress? Not really about freedom of speech, rather keeping Congress independent from outside control.
A lot of former British colonies have the same principle, dating from 1688/1689: https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-...
Re: The Silicon Oligarchy
#14>a Chinese president gets first dibs on naming Zuckerberg’s kids.
That's pretty bizarre even by Zuck's standards
Re: The Silicon Oligarchy
#15I assume the US has always been an oligarchy and never truly a democracy at the federal level. The American people just get to vote from either the two parties that desire whoever to be elected and where hundreds of millions are spent with a lot of nonsense that's off-topic.
Understandably tech is arguably in infancy but nothing like the decades before today. So the tech monopolies of today weren't a thing before but people had so much opportunity in the earliest years; that resulted in money being easy to be made with little concern of whatever outcome. Nowadays platforms control most of the market and people are now starting to notice an oligarchy in tech. Resulting in concern propagating in recent years.
It's well known a lot of people in society don't have a voice and when they're wronged by the system(s) of society; whether it be authoritarian or not. I'm unsure if we can really prove current day is worse or better than previously in history regarding to having a voice/impact when being wronged. My question is how do we justly blame a worse outcome on a tech oligarchy and when we cannot know the foregoing being worse or better than the past?
Re: The Silicon Oligarchy
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it depends how you understand the president. One view is authoritarian, a person with lots of power who can do whatever he wants. The other view is democratic, a person employed by citizens to be a representative and have some managerial role. In the second view, he should have (unless it's required by his job) exactly the same permissions as any other citizen.
It won't be much of a democracy if a few SV oligarchs decide what politicians are allowed to say.
Isn’t that what C-SPAN is for? A private company isn’t obligated to transmit anyone’s speech. Politicians can use government owned or subsidized media if they want to dictate the terms.
Re: The Silicon Oligarchy
#17VECTORALISTS
Would you care to elaborate?
How am I doing so far?
> According to McKenzie Wark when information becomes a commodity it means we will only be able to see the information produced by the vectoral class. This is because they are the ones whose profits depend on the scarcity of information. So when information becomes intellectual property we are bound to repeat the same commodity form, because this is what the market decrees. She states that the “hack” which monetizes information introduces the “vectoralist” class.
> It is the hacker class that produces new information, free from the restrictions of a property form. This however is then used by the vectoral class, who own and control the means of production of information on an industrial scale and mediates connections and access to information (Paolo Pedercini, the founder of the radical games project Molleindustria cites companies like Google, Uber or Airbnb as typical representatives of the vectoral class). The hacker and the vectoral class aren’t always at odds with each other. They can compromise on the free flow of information and the extraction of wealth from this information to fund its development. Think of the open source movement, Reddit and Wikipedia. McKenzie Wark believes that the hacker class should ally themselves with the other producing classes so that they together don’t have to answer to the vectoral class anymore.
Re: The Silicon Oligarchy
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
It won't be much of a democracy if a few SV oligarchs decide what politicians are allowed to say.
Isn’t that what C-SPAN is for? A private company isn’t obligated to transmit anyone’s speech. Politicians can use government owned or subsidized media if they want to dictate the terms.
> A private company isn’t obligated to transmit anyone’s speech.
The phone company was.[1] TV networks were.[2] And while there is still some debate about this, net neutrality would apply that obligation to ISPs. Why not Facebook and Twitter?
Re: The Silicon Oligarchy
#19I love this new narrative that allowing the president of the USA to communicate on the largest platform in the world is siding with him or being in alliance with him. At least be honest and say that you want Zuckerberg to censor and police trump. That’s the truth. But don’t pretend that somehow it’s immoral to allow the US President to post on your platform. He’s the president, whether you like it or not.
The President of the USA should be held to the same terms of service that are enforced against all other users.
They let other users get away with much worst posts. If you are on the left you can say whatever you want, if you are on the right everything you say is a lie and wrong and against the rules. So do whatever you want but at least don't be an hypocrite, SV is a leftist place, it is classicist and hates Trump supporters and Trump, it hates everybody who are not upper middle class and above white collar workers and doesn't want their voice heard. The terms of service are written to reflect those values to start with.
Re: The Silicon Oligarchy
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t that what C-SPAN is for? A private company isn’t obligated to transmit anyone’s speech. Politicians can use government owned or subsidized media if they want to dictate the terms.
> A private company isn’t obligated to transmit anyone’s speech. The phone company was.[1] TV networks were.[2] And while there is still some debate about this, net neutrality would apply that obligation to ISPs. Why not Facebook and Twitter? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
That’s for common carriers. Twitter isn’t a common carrier.