111–120 of 719 posts
The comments section looks like a grade 11 class. Not everything is about “controlling” you, not everything is a “fake narrative”, the world isn’t out to censor you, and no, not every form of censorship is bad. Yes censorship is a slippery slope, but so is intellectual laziness.
[flagged]
The comments section looks like a grade 11 class. Not everything is about “controlling” you, not everything is a “fake narrative”, the world isn’t out to censor you, and no, not every form of censorship is bad. Yes censorship is a slippery slope, but so is intellectual laziness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I find it weird for a whistleblower to be so "lib", as the kids say. What do you mean? I don't follow the latest slang, but I would've assumed this would mean "liberal", except I don't see what that would have to do with the rest of what you said.
Whistleblowers are anti-authoritarian, which is typically a right wing/conservative position in contemporary politics. To the people downvoting me here: can you list some figures who have been protesting authoritarianism who are left-coded in contemporary American society? I'm thinking of wikileaks, edward snowden, glenn greenwald. These people have all been "accused" of being right wingers. The people protesting loc…
To me this is a fake story being promoted as a way to further a political narrative. Nothing the whistleblower has revealed is shocking or previously unknown. Yes facebook tweaks an algorithm on your news feed to drive engagement and make money. Yes facebook allows some content that some would consider not to align with mainstream US narratives. My two cents this is an attempt to force facebook to kowtow to the US an…
It’s not “unknown” to technologists. How it all works is very unknown to the average parent. This thread seems to think the government needs to function with the logic of this thread in mind. Pretty entitled to believe you’re the only perspective worth listening to. Any individual is just “one of seven billion.” Shut the computers off and what perspective do you have that puts you above anyone else?
> Pretty entitled to believe you’re the only perspective worth listening to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this isn’t about censorship. It is about newsfeed algorithms which optimize “engagement”. As it turns out negative, controversial and divisive stuff is more engaging.
It is about censorship. The Biden admin has repeatedly made it obvious they don't think FB etc are deleting enough and the feds will have to step in soon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd just love to see how the law operationalizes and the courts interpret something like "banning algorithms".
Obviously it wouldn’t be written into a bill like that. But Just like any other law. It would be something Congress authorizes an agency like the FTC or FCC to regulate. If nothing else the feed algorithms would be public and regulators could provide feedback.
I find it weird for a whistleblower to be so "lib", as the kids say. She said she 'loves' Facebook, and wants to fix it, not harm it. I don't want Facebook fixed and I do want Facebook harmed. I don't want the government to meddle with what types of things people can say online, I want them to ban the business model of stalking people online and selling intimate details of their lives. If the problem is Facebook choo…
The problem is not that people can say anything on the internet. The problem is that the product they are selling is the attention of entire populations and the business model is damaging the consciousness of those populations.
The solution is not to regulate speech - the solution is to regulate the business model of selling human attention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a categorical difference between "the vaccine has microchips in it" and "we have seen a coalescing of forces behind Big Tech, the Press, and Government over the last several years that is rightly frightening". If you cannot recognize that difference, then may I politely suggest that you ponder the idea of "intellectual laziness".
Yes these are big forces, but they’re all pushing in different directions. Either way this is a bit of a straw man.
Are they though? All 3 of these groups have been pushing for only their narrative to be heard. Any other voice is misinformation at best and disinformation at worst.
The two best ideas I've heard: - Require age verification by law and ban kids from using it. We ban kids from alcohol we should ban them from this. - Require ID verification by law but allow people to use a fake name. Fixes the bots issue and the kid depression issue. The market isn't going to get there by itself because of competition. If insta implements this then they lose market share to snap. So there's a strong…
There's an even simpler solution: ban free social media. Require each platform to charge a minimum of $x/user/year. You remove kids by default (no credit card/bank card), and the focus of product managers is less on driving addictive browsing, and more on driving renewals (presumably through quality features, content, and fostering community). The customer is no longer the advertisers (or shady Governmental data scra…
You also remove about 7-22% of the US population that is unbanked or underbanked (per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbanked) from participation in democracy. Not to mention you then have an enforceable paper trail from an online account to some sort of government-backed ID (since you need that to open a bank account), which will lead to self-censorship issues.
Facebook and the Internet in general has become the virtual equivalent of townhalls and public "speakers corners".