141–150 of 238 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why say this? You’re making things up and you happen to be wrong.
Economics always prevails and that is on the side of my argument. Its also industry standard. Do you have a source for me being wrong?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not disputing that the NYPost is disreputable, do I need to say this more? I am saying the deservedly poor reputation of the NYPost is irrelevant in this case because the reported facts are easy to independently verify. The reputation of a newspaper counts when their reputation is what we must rely on, which is not the case here. The NYPost's source is a public filing linked elsewhere in this discussion. If you…
> I am saying the deservedly poor reputation of the NYPost is irrelevant in this case because the reported facts are easy to independently verify. The reputation of a newspaper counts when their reputation is what we must rely on, which is not the case here. That's where we disagree. You're saying the the only job of a paper is to report true facts (or at least try its best). I'm saying its job is to report true fact…
And you don't have to be a lawyer to understand the meaning of 'the lawsuit alleges' repeated a dozen times. Or is your position that reporting allegations against tech companies is always misinformation because you think only lawyers know what allegations are?
To make matters worse, given that pedophilia and child porn is now tied up with QAnon, some of her peers have started to have their accounts banned when they report this stuff, as apparently they’re being caught up in an anti-conspiracy filter.
Sigh...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because the alternative, where you either allow your platform to be flooded with swastikas and pornography or get sued for every single mistake you make, is unworkable. The current model isn't workable either. Social media networks and their ad-driven models have hollowed out our democracies by sowing outrage and division at every opportunity. If one believes "The Social Dilemma", these networks have a dial for tun…
This honestly just reads like paranoia. Social media isn’t sowing anything. It’s the people on the platform and the recommendation algorithms behind the platform. edit: sew/sow
(Sewing is what you do with a needle and thread.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because the alternative, where you either allow your platform to be flooded with swastikas and pornography or get sued for every single mistake you make, is unworkable. The current model isn't workable either. Social media networks and their ad-driven models have hollowed out our democracies by sowing outrage and division at every opportunity. If one believes "The Social Dilemma", these networks have a dial for tun…
This honestly just reads like paranoia. Social media isn’t sowing anything. It’s the people on the platform and the recommendation algorithms behind the platform. edit: sew/sow
For example, I consider myself a centrist and yet whenever I log into YouTube account all I see are far right recommendations. I don’t have a Facebook or Twitter account, but I remember they behaved the same with their content discovery.
Read this study which goes further into the debate.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-020-00950-y
Wow, I don't mean to issue an ad-hominem attack... but I do not consider anything from NY Post legitimate, I'd even venture to say NY Post is a tabloid owned by News Corporation, and surprised that this is on HackerNews.
A lot of people are talking about the Hunter Biden laptop story giving them a bad rep, but we now know that he is in fact under investigation for Tax Evasion and it could be in part to emails found on that computer (at least the ones that were published talked about income from sources that were likely not reported). Not saying the case is tied to that laptop since we don't know, but it could be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This honestly just reads like paranoia. Social media isn’t sowing anything. It’s the people on the platform and the recommendation algorithms behind the platform. edit: sew/sow
It's the individual users who create the posts, but it's the social media companies using software to select posts to display to others. 'Sow' means to spread or disperse seeds, or when used figuratively, to spread around or propagate something in general. Automated recommendation systems seem to fit the word. They're not creating these seeds, but they sure are sowing them far and wide. (S e wing is what you do with…
Blaming the platform is scapegoating the real problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the individual users who create the posts, but it's the social media companies using software to select posts to display to others. 'Sow' means to spread or disperse seeds, or when used figuratively, to spread around or propagate something in general. Automated recommendation systems seem to fit the word. They're not creating these seeds, but they sure are sowing them far and wide. (S e wing is what you do with…
I understood the point. My point is that propoganda and it's distribution channels have existed for as long as human speech has. A new distribution channel isn't the problem, it's a society that cannot think for themselves and distinguish between what is real and what is not. Blaming the platform is scapegoating the real problem.
And to be clear, I am blaming corporations for creating these platforms, not blaming the platforms themselves.
I've had this happen to me on Facebook. Found a disgusting video involving children, reported it, got a response that there's nothing wrong with it. It's like the people reviewing this stuff have only a second to decide if the content should be deleted.
[1] Nude art photography, with private parts covered with white stripes or simply not being shown at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering that this is NYPost, its quite possible. I don't really consider NYPost to be a very respectable institution.
> I don't really consider NYPost to be a very respectable institution. Why is that?