We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

Post by geertj » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 1:33 PM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #176

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #115

In an earlier era, people's opinions were shaped by a small number of newspapers and newscasts. Some of these old media were so biased and agenda driven that they caused wars. Not that much has changed, except that people now rely on centralized, AI-driven funnels of information and entertainment. Democracy has always been fragile, barely functional, easily corrupted, warped by money. The best and only way to defend…

I have the same inclinations as you. I see there are various kinds of bias from different sources, and that you have to be able to think critically in order to maintain some sort of perspective. I also think that we need a bunch of different perspectives, so in that way it's good there's a lot of people talking. But we also live in a world that is more educated than ever, and a lot of those people who went to school…

Post by kasey_junk » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 1:35 PM UTC

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #135

CPLX wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a small number That's not correct. There were staggering numbers of them. In 1900 there were 15 English language daily newspapers in New York City alone. The problem with Facebook is monopolization. It's different when you have a ton of places that share information, and some of them are biased in one direction or another, versus when you have just one, and that one actively works to prevent other options from emer…

In 1895, William Randolph Hearst's jingoistic yellow journalism pushed millions of Americans to support a pointless war with Spain. Time Magazine influenced three generations of Americans. For the last hundred or so years, every major city has had one primary newspaper, 2-3 local news broadcasters, maybe a local magazine. Old line magazines and newspapers were information silos unto themselves.

Post by meheleventyone » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 1:38 PM UTC

NoOneNew wrote: post #177

meheleventyone wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone knows about the Nazis and Soviets but that’s not following through my point. You need to think a little beyond famous example of mass murdering regimes that also were against speech and causally link the speech restriction to the mass murder. As you can do with the Myanmar regime’s genocide and their use of Facebook. Basically authoritarian regimes restrict speech to maintain control but don’t necessarily co…

Except everyone recognizes that their suppression of speech was a major contributor to their dominance. I dont understand how this is difficult to follow. Opposition speech is the basic cornerstone of freedom of speech. Those in power cannot retaliate against you if you criticize their actions on whatever grounds whether its scientific, moral or economic. If you're in power and say "we need to kill off all stamp coll…

Post by nopriorarrests » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 1:39 PM UTC

detaro wrote: post #194

nopriorarrests wrote: post #190

Honestly, americans who are thinking in all seriousness that "we can have democracy or we can have Facebook" are just deluding themselves. I wonder why facebook usage isn't "sowing discord" in Netherlands or, say, Germany, or other EU countries? From what I know, Facebook makes some real euros there, so adoption rate is quite high, but still, democracy is not "under attack" in these countries because of "automated ne…

> I wonder why facebook usage isn't "sowing discord" in Netherlands or, say, Germany, or other EU countries? On what basis do you believe it isn't?

Post by travisoneill1 » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 1:40 PM UTC

anovikov wrote: post #34

lldbg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, the case for free speech has never looked as good. A few (even hundreds) of murders are an acceptable cost of free speech. Restricted speech has killed millions. Little by little the western freedoms are being taken away. And you want it to go faster? Rap music which idolizes violence is allowed, despite thousands dying every year in connection to crimimal enterprise. The case to ban rap is just as naive as th…

The free speech is well... a lot like right to bear arms. While you only had muskets, right to bear arms had a clear benefit (ability to quickly raise reasonably trained militia ready to fight in days) and little risks. Now that you can buy assault rifles, and war has become so high-tech that people who are trained to use small arms and nothing else aren't of any benefit in it - it has become a different thing.... Wh…