81–90 of 233 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Private platforms can choose not to amplify hateful shit.
who gets to decide what is "hateful shit" ?
They'll be dressed up in all kinds of rationalizations, but that's the truth of it.
Until we can get people to be honest about that, there's nowhere for this conversation to go.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A better interpretation would be that Silicon Valley should stop algorithmically promoting anti-democratic, pro-authoritarian content.
So much emphasis on "The Algorithm" these days? How about: the spread of dipshit articles won't stop until dipshits stop sharing articles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s how I read it too. It’s interesting to see how platforms’ freedom to moderate as they please is being assaulted from all sides—some groups are claiming they must be forced to moderate more or be punished for what their users post, while others are claiming they must be forced to moderate less (or not at all) or be punished for what their users post.
The people calling for that have really not thought their positions through. The SV companies have a lot of flaws, but they do appear to be genuine in their belief that their censorship is helping. That is arrogant and not good enough ... but there isn't going to be a better option. The alternatives to them having control enable people who are more arrogant, less able and do more damage when mistakes inevitably get m…
Secondly, social media has its own rules for speech almost diametrically opposed to government and academic. I regularly come across crazy claims from anti-vaxers like "the virus 2 microns. too small for masks to capture." am i being censored when my assertion that they are wrong by a factor of 10 because it's saliva that carries viruses and that they should give my voice equal time in their echo chamber?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> more powerful than any local government I’ll believe that when I see FB agents smashing down doors to imprison (/kill) activists.
They can, indirectly. The side effects of their actions and deep knowledge on individuals can be used for violence or ill will.
"They could" isn't a good argument.
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…
Just to make sure I understand this — the argument is that in order to combat authoritarianism, Silicon Valley companies should censor more content?
A better interpretation would be that Silicon Valley should stop algorithmically promoting anti-democratic, pro-authoritarian content.
Would questioning the validity of an election be an example of it?
Just to make sure I understand this — the argument is that in order to combat authoritarianism, Silicon Valley companies should censor more content?
Just to make sure I understand this — the argument is that in order to combat authoritarianism, Silicon Valley companies should censor more content?
Aren't governments (especially Germany and Australia for what they are doing at the moment) way more scarier than big tech? I am not scared of Google or Facebook at all. I am, however, scared of governments. Especially seeing how the pandemic was handled and how little resistance the handling got from the citizens.
At least governments (in a democracy) are subject to public scrutiny and accountable to the electorate. As far as I can tell, the big tech firms aren't answerable to anyone.
Nobel Peace prizes? The one that Obama got for drone striking Pakistani kids? Or the one that Arafat got for bombing Israeli kids? Oh no, wait, the one that Kissinger got for bombing Vietnamese kids, must be that one, right?