81–90 of 135 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"To save the public from propaganda, we must implement national controls on all political media dissemination"
More like "let's not have national controls on political media dissemination in the hands of large corporations and hidden from view"
A whistleblower is not required to determine that Meta, and all adtech companies, have been severely damaging not just to the US, but to all governments and societies where these platforms are used. They don't need to collude with any adversarial government for this to be true. The same tools built to manipulate people into buying things, are used to manipulate them into thinking and acting in ways that could be bene…
Honestly, it's crazy that any country allows online media to control the national discourse about politics without having any insight into how the algorithms decide what kind of content is shown to whom and how content is moderated or controlled. Then there's bot/propaganda accounts run by who knows who poisoning any political discussion.
"Internal studies dating back to 2012 indicated that Meta knew its algorithms could result in serious real-world harms. In 2016, Meta’s own research clearly acknowledged that “our recommendation systems grow the problem” of extremism."
They knew there was a problem, but refused to act until Myanmar's government shut them down in 2014. After that, their response was half-hearted, inept, and actually made things worse[2].
Governments should not simply be paying attention to what users publish on Facebook, but also how Facebook's algorithms promote material to its users. Meta has demonstrated they will not take preventative action themselves. Meta needs to be carefully and extensively regulated by the government of any jurisdiction Facebook operates in.
It's easy to appreciate concerns that regulating social media could result in state propaganda or censorship. However, regimes likely to do this are probably already using other forms of control anyways. Taking Meta's remorselessly proft-seeking engagement algorithms out of the picture may be the lesser evil by a substantial margin.
[1]https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...
[2]https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2022/09/29/rohingya...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes Paul Feyerabend, a philosopher of science, argued that true freedom and liberty arise when individuals actively and democratically shape their societies, free from the dominance of any single ideology, including science. He contended that science, often regarded as the ultimate path to knowledge, is merely one of many traditions and should not hold a privileged position in society. Feyerabend advocated for a “dem…
> He contended that science, often regarded as the ultimate path to knowledge, is merely one of many traditions and should not hold a privileged position in society. He's plain wrong about that part. Science isn't another tradition, it's a way of putting the world to the test to figure out how things work. It's absurd and dangerous to maintain Feyerabend's view in the midst of a pandemic or climate change, for exampl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd love to know the reference for that. I've read a couple of Feyerabend's books, but it was years ago, and I gave them away, but would not mind taking another look.
he says something like this in Science in a Free Society, I'll see if I can find it.
> [i]n a free society there is room for many strange beliefs, doctrines, institutions.
> There is nothing in science or in any other ideology that makes them inherently liberating. Ideologies can deteriorate and become dogmatic religions. They start deteriorating when they become successful... their triumph is their downfall.
> A democracy is an assembly of mature people and not a collection of sheep guided by a small clique of know-it-alls.
> The reasons were explained by Mill in his immortal essay On Liberty. It is not possible to improve upon his arguments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But infinitely rich companies can of course bankrupt any ordinary human by suing them over and over again. They already look bad, so it doesn't make them look worse. Why wouldn't they just keep suing her?
> infinitely rich companies can of course bankrupt any ordinary human by suing them over and over again No. Not only does SLAPP prevent that, a rich, unpopular company trying to silence a whistleblower through tort is running a PR campaign for their legal defence fund. More realistic: being blacklisted from employment.
Yes and no.
I have successfully defended myself from a SLAPP lawsuit. I have also been arrested. To quote the arresting officer of the unrelated (and questionable) arrest:
"You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride!"
Defending yourself with an anti-SLAPP mechanism is expensive, time-consuming, and (even with an attorney) both parties can be made to look foolish.
In my own SLAPP lawsuit, I represented myself (so no attorney fees). I don't recommend others pick fights with megacorporations.
All I see in this story are a bunch of things that were under discussion at some point, but never happened. But then, “Meta considered doing business in China, evaluated and negotiated with the Chinese government what would be required to do so, and then did not proceed” isn’t a story that is going to sell a lot of books or get her a lot of attention. Another tell that this is a stunt for attention and not a genuine…
It could be as simple as Meta did not want to give the Chinese government partial ownership and their IP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dude the US is insanely corrupt, it's just that a lot of the corruption is called "lobbying" and "consulting." Sometimes also certain forms of "legal counsel." It's whitewashed and normalized.
I’ll admit to having engaged in some of those activities if pressed.
> https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intell...
Or the "speaking fees," the insider trading, etc. I could go on all day.
You think that sort of thing isn't corruption? The US has elevated official corruption into high art.
A whistleblower is not required to determine that Meta, and all adtech companies, have been severely damaging not just to the US, but to all governments and societies where these platforms are used. They don't need to collude with any adversarial government for this to be true. The same tools built to manipulate people into buying things, are used to manipulate them into thinking and acting in ways that could be bene…
A whistleblower is not required to determine that Meta, and all adtech companies, have been severely damaging not just to the US, but to all governments and societies where these platforms are used. They don't need to collude with any adversarial government for this to be true. The same tools built to manipulate people into buying things, are used to manipulate them into thinking and acting in ways that could be bene…
It’s amusing that the right used to complain about “information warfare”—Marxist infiltration of universities, newspapers, and Hollywood—while now the left does so.
A whistleblower is not required to determine that Meta, and all adtech companies, have been severely damaging not just to the US, but to all governments and societies where these platforms are used. They don't need to collude with any adversarial government for this to be true. The same tools built to manipulate people into buying things, are used to manipulate them into thinking and acting in ways that could be bene…
It’s amusing that the right used to complain about “information warfare”—Marxist infiltration of universities, newspapers, and Hollywood—while now the left does so.
China isn't really communist, and neither was the ussr. It's just a regressive authoritarian regime with different propaganda.
Authoritarianism is fundamentally right wing. Freedom for the right wing is fundamentally doublespeak for freedom for the oligarchs to gain power and oppress. Secondarily that freedom to acquire and impose power is granted to racists so the oligarchs have their foot soldiers.