Censorship and Big Tech

posted by Laley23

Hey, I don’t disagree. Just pointing out the apples to oranges comparison that was made.

Not the same, but there is a lot of irony there when they cry about "open internet."

I finally took the time to look up the tweet's that Twitter states are the reason it perm-banned Trump. I personally don't see what it is about the two tweets that they use as a reason, but perhaps some of the contrarians here can do the mental gymnastics it requires for the greater understanding.

They list their reasoning on the page, but ... I find it ... laughable.

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html

posted by CenterBHSFan

They list their reasoning on the page, but ... I find it ... laughable.

That seems like a good example for this thread.  Basically banning free speech on the basis YOU believe what was said was a dog whistle.  The solution to someone misinterpreting what you said is to stop you from speaking?

The CNN fascists love to do that so they can explain to you how an unobjectionable statement was actually coded, racist language.  It's a pillar of the identity politics game.

Silicon Valley oligarchs making dems in congress look like patriots ..............amazing.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/534045-ocasio-cortez-congress-looking-into-ways-to-rein-in-disinformation?fbclid=IwAR0zR-7XMk--5cghtlnY8bHcNiicejX-VnSFeYDG5iVBEl19GgOzzGgqhY0

Related to this thread, here is that slippery slope that ptown wants to pretend doesn't exist.    Hopefully it's only a handful of the full retard sector that wants to set up a committee. 

posted by CenterBHSFan

I finally took the time to look up the tweet's that Twitter states are the reason it perm-banned Trump. I personally don't see what it is about the two tweets that they use as a reason, but perhaps some of the contrarians here can do the mental gymnastics it requires for the greater understanding.

They list their reasoning on the page, but ... I find it ... laughable.

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html

Their explanation would get a 10 out of 10 in the mental gymnastics olympic games.

posted by like_that

Related to this thread, here is that slippery slope that ptown wants to pretend doesn't exist.    Hopefully it's only a handful of the full retard sector that wants to set up a committee. 

I feel like there needs to be some sort regulation, and Section 230 was really not designed to shield mega goliath tech companies from liability.

But when you see AOC proposing a committee, and realize Dems control both branches...that does not end well.

A lot of what has happened, especially Parler, isn't exactly a great indictment of tech.  But there's been a clear double standard with the leftwing hate groups.

Except the NYP story on Hunter Biden really illustrates the problem.  If you rely on the liberal media to validate and fact-check a story, then you've created a systemic bias against negative news on Dems and their agenda.  Because there is a cesspool of leftwing fake news that doesn't appear to get filtered or flagged.

posted by like_that

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/534045-ocasio-cortez-congress-looking-into-ways-to-rein-in-disinformation?fbclid=IwAR0zR-7XMk--5cghtlnY8bHcNiicejX-VnSFeYDG5iVBEl19GgOzzGgqhY0

Related to this thread, here is that slippery slope that ptown wants to pretend doesn't exist.    Hopefully it's only a handful of the full retard sector that wants to set up a committee. 

You cite AOC and want to talk of a slippery slope? It will take a more credible member of Congress to actual cite specific legistation before I will buy your slope argument. 

That would be like me citing something crazy Matt Gaetz or even crazy Majorie Taylor Green as something that has wide Republican support. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

You cite AOC and want to talk of a slippery slope? It will take a more credible member of Congress to actual cite specific legistation before I will buy your slope argument. 

That would be like me citing something crazy Matt Gaetz or even crazy Majorie Taylor Green as something that has wide Republican support. 

I feel like you either don't know what a slippery slope is or you're purposely playing dumb.  When you have reps/senators proposing these type of committees, that means gets closer and closer to Government deciding which speech they want to regulate.    Yes, I know it was AOC, thus why I said (and you purposely ignored) "Hopefully it's only a handful of the full retard sector...." 

Do you really want a government committee decided which free speech should be censored vs uncensored?  Even if it is with all the people you have your full trust in?   If you say yes, please spare me gblock's  "not all speech is protected/yelling in a theater" bullshit too.  I know you're smarter than that.

So taking AOC's lead, CNN is now pushing for OAN and Newsmax to be taken off the air.

This is starting to get bad bad bad

"We are going to have to figure out the OAN and Newsmax problem. These companies have freedom of speech, but I'm not sure we need Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and such bringing them into tens of millions of homes," @alexstamos tells @brianstelter.

— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) January 17, 2021

Former Facebook insider Alex Stamos tells @brianstelter: "We have to turn down the capability of these Conservative influencers to reach these huge audiences... There are people on YouTube for example that have a larger audience than daytime CNN." pic.twitter.com/gP0XtnjhCQ

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 17, 2021

Something has to be done about this.  It’s not normal or “American”

Something has to be done about this.  It’s not normal or “American”

posted by CenterBHSFan

"We are going to have to figure out the OAN and Newsmax problem. These companies have freedom of speech, but I'm not sure we need Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and such bringing them into tens of millions of homes," @alexstamos tells @brianstelter.

— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) January 17, 2021

Former Facebook insider Alex Stamos tells @brianstelter: "We have to turn down the capability of these Conservative influencers to reach these huge audiences... There are people on YouTube for example that have a larger audience than daytime CNN." pic.twitter.com/gP0XtnjhCQ

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 17, 2021

Sickening and dead wrong ......but not surprising.

posted by CenterBHSFan

"We are going to have to figure out the OAN and Newsmax problem. These companies have freedom of speech, but I'm not sure we need Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and such bringing them into tens of millions of homes," @alexstamos tells @brianstelter.

— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) January 17, 2021

Former Facebook insider Alex Stamos tells @brianstelter: "We have to turn down the capability of these Conservative influencers to reach these huge audiences... There are people on YouTube for example that have a larger audience than daytime CNN." pic.twitter.com/gP0XtnjhCQ

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 17, 2021

1.  The media want a vacuum of thought.  The CNN of the world don’t want any competition.

2.  That guy just made a case for social media to be stripped of the 230 rights

posted by like_that

I feel like you either don't know what a slippery slope is or you're purposely playing dumb.  When you have reps/senators proposing these type of committees, that means gets closer and closer to Government deciding which speech they want to regulate.    Yes, I know it was AOC, thus why I said (and you purposely ignored) "Hopefully it's only a handful of the full retard sector...." 

Do you really want a government committee decided which free speech should be censored vs uncensored?  Even if it is with all the people you have your full trust in?   If you say yes, please spare me gblock's  "not all speech is protected/yelling in a theater" bullshit too.  I know you're smarter than that.

Oh, I know what a slippery slope is, you are just full of hot air on the threat. As far as I know the committee is just an idea and is not a serious thing yet. Using AOC an as example is like me using one of the crazy QA people on the Republican's side as an example. You lose credibility. 

And no I do not want a government committee deciding which free speech will be censured v. uncensored, but we are no where near that. Again, you are just crying about a threat that is not there. As usual, you are just making the worst case and screaming about slopes when there are none. 

Back to topic at hand, and actually bringing a potential solution (which you know nothing about as usual), I read an interesting Foreign Affairs article yesterday where they suggest the solution may be middleware. 

"Middleware products can be offered through a variety of approaches. One particularly effective approach would be for users to access the middleware via a technology platform such as Apple or Twitter. Consider news articles on users’ news feeds or popular tweets by political figures. In the background of Apple or Twitter, a middleware service could add labels such as “misleading,” “unverified,” and “lacks context.” When users logged on to Apple and Twitter, they would see these labels on the news articles and tweets. A more interventionist middleware could also influence the rankings for certain feeds, such as Amazon product lists, Facebook advertisements, Google search results, or YouTube video recommendations. For example, consumers could select middleware providers that adjusted their Amazon search results to prioritize products made domestically, eco-friendly products, or lower-priced goods. Middleware could even prevent a user from viewing certain content or block specific information sources or manufacturers altogether.
Each middleware provider would be required to be transparent in its offerings and technical features, so that users could make an informed choice. Providers of middleware would include both companies pursuing improvements to feeds and nonprofits seeking to advance civic values. A journalism school might offer middleware that favored superior reporting and suppressed unverified stories, or a county school board might offer middleware that prioritized local issues. By mediating the relationship between users and the platforms, middleware could cater to individual consumers’ preferences while providing significant resistance to dominant players’ unilateral actions.
Many details would have to be worked out. The first question is how much curation power to transfer to the new companies. At one extreme, middleware providers could completely transform the information presented by the underlying platform to the user, with the platform serving as little more than a neutral pipe. Under this model, middleware alone would determine the substance and priority of Amazon or Google searches, with those platforms merely offering access to their servers. At the other extreme, the platform could continue to curate and rank the content entirely with its own algorithms, and the middleware would serve only as a supplemental filter. Under this model, for example, a Facebook or Twitter interface would remain largely unchanged. Middleware would just fact-check or label content without assigning importance to content or providing more fine-tuned recommendations. 

It has its pluses and minuses, but it an interesting idea. 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-11-24/fukuyama-how-save-democracy-technology

So, let's talk silppery slopes.

This vid.
MSM essentially supported the BLM/antifa riots, destruction and deaths all last year. Now when non-BLM/antifa people riot with damage and death they're planting the seeds of killing them with drones. 

Suggesting drone strikes on American citizens with a straight face and no consequences.

pic.twitter.com/tbblO1v6KJ

— TRHL™ (@TRHLofficial) February 5, 2021

https://www.foxnews.com/media/ex-google-consultant-blasts-facebook

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-government-podcast-censorship-joe-rogan-coronavirus