#46 President Joe Biden
Comments
-
I am not some far right individual. I think I am a reasonable guy.Apple, Google, Microsoft, Musk, Facebook, Amazon have impacted society and pushed society as much if not more than any government in a direction they created. There was no election. There was no thought about whether all of this technology is good for society In the long run. Is the Metaverse a good thing? Will Musk’s chips in our brains be a good thing for humanity?Who knows. I am just saying these private businesses have as much influence in our lives as government. And I think we need to be careful about how they use their influence.0
-
"Where people get their news:
Facebook - 30%
Google-30%
Youtube-30%
Other sources-10%"
www.myspace.com0 -
You’re only influenced by it as much as you allow yourself to be influenced by it. Ever go off grid for a few days? What happened? What changed?bootlegger10 said:I am not some far right individual. I think I am a reasonable guy.Apple, Google, Microsoft, Musk, Facebook, Amazon have impacted society and pushed society as much if not more than any government in a direction they created. There was no election. There was no thought about whether all of this technology is good for society In the long run. Is the Metaverse a good thing? Will Musk’s chips in our brains be a good thing for humanity?Who knows. I am just saying these private businesses have as much influence in our lives as government. And I think we need to be careful about how they use their influence.
But I thought social media couldn’t influence or change things, particularly elections?09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
This is humorous.mrussel1 said:
No, it's not a utility. People generally lack choices in utilities or there may be one other option (maybe for waste, or cable but not electricity). There are nothing but choices when it comes to news and information. That's a really big difference.bootlegger10 said:
We are disagreeing on the role of the tech companies and whether they are essentially a public good. Yes, they are owned by private companies, but at some does it become bigger than the shareholders that own it? Should it be regulated like an public utility? Here is a scenario I could see happening as consolidation happens over time:mrussel1 said:
Your definition of censorship is vastly different than mine and probably others here. That's the difference.bootlegger10 said:
Exactly, I'm equating Nazi Germany to YouTube suppressing Wuhan lab theories. Don't be ridiculous.The Juggler said:
You're comparing some private company banning some videos to living in Nazi Germany?bootlegger10 said:
Pretend you live in Russia. Pretend you live in 1930's/40's Germany. Right now you feel like the news agencies and tech firms are in sync with your viewpoints so who cares if they discredit stories or not allow certain views to be discussed until the party in charge deems it okay (which happened with the Wuhan lab theory). There may be a time where that isn't the case.Halifax2TheMax said:Let’s legitimize the further dumbing down of the globe, either by excusing intellectual laziness or allowing misinformation or disinformation to be promoted as “truth and/or fact.”
I would think spoon feeding and only allowing popular/accepted viewpoints would contribute to the dumbing down as well.
I just don't understand how cavalier some of you are about how large and influential these massive tech companies are. They are making decisions about our futures that far exceeds any influence that government has had on our lives and futures. Some are good, some are bad. Ozark - Good! Season 3 of Bloodline - Bad!
Some of you think the general public is going to go to the library and research 10 different news organizations. That isn't realistic and it isn't because of laziness. It is because some people are busy or some are more trusting and don't feel they need to look at 10 different news outlets. Right now the tech companies are on the side of liberals and liberal causes so you don't care and gladly would back the private company argument (when it suits you). Most of the time though to this group on here they are evil corporations that don't pay enough tax, pollute the planet, need to be regulated, etc... and who gives an F if they are a private business. But what I meant by Russia or Germany, is that it isn't unthinkable (because it has happened and will happen again) for times to change and these large tech/media companies that control most of the web visits may push a narrative that you may not like, or perhaps you think you like but it is lies, and there is no room for dissent.
I don't know the right answer, I'm just surprised that people on here are so accepting of censorship by these large social media companies.
Where people get their news:
Facebook - 30%
Google-30%
Youtube-30%
Other sources-10%
Let's say the CEO's, etc.. of these businesses side with a certain ideology and perhaps political party at some point in time, and start to label things as fake news that don't match their agenda, act like state owned media, etc... From what I gather from your comments, this is perfectly okay as they are privately owned businesses. We will just trust that the other 10% of media gets listened to and everything will be fine.
You clearly believe these companies have huge influence as you want them to take down fake stories or put disclaimers up. You aren't on the flip side concerned about the "negative" influence they would have if all of sudden they started taking down stories or putting disclaimers up about information you believed was true?
I understand what censorship is, and I'm not saying I know how to prevent misinformation. It is just a slippery slope as we live in the West and are fortunate to have access to all sorts of information. Ignorance is bliss. If you lived in Russia right now where all the news is the same, you might believe all sorts of lies about Ukraine. I just can't fathom how people here have so much faith in the influence of these unelected tech elites to do the right thing.
I read false, misinformation and incomplete information all the time. I read Fox, Breitbart, the NY Post. Breitbart in particular posts nothing but misinformation. But I don't care. I laugh, I get annoyed. But I don't expect them to post what HuffPo posts.
And we don't live in Russia, but your recommendations that there is some government body that forces private companies to post or remove information gets us one step closer to Russia. Your quest for neutrality leads to government overreach and eventually censorship.My argument: Tech companies shouldn’t decide what information can or cannot be posted if their business is to allow people to post information on their site.Your position: Tech companies should ban people from posting information the tech company declares is fake news.
Yet I am the one that is supposedly leading to censorship. How ironic.0 -
Part of the influence I meant was just technology in general too. This board is the only social media I participate in. I have no Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, etc accounts.Halifax2TheMax said:
You’re only influenced by it as much as you allow yourself to be influenced by it. Ever go off grid for a few days? What happened? What changed?bootlegger10 said:I am not some far right individual. I think I am a reasonable guy.Apple, Google, Microsoft, Musk, Facebook, Amazon have impacted society and pushed society as much if not more than any government in a direction they created. There was no election. There was no thought about whether all of this technology is good for society In the long run. Is the Metaverse a good thing? Will Musk’s chips in our brains be a good thing for humanity?Who knows. I am just saying these private businesses have as much influence in our lives as government. And I think we need to be careful about how they use their influence.
But I thought social media couldn’t influence or change things, particularly elections?0 -
it isn't ironic at all. he is suggesting private companies do as they wish. you are suggesting government decides what companies do. the latter is called censorship.bootlegger10 said:
This is humorous.mrussel1 said:
No, it's not a utility. People generally lack choices in utilities or there may be one other option (maybe for waste, or cable but not electricity). There are nothing but choices when it comes to news and information. That's a really big difference.bootlegger10 said:
We are disagreeing on the role of the tech companies and whether they are essentially a public good. Yes, they are owned by private companies, but at some does it become bigger than the shareholders that own it? Should it be regulated like an public utility? Here is a scenario I could see happening as consolidation happens over time:mrussel1 said:
Your definition of censorship is vastly different than mine and probably others here. That's the difference.bootlegger10 said:
Exactly, I'm equating Nazi Germany to YouTube suppressing Wuhan lab theories. Don't be ridiculous.The Juggler said:
You're comparing some private company banning some videos to living in Nazi Germany?bootlegger10 said:
Pretend you live in Russia. Pretend you live in 1930's/40's Germany. Right now you feel like the news agencies and tech firms are in sync with your viewpoints so who cares if they discredit stories or not allow certain views to be discussed until the party in charge deems it okay (which happened with the Wuhan lab theory). There may be a time where that isn't the case.Halifax2TheMax said:Let’s legitimize the further dumbing down of the globe, either by excusing intellectual laziness or allowing misinformation or disinformation to be promoted as “truth and/or fact.”
I would think spoon feeding and only allowing popular/accepted viewpoints would contribute to the dumbing down as well.
I just don't understand how cavalier some of you are about how large and influential these massive tech companies are. They are making decisions about our futures that far exceeds any influence that government has had on our lives and futures. Some are good, some are bad. Ozark - Good! Season 3 of Bloodline - Bad!
Some of you think the general public is going to go to the library and research 10 different news organizations. That isn't realistic and it isn't because of laziness. It is because some people are busy or some are more trusting and don't feel they need to look at 10 different news outlets. Right now the tech companies are on the side of liberals and liberal causes so you don't care and gladly would back the private company argument (when it suits you). Most of the time though to this group on here they are evil corporations that don't pay enough tax, pollute the planet, need to be regulated, etc... and who gives an F if they are a private business. But what I meant by Russia or Germany, is that it isn't unthinkable (because it has happened and will happen again) for times to change and these large tech/media companies that control most of the web visits may push a narrative that you may not like, or perhaps you think you like but it is lies, and there is no room for dissent.
I don't know the right answer, I'm just surprised that people on here are so accepting of censorship by these large social media companies.
Where people get their news:
Facebook - 30%
Google-30%
Youtube-30%
Other sources-10%
Let's say the CEO's, etc.. of these businesses side with a certain ideology and perhaps political party at some point in time, and start to label things as fake news that don't match their agenda, act like state owned media, etc... From what I gather from your comments, this is perfectly okay as they are privately owned businesses. We will just trust that the other 10% of media gets listened to and everything will be fine.
You clearly believe these companies have huge influence as you want them to take down fake stories or put disclaimers up. You aren't on the flip side concerned about the "negative" influence they would have if all of sudden they started taking down stories or putting disclaimers up about information you believed was true?
I understand what censorship is, and I'm not saying I know how to prevent misinformation. It is just a slippery slope as we live in the West and are fortunate to have access to all sorts of information. Ignorance is bliss. If you lived in Russia right now where all the news is the same, you might believe all sorts of lies about Ukraine. I just can't fathom how people here have so much faith in the influence of these unelected tech elites to do the right thing.
I read false, misinformation and incomplete information all the time. I read Fox, Breitbart, the NY Post. Breitbart in particular posts nothing but misinformation. But I don't care. I laugh, I get annoyed. But I don't expect them to post what HuffPo posts.
And we don't live in Russia, but your recommendations that there is some government body that forces private companies to post or remove information gets us one step closer to Russia. Your quest for neutrality leads to government overreach and eventually censorship.My argument: Tech companies shouldn’t decide what information can or cannot be posted if their business is to allow people to post information on their site.Your position: Tech companies should ban people from posting information the tech company declares is fake news.
Yet I am the one that is supposedly leading to censorship. How ironic.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Halifax2TheMax said:What’s up with the …. Replacing words or ends of words? I go to edit it and in the edit function it looks how I typed. Save edits and I get …
… = blah, blah, blah?
.0 -
you don't seem to understand what censorship is...bootlegger10 said:
This is humorous.mrussel1 said:
No, it's not a utility. People generally lack choices in utilities or there may be one other option (maybe for waste, or cable but not electricity). There are nothing but choices when it comes to news and information. That's a really big difference.bootlegger10 said:
We are disagreeing on the role of the tech companies and whether they are essentially a public good. Yes, they are owned by private companies, but at some does it become bigger than the shareholders that own it? Should it be regulated like an public utility? Here is a scenario I could see happening as consolidation happens over time:mrussel1 said:
Your definition of censorship is vastly different than mine and probably others here. That's the difference.bootlegger10 said:
Exactly, I'm equating Nazi Germany to YouTube suppressing Wuhan lab theories. Don't be ridiculous.The Juggler said:
You're comparing some private company banning some videos to living in Nazi Germany?bootlegger10 said:
Pretend you live in Russia. Pretend you live in 1930's/40's Germany. Right now you feel like the news agencies and tech firms are in sync with your viewpoints so who cares if they discredit stories or not allow certain views to be discussed until the party in charge deems it okay (which happened with the Wuhan lab theory). There may be a time where that isn't the case.Halifax2TheMax said:Let’s legitimize the further dumbing down of the globe, either by excusing intellectual laziness or allowing misinformation or disinformation to be promoted as “truth and/or fact.”
I would think spoon feeding and only allowing popular/accepted viewpoints would contribute to the dumbing down as well.
I just don't understand how cavalier some of you are about how large and influential these massive tech companies are. They are making decisions about our futures that far exceeds any influence that government has had on our lives and futures. Some are good, some are bad. Ozark - Good! Season 3 of Bloodline - Bad!
Some of you think the general public is going to go to the library and research 10 different news organizations. That isn't realistic and it isn't because of laziness. It is because some people are busy or some are more trusting and don't feel they need to look at 10 different news outlets. Right now the tech companies are on the side of liberals and liberal causes so you don't care and gladly would back the private company argument (when it suits you). Most of the time though to this group on here they are evil corporations that don't pay enough tax, pollute the planet, need to be regulated, etc... and who gives an F if they are a private business. But what I meant by Russia or Germany, is that it isn't unthinkable (because it has happened and will happen again) for times to change and these large tech/media companies that control most of the web visits may push a narrative that you may not like, or perhaps you think you like but it is lies, and there is no room for dissent.
I don't know the right answer, I'm just surprised that people on here are so accepting of censorship by these large social media companies.
Where people get their news:
Facebook - 30%
Google-30%
Youtube-30%
Other sources-10%
Let's say the CEO's, etc.. of these businesses side with a certain ideology and perhaps political party at some point in time, and start to label things as fake news that don't match their agenda, act like state owned media, etc... From what I gather from your comments, this is perfectly okay as they are privately owned businesses. We will just trust that the other 10% of media gets listened to and everything will be fine.
You clearly believe these companies have huge influence as you want them to take down fake stories or put disclaimers up. You aren't on the flip side concerned about the "negative" influence they would have if all of sudden they started taking down stories or putting disclaimers up about information you believed was true?
I understand what censorship is, and I'm not saying I know how to prevent misinformation. It is just a slippery slope as we live in the West and are fortunate to have access to all sorts of information. Ignorance is bliss. If you lived in Russia right now where all the news is the same, you might believe all sorts of lies about Ukraine. I just can't fathom how people here have so much faith in the influence of these unelected tech elites to do the right thing.
I read false, misinformation and incomplete information all the time. I read Fox, Breitbart, the NY Post. Breitbart in particular posts nothing but misinformation. But I don't care. I laugh, I get annoyed. But I don't expect them to post what HuffPo posts.
And we don't live in Russia, but your recommendations that there is some government body that forces private companies to post or remove information gets us one step closer to Russia. Your quest for neutrality leads to government overreach and eventually censorship.My argument: Tech companies shouldn’t decide what information can or cannot be posted if their business is to allow people to post information on their site.Your position: Tech companies should ban people from posting information the tech company declares is fake news.
Yet I am the one that is supposedly leading to censorship. How ironic.Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt20 -
Gern Blansten said:
you don't seem to understand what censorship is...bootlegger10 said:
This is humorous.mrussel1 said:
No, it's not a utility. People generally lack choices in utilities or there may be one other option (maybe for waste, or cable but not electricity). There are nothing but choices when it comes to news and information. That's a really big difference.bootlegger10 said:
We are disagreeing on the role of the tech companies and whether they are essentially a public good. Yes, they are owned by private companies, but at some does it become bigger than the shareholders that own it? Should it be regulated like an public utility? Here is a scenario I could see happening as consolidation happens over time:mrussel1 said:
Your definition of censorship is vastly different than mine and probably others here. That's the difference.bootlegger10 said:
Exactly, I'm equating Nazi Germany to YouTube suppressing Wuhan lab theories. Don't be ridiculous.The Juggler said:
You're comparing some private company banning some videos to living in Nazi Germany?bootlegger10 said:
Pretend you live in Russia. Pretend you live in 1930's/40's Germany. Right now you feel like the news agencies and tech firms are in sync with your viewpoints so who cares if they discredit stories or not allow certain views to be discussed until the party in charge deems it okay (which happened with the Wuhan lab theory). There may be a time where that isn't the case.Halifax2TheMax said:Let’s legitimize the further dumbing down of the globe, either by excusing intellectual laziness or allowing misinformation or disinformation to be promoted as “truth and/or fact.”
I would think spoon feeding and only allowing popular/accepted viewpoints would contribute to the dumbing down as well.
I just don't understand how cavalier some of you are about how large and influential these massive tech companies are. They are making decisions about our futures that far exceeds any influence that government has had on our lives and futures. Some are good, some are bad. Ozark - Good! Season 3 of Bloodline - Bad!
Some of you think the general public is going to go to the library and research 10 different news organizations. That isn't realistic and it isn't because of laziness. It is because some people are busy or some are more trusting and don't feel they need to look at 10 different news outlets. Right now the tech companies are on the side of liberals and liberal causes so you don't care and gladly would back the private company argument (when it suits you). Most of the time though to this group on here they are evil corporations that don't pay enough tax, pollute the planet, need to be regulated, etc... and who gives an F if they are a private business. But what I meant by Russia or Germany, is that it isn't unthinkable (because it has happened and will happen again) for times to change and these large tech/media companies that control most of the web visits may push a narrative that you may not like, or perhaps you think you like but it is lies, and there is no room for dissent.
I don't know the right answer, I'm just surprised that people on here are so accepting of censorship by these large social media companies.
Where people get their news:
Facebook - 30%
Google-30%
Youtube-30%
Other sources-10%
Let's say the CEO's, etc.. of these businesses side with a certain ideology and perhaps political party at some point in time, and start to label things as fake news that don't match their agenda, act like state owned media, etc... From what I gather from your comments, this is perfectly okay as they are privately owned businesses. We will just trust that the other 10% of media gets listened to and everything will be fine.
You clearly believe these companies have huge influence as you want them to take down fake stories or put disclaimers up. You aren't on the flip side concerned about the "negative" influence they would have if all of sudden they started taking down stories or putting disclaimers up about information you believed was true?
I understand what censorship is, and I'm not saying I know how to prevent misinformation. It is just a slippery slope as we live in the West and are fortunate to have access to all sorts of information. Ignorance is bliss. If you lived in Russia right now where all the news is the same, you might believe all sorts of lies about Ukraine. I just can't fathom how people here have so much faith in the influence of these unelected tech elites to do the right thing.
I read false, misinformation and incomplete information all the time. I read Fox, Breitbart, the NY Post. Breitbart in particular posts nothing but misinformation. But I don't care. I laugh, I get annoyed. But I don't expect them to post what HuffPo posts.
And we don't live in Russia, but your recommendations that there is some government body that forces private companies to post or remove information gets us one step closer to Russia. Your quest for neutrality leads to government overreach and eventually censorship.My argument: Tech companies shouldn’t decide what information can or cannot be posted if their business is to allow people to post information on their site.Your position: Tech companies should ban people from posting information the tech company declares is fake news.
Yet I am the one that is supposedly leading to censorship. How ironic.
https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
This is bizarre. Check out the definition of censorship and tell me how what I am saying is limiting speech versus.0
-
bootlegger10 said:This is bizarre. Check out the definition of censorship and tell me how what I am saying is limiting speech versus.
its a question of constitutionality imo...... and free market where the public is a driver in whats seen or not.
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
That I can understand. It is a free market today, but situations like Russia don’t happen over night. It happens gradually and every time you let someone powerful determine what is truth or not (whether public or private), you gradually get closer. I am just throwing my concern out there.mickeyrat said:bootlegger10 said:This is bizarre. Check out the definition of censorship and tell me how what I am saying is limiting speech versus.
its a question of constitutionality imo...... and free market where the public is a driver in whats seen or not.If everybody is cool with it then so be it.0 -
I agree with you that tech companies have undue influence on public opinion and the day to day lives of people globally. I don't think there is really anything that can be done about it though. I'm not a fan of government overreach. I guess when company towns start being reestablished, which to me is the ultimate result of allowing too few companies too much power, we will see how happy people are that they didn't try to pump the breaks on their way to free shipping and all day information streaming and sharing pictures of their breakfasts and assholes.bootlegger10 said:
That I can understand. It is a free market today, but situations like Russia don’t happen over night. It happens gradually and every time you let someone powerful determine what is truth or not (whether public or private), you gradually get closer. I am just throwing my concern out there.mickeyrat said:bootlegger10 said:This is bizarre. Check out the definition of censorship and tell me how what I am saying is limiting speech versus.
its a question of constitutionality imo...... and free market where the public is a driver in whats seen or not.If everybody is cool with it then so be it.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
bootlegger10 said:
That I can understand. It is a free market today, but situations like Russia don’t happen over night. It happens gradually and every time you let someone powerful determine what is truth or not (whether public or private), you gradually get closer. I am just throwing my concern out there.mickeyrat said:bootlegger10 said:This is bizarre. Check out the definition of censorship and tell me how what I am saying is limiting speech versus.
its a question of constitutionality imo...... and free market where the public is a driver in whats seen or not.If everybody is cool with it then so be it.simple fact is everybody agrees to terms of service on a given platform. so when its enforced , you cant bitch.MY bigger concern is the bubbles these algorithm's create, making them the arbiter of what I see. I can be finicky in my content. Their AI simply cannot predict what my whims might be on a given day., I'd prefer a straight up linear type feed. If the goal is to keep eyeballs on screen, thats a lot of posts and content to go all the way back through.....and finally, speech comes with responsibility and accountability. Say what you will, but be prepared for what comes after....._____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
As bad as you think it is that Twitter and FB determine what’s allowed or not, wouldn’t the government taking over that role be even worse? How’s that working out for North Korea?bootlegger10 said:
That I can understand. It is a free market today, but situations like Russia don’t happen over night. It happens gradually and every time you let someone powerful determine what is truth or not (whether public or private), you gradually get closer. I am just throwing my concern out there.mickeyrat said:bootlegger10 said:This is bizarre. Check out the definition of censorship and tell me how what I am saying is limiting speech versus.
its a question of constitutionality imo...... and free market where the public is a driver in whats seen or not.If everybody is cool with it then so be it.0 -
I think in my arguments that I have made people think I want government to take a role in what gets posted on these large social media sites.mace1229 said:
As bad as you think it is that Twitter and FB determine what’s allowed or not, wouldn’t the government taking over that role be even worse? How’s that working out for North Korea?bootlegger10 said:
That I can understand. It is a free market today, but situations like Russia don’t happen over night. It happens gradually and every time you let someone powerful determine what is truth or not (whether public or private), you gradually get closer. I am just throwing my concern out there.mickeyrat said:bootlegger10 said:This is bizarre. Check out the definition of censorship and tell me how what I am saying is limiting speech versus.
its a question of constitutionality imo...... and free market where the public is a driver in whats seen or not.If everybody is cool with it then so be it.
My reference to government - My argument here was that eventually these tech companies get so large that are they more than just private businesses at some point, but do they become as important or necessary to the public in sharing information as electricity or water utilities. Thus, if government cannot limit speech, then perhaps these large social media companies should be held to a similar standard and not limit speech.
This would be the exact opposite of NK.
0 -
Exactly. And it is not as if there are not other forms of social media out there if you are not happy with one or the other. There's always Truth Social. lolmickeyrat said:bootlegger10 said:
That I can understand. It is a free market today, but situations like Russia don’t happen over night. It happens gradually and every time you let someone powerful determine what is truth or not (whether public or private), you gradually get closer. I am just throwing my concern out there.mickeyrat said:bootlegger10 said:This is bizarre. Check out the definition of censorship and tell me how what I am saying is limiting speech versus.
its a question of constitutionality imo...... and free market where the public is a driver in whats seen or not.If everybody is cool with it then so be it.simple fact is everybody agrees to terms of service on a given platform. so when its enforced , you cant bitch.
www.myspace.com0 -
You can’t compare Russia, Russia, Russia with western style democracy. Not even close. Russia has never been a “free” market, nor has it had a democratically elected government with an independent judiciary and press. Those are all things that act as a check on what you’re concerned with. You should be more concerned with the dark money influencing the judiciary and elected officials at the state and federal level.bootlegger10 said:
That I can understand. It is a free market today, but situations like Russia don’t happen over night. It happens gradually and every time you let someone powerful determine what is truth or not (whether public or private), you gradually get closer. I am just throwing my concern out there.mickeyrat said:bootlegger10 said:This is bizarre. Check out the definition of censorship and tell me how what I am saying is limiting speech versus.
its a question of constitutionality imo...... and free market where the public is a driver in whats seen or not.If everybody is cool with it then so be it.
Would you trade social media regulation for taking or severely limiting money out of/in politics? Both are considered “free speech.” And which do you believe has a greater impact on society?09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
I am more concerned about the future than today. Over time those independent judiciaries and press may not be there to help. They may get corrupted like anything else.Halifax2TheMax said:
You can’t compare Russia, Russia, Russia with western style democracy. Not even close. Russia has never been a “free” market, nor has it had a democratically elected government with an independent judiciary and press. Those are all things that act as a check on what you’re concerned with. You should be more concerned with the dark money influencing the judiciary and elected officials at the state and federal level.bootlegger10 said:
That I can understand. It is a free market today, but situations like Russia don’t happen over night. It happens gradually and every time you let someone powerful determine what is truth or not (whether public or private), you gradually get closer. I am just throwing my concern out there.mickeyrat said:bootlegger10 said:This is bizarre. Check out the definition of censorship and tell me how what I am saying is limiting speech versus.
its a question of constitutionality imo...... and free market where the public is a driver in whats seen or not.If everybody is cool with it then so be it.
Would you trade social media regulation for taking or severely limiting money out of/in politics? Both are considered “free speech.” And which do you believe has a greater impact on society?I would love to get money out of politics first. I would hope at that point leaders would then concern themselves with the common good.But in the long run it may be cheaper to just control what the vast majority of people consume on the internet. Like someone mentioned previously with algorithms.Again, you all seem really concerned about removing false information from social media, but not concerned at all about who is making that call. I hope you are all equally cool with that when power shifts and your views are the ones being marked as false.
And to be clear, I am not saying the stuff labeled as false isn’t false. Most of it probably is. I am just coming at this from a neutral observer and not liking the path we are going down. Certainly false information has its own ramifications too. Lose-lose I guess. I would rather err on the side of less suppression of thoughts and ideas versus more of it.Post edited by bootlegger10 on0 -
Haha, I like it. A guy that understands history.static111 said:
I agree with you that tech companies have undue influence on public opinion and the day to day lives of people globally. I don't think there is really anything that can be done about it though. I'm not a fan of government overreach. I guess when company towns start being reestablished, which to me is the ultimate result of allowing too few companies too much power, we will see how happy people are that they didn't try to pump the breaks on their way to free shipping and all day information streaming and sharing pictures of their breakfasts and assholes.bootlegger10 said:
That I can understand. It is a free market today, but situations like Russia don’t happen over night. It happens gradually and every time you let someone powerful determine what is truth or not (whether public or private), you gradually get closer. I am just throwing my concern out there.mickeyrat said:bootlegger10 said:This is bizarre. Check out the definition of censorship and tell me how what I am saying is limiting speech versus.
its a question of constitutionality imo...... and free market where the public is a driver in whats seen or not.If everybody is cool with it then so be it.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help