So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise. Okay. I feel like you're not even trying here.
I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.
The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.
Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media.
People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.
Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.
As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it.
even fauci said it was possible, but that it was unlikely and until it's proven, it's useless to speculate, and not only useless, it's dangerous from what we already saw of racists and how asians were being treated simply because that's where the virus was first discovered/reported.
I don’t think lab vs wet market makes any difference to someone willing to commit a hate crimes against Asians. But fot a year you were labeled a conspiracy nut for even considering the lab was a source. Posts were removed from social media for suggesting it. But no one had a problem spreading the wet market theory. But if the lab is possible, then we can’t know for sure it was the wet market either. I just don’t understand how one theory was acceptable to spread and the other labels you as a right wing nut. And the irony to me is the wet market theory seems much more offensive .You’re saying the culture embraced unsanitary conditions that created a global virus, vs a research lab had a leak. If it does actually make a difference, I bet the wet market theory is going to spread more hate and fear. I just don’t understand the reasoning for trying to silence the lab theory so much while embracing the wet market one, what’s to gain from it?
Give me an example where the mere suggestion was censored. I’ve asked several times on various platforms and have been met with shady sources, outright hard claims with no truth, and various whataboutisms without fail.
Supposedly videos were removed from YouTube and other social media that had people, even doctors, who promoted the lab theory. I don’t have links to show you, they were removed. Im not going to scroll through a year’s worth of comments here, but I would be shocked if there weren’t several members who mocked anyone considering the lab theory. Can you show me any indication where the wet market theory was censored or removed from social media? I’ve never heard of one. So the two theories didn’t receive equal treatment. One was accepted and one labeled you as a nut case, but in reality neither was proved and both are probably equally likely.
Just to be clear, are you suggesting that You Tube does not have teh right to remove videos, or should otherwise be prohibited by the gov't to remove videos?
Google, YouTube and Facebook are part of the top 5 visited websites in the world (based on a quick Google search). Most people are not going to dig to find news sources. Are you okay if the top viewed websites prevent people from posting articles, stories, views that do not fit the political narrative that the company supports? I get the argument that these are private businesses. I just want to know if you have any concerns about a few companies have that much power. If everyone was discerning about their news sources, dug in to various sources, etc... than I wouldn't be concerned about it. But that is not how the public is (or at least my thinking). So a situation where the top 5, 10 15, or 20 news sources online all preach from the same hymnal or bow to political or social pressure to prevent certain thoughts or ideas is scary to me.
Posting complete nonsense is also scary so it is a slippery slope.
Am I okay with top websites stopping people from posting certain things? Yeah, I think I've made that clear. This is not the government's business. This isn't 1951 when there were 3 TV stations. There is no scarcity of information or scarcity of channels in which to communicate. The fact that right wing people all know about Hunter Biden is proof that the gov't doesn't need to intervene. You want FB, Instagram and Twitter to be neutral. Why do they have an obligation to be neutral? Fox doesn't have that. CNN doesn't. "Truth" social media doesn't. You to impose an onerous gov't requirement on them ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL. But they didn't corner the market. They didn't buy out all possible competition. It's not a monopoly. This makes zero sense.
So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise. Okay. I feel like you're not even trying here.
I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.
The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.
Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media.
People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.
Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.
As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it.
even fauci said it was possible, but that it was unlikely and until it's proven, it's useless to speculate, and not only useless, it's dangerous from what we already saw of racists and how asians were being treated simply because that's where the virus was first discovered/reported.
I don’t think lab vs wet market makes any difference to someone willing to commit a hate crimes against Asians. But fot a year you were labeled a conspiracy nut for even considering the lab was a source. Posts were removed from social media for suggesting it. But no one had a problem spreading the wet market theory. But if the lab is possible, then we can’t know for sure it was the wet market either. I just don’t understand how one theory was acceptable to spread and the other labels you as a right wing nut. And the irony to me is the wet market theory seems much more offensive .You’re saying the culture embraced unsanitary conditions that created a global virus, vs a research lab had a leak. If it does actually make a difference, I bet the wet market theory is going to spread more hate and fear. I just don’t understand the reasoning for trying to silence the lab theory so much while embracing the wet market one, what’s to gain from it?
Give me an example where the mere suggestion was censored. I’ve asked several times on various platforms and have been met with shady sources, outright hard claims with no truth, and various whataboutisms without fail.
Supposedly videos were removed from YouTube and other social media that had people, even doctors, who promoted the lab theory. I don’t have links to show you, they were removed. Im not going to scroll through a year’s worth of comments here, but I would be shocked if there weren’t several members who mocked anyone considering the lab theory. Can you show me any indication where the wet market theory was censored or removed from social media? I’ve never heard of one. So the two theories didn’t receive equal treatment. One was accepted and one labeled you as a nut case, but in reality neither was proved and both are probably equally likely.
Just to be clear, are you suggesting that You Tube does not have teh right to remove videos, or should otherwise be prohibited by the gov't to remove videos?
No, I’m not suggestion that. Just pointing the different treatments the different theories got. One was accepted, the other censored and heavily mocked if you even brought it up. Neither have been proven and both are probably just as likely. I was also pointing out I don’t understand the reasoning behind holding into the wet market theory so tightly. The wet market doesn’t seem any more likely that a lab leak, especially considering where the virus first came from, the research lab being right there, China’s lack of cooperation, etc. But yet for a year it was unacceptable to question the wet market theory. And by unacceptable I mean you were mocked by many and sometimes censored by social media and accused of spreading misinformation.
So to be clear, are you like Bootlegger and think that gov't has a place to interfere in this, or are you just generally wondering, etc.?
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.”
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.
I would think spoon feeding and only allowing popular/accepted viewpoints would contribute to the dumbing down as well.
You're comparing some private company banning some videos to living in Nazi Germany?
Exactly, I'm equating Nazi Germany to YouTube suppressing Wuhan lab theories. Don't be ridiculous.
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.
Your definition of censorship is vastly different than mine and probably others here. That's the difference.
The Lancet,among the most respected and influential medical journals in the world, published a statement that roundly rejected the lab-leak hypothesis, effectively casting it as a xenophobic cousin to climate change denialism and anti-vaxxism.
Are you pretending that people weren’t called conspiracy nuts for suggesting the lab leak a year ago?
Paywall on the first link. No idea what Lancet is on the second link.
I'm just confused how being mocked for something is the same thing as censorship. I'm also confused by how a private company removing some videos on their own website is considered censorship as well.
The second was just a quote from the first link that I got from the AMT. Showing you that the lab theory was unacceptable for a year.
So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise. Okay. I feel like you're not even trying here.
I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.
The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.
Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media.
People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.
Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.
As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it.
even fauci said it was possible, but that it was unlikely and until it's proven, it's useless to speculate, and not only useless, it's dangerous from what we already saw of racists and how asians were being treated simply because that's where the virus was first discovered/reported.
I don’t think lab vs wet market makes any difference to someone willing to commit a hate crimes against Asians. But fot a year you were labeled a conspiracy nut for even considering the lab was a source. Posts were removed from social media for suggesting it. But no one had a problem spreading the wet market theory. But if the lab is possible, then we can’t know for sure it was the wet market either. I just don’t understand how one theory was acceptable to spread and the other labels you as a right wing nut. And the irony to me is the wet market theory seems much more offensive .You’re saying the culture embraced unsanitary conditions that created a global virus, vs a research lab had a leak. If it does actually make a difference, I bet the wet market theory is going to spread more hate and fear. I just don’t understand the reasoning for trying to silence the lab theory so much while embracing the wet market one, what’s to gain from it?
Give me an example where the mere suggestion was censored. I’ve asked several times on various platforms and have been met with shady sources, outright hard claims with no truth, and various whataboutisms without fail.
Supposedly videos were removed from YouTube and other social media that had people, even doctors, who promoted the lab theory. I don’t have links to show you, they were removed. Im not going to scroll through a year’s worth of comments here, but I would be shocked if there weren’t several members who mocked anyone considering the lab theory. Can you show me any indication where the wet market theory was censored or removed from social media? I’ve never heard of one. So the two theories didn’t receive equal treatment. One was accepted and one labeled you as a nut case, but in reality neither was proved and both are probably equally likely.
Just to be clear, are you suggesting that You Tube does not have teh right to remove videos, or should otherwise be prohibited by the gov't to remove videos?
No, I’m not suggestion that. Just pointing the different treatments the different theories got. One was accepted, the other censored and heavily mocked if you even brought it up. Neither have been proven and both are probably just as likely. I was also pointing out I don’t understand the reasoning behind holding into the wet market theory so tightly. The wet market doesn’t seem any more likely that a lab leak, especially considering where the virus first came from, the research lab being right there, China’s lack of cooperation, etc. But yet for a year it was unacceptable to question the wet market theory. And by unacceptable I mean you were mocked by many and sometimes censored by social media and accused of spreading misinformation.
So to be clear, are you like Bootlegger and think that gov't has a place to interfere in this, or are you just generally wondering, etc.?
I don’t think the govt has a place to interfere and I’m not just wondering. A comment was made that the two different theories received vastly different responses at first. I was just agreeing and pointing out examples of why I agree. Wet market theory was pushed and accepted by many, you were often called a conspiracy theorist for believing it could be the lab and your comments sometimes deleted. That doesn’t mean government needs to be involved. It doesn’t make sense to me that it happened, it didn’t have to. The only reason I could think of is that Trump supported the lab leak theory, so half the country felt the need to criticize anyone who thought it was plausible. Just a month or 2 after him leaving office it became an acceptable theory.
**because I know it’s coming, not literally half the country.
So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise. Okay. I feel like you're not even trying here.
I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.
The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.
Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media.
People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.
Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.
As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it.
even fauci said it was possible, but that it was unlikely and until it's proven, it's useless to speculate, and not only useless, it's dangerous from what we already saw of racists and how asians were being treated simply because that's where the virus was first discovered/reported.
I don’t think lab vs wet market makes any difference to someone willing to commit a hate crimes against Asians. But fot a year you were labeled a conspiracy nut for even considering the lab was a source. Posts were removed from social media for suggesting it. But no one had a problem spreading the wet market theory. But if the lab is possible, then we can’t know for sure it was the wet market either. I just don’t understand how one theory was acceptable to spread and the other labels you as a right wing nut. And the irony to me is the wet market theory seems much more offensive .You’re saying the culture embraced unsanitary conditions that created a global virus, vs a research lab had a leak. If it does actually make a difference, I bet the wet market theory is going to spread more hate and fear. I just don’t understand the reasoning for trying to silence the lab theory so much while embracing the wet market one, what’s to gain from it?
Give me an example where the mere suggestion was censored. I’ve asked several times on various platforms and have been met with shady sources, outright hard claims with no truth, and various whataboutisms without fail.
Supposedly videos were removed from YouTube and other social media that had people, even doctors, who promoted the lab theory. I don’t have links to show you, they were removed. Im not going to scroll through a year’s worth of comments here, but I would be shocked if there weren’t several members who mocked anyone considering the lab theory. Can you show me any indication where the wet market theory was censored or removed from social media? I’ve never heard of one. So the two theories didn’t receive equal treatment. One was accepted and one labeled you as a nut case, but in reality neither was proved and both are probably equally likely.
Just to be clear, are you suggesting that You Tube does not have teh right to remove videos, or should otherwise be prohibited by the gov't to remove videos?
No, I’m not suggestion that. Just pointing the different treatments the different theories got. One was accepted, the other censored and heavily mocked if you even brought it up. Neither have been proven and both are probably just as likely. I was also pointing out I don’t understand the reasoning behind holding into the wet market theory so tightly. The wet market doesn’t seem any more likely that a lab leak, especially considering where the virus first came from, the research lab being right there, China’s lack of cooperation, etc. But yet for a year it was unacceptable to question the wet market theory. And by unacceptable I mean you were mocked by many and sometimes censored by social media and accused of spreading misinformation.
So to be clear, are you like Bootlegger and think that gov't has a place to interfere in this, or are you just generally wondering, etc.?
I don’t think the govt has a place to interfere and I’m not just wondering. A comment was made that the two different theories received vastly different responses at first. I was just agreeing and pointing out examples of why I agree. Wet market theory was pushed and accepted by many, you were often called a conspiracy theorist for believing it could be the lab and your comments sometimes deleted. That doesn’t mean government needs to be involved. It doesn’t make sense to me that it happened, it didn’t have to. The only reason I could think of is that Trump supported the lab leak theory, so half the country felt the need to criticize anyone who thought it was plausible. Just a month or 2 after him leaving office it became an acceptable theory.
There is a Trump phenomenon here, that he created. He had such a habit of lying for his own benefit, it became reflexive to disagree with him because there was a deep suspicion that everything he said and did only benefitted him or tore down a political enemy.
don't be concerned about tech companies making decisions on what information you get. be concerned if some far right republicans get what they ask for, and that the government regulates what the tech companies can decide what information you get.
these tech companies are basing their decisions on public pressure. nothing more. so they are giving the public what they want.
*Tin Foil Hat Guy says they are telling you what you want, but make you think it was your choice*.
STFU, Tin Foil Hat Guy.
I mean, these guys are no different than fox news. they censor (by omission) everything about reality. people who understand that either just sit and laugh or turn the channel or turn it off. like anyone with facebook and twitter. eventually it go so fucking stupid I turned it off. we still have that ability.
this ain't orwellian like people like rogan want you to think it is. it only turns that way if the government gains control of it, which is exactly what Trump wanted to do.
this is just the digital version of telling some nutcase to stop shouting bullshit through a megaphone on your storefront property.
"every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"
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.”
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.
I would think spoon feeding and only allowing popular/accepted viewpoints would contribute to the dumbing down as well.
You're comparing some private company banning some videos to living in Nazi Germany?
Exactly, I'm equating Nazi Germany to YouTube suppressing Wuhan lab theories. Don't be ridiculous.
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.
Your definition of censorship is vastly different than mine and probably others here. That's the difference.
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:
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.
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.”
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.
I would think spoon feeding and only allowing popular/accepted viewpoints would contribute to the dumbing down as well.
You're comparing some private company banning some videos to living in Nazi Germany?
Exactly, I'm equating Nazi Germany to YouTube suppressing Wuhan lab theories. Don't be ridiculous.
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.
Your definition of censorship is vastly different than mine and probably others here. That's the difference.
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:
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.
all media companies do this now. it's no different, whether fox or cnn chooses to report on it or chooses to remove content they don't like. again, this isn't russia where the government is blocking the flow of information. it's private companies.
"every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"
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.”
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.
I would think spoon feeding and only allowing popular/accepted viewpoints would contribute to the dumbing down as well.
You're comparing some private company banning some videos to living in Nazi Germany?
Exactly, I'm equating Nazi Germany to YouTube suppressing Wuhan lab theories. Don't be ridiculous.
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.
Your definition of censorship is vastly different than mine and probably others here. That's the difference.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
But I thought social media couldn’t influence or change things, particularly elections?
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.”
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.
I would think spoon feeding and only allowing popular/accepted viewpoints would contribute to the dumbing down as well.
You're comparing some private company banning some videos to living in Nazi Germany?
Exactly, I'm equating Nazi Germany to YouTube suppressing Wuhan lab theories. Don't be ridiculous.
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.
Your definition of censorship is vastly different than mine and probably others here. That's the difference.
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:
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.
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.
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.
This is humorous.
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.
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.
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?
But I thought social media couldn’t influence or change things, particularly elections?
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.
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.”
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.
I would think spoon feeding and only allowing popular/accepted viewpoints would contribute to the dumbing down as well.
You're comparing some private company banning some videos to living in Nazi Germany?
Exactly, I'm equating Nazi Germany to YouTube suppressing Wuhan lab theories. Don't be ridiculous.
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.
Your definition of censorship is vastly different than mine and probably others here. That's the difference.
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:
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.
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.
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.
This is humorous.
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.
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.
"every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"
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.”
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.
I would think spoon feeding and only allowing popular/accepted viewpoints would contribute to the dumbing down as well.
You're comparing some private company banning some videos to living in Nazi Germany?
Exactly, I'm equating Nazi Germany to YouTube suppressing Wuhan lab theories. Don't be ridiculous.
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.
Your definition of censorship is vastly different than mine and probably others here. That's the difference.
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:
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.
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.
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.
This is humorous.
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.
you don't seem to understand what censorship is...
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, Pitt2
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.”
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.
I would think spoon feeding and only allowing popular/accepted viewpoints would contribute to the dumbing down as well.
You're comparing some private company banning some videos to living in Nazi Germany?
Exactly, I'm equating Nazi Germany to YouTube suppressing Wuhan lab theories. Don't be ridiculous.
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.
Your definition of censorship is vastly different than mine and probably others here. That's the difference.
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:
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.
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.
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.
This is humorous.
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.
you don't seem to understand what censorship is...
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 '14
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 '14
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.
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.
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.
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.
If everybody is cool with it then so be it.
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.
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.
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.
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.....
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 '14
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.
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.
If everybody is cool with it then so be it.
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?
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.
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.
If everybody is cool with it then so be it.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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. lol
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.
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.
If everybody is cool with it then so be it.
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.
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?
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.
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.
If everybody is cool with it then so be it.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
If everybody is cool with it then so be it.
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.
Comments
**because I know it’s coming, not literally half the country.
these tech companies are basing their decisions on public pressure. nothing more. so they are giving the public what they want.
*Tin Foil Hat Guy says they are telling you what you want, but make you think it was your choice*.
STFU, Tin Foil Hat Guy.
I mean, these guys are no different than fox news. they censor (by omission) everything about reality. people who understand that either just sit and laugh or turn the channel or turn it off. like anyone with facebook and twitter. eventually it go so fucking stupid I turned it off. we still have that ability.
this ain't orwellian like people like rogan want you to think it is. it only turns that way if the government gains control of it, which is exactly what Trump wanted to do.
this is just the digital version of telling some nutcase to stop shouting bullshit through a megaphone on your storefront property.
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.
Facebook - 30%
Google-30%
Youtube-30%
Other sources-10%"
But I thought social media couldn’t influence or change things, particularly elections?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Yet I am the one that is supposedly leading to censorship. How ironic.
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, Pitt2
https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship
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 '14
its a question of constitutionality imo...... and free market where the public is a driver in whats seen or not.
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 '14
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
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 '14
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.
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?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
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.