I don't understand Social Media, Part Two: "Do people really feel Social Media is a Right?"

[ObsidianJones]

Following the insurrection of January 6th, 2021, Ex-President Donald Trump was de-platformed by most major Social Media sites. To me, I didn't think it's a big deal. I don't do social media to that extent (I'm sure this qualifies as some sort of social media).

But to see how people are acting, Social Media might as well thrown him in the most inhumane jail there is. People are acting like this is some gross overreach of Social Media's powers. Insurrectionists are on record saying they were there at the call of Donald Trump. That they heard his message spread via his media.

Hell, several times Facebook and Twitter rewrote their rules to accommodate Trump still on the platform. Don't people think that inciting an attack on the capitol of the United States of America is enough to warrant a strong response?

But this is old news. We already have a thread about how Trump was banned. What I'm trying to wrap my head around is why people are so angry at the decision of removing a man who lead a cult to an angry insurrection? Like somehow, that made them aware that the rules might actually apply... and they shouldn't. That removing someone's ability to scream their nonsense on the internet will somehow dehumanize them.

I can be blocked by this site tomorrow. I will be bummed. I will go on. The Escapist will not hire people to follow me every day of the week to make sure I can't talk to anyone. I will still be able to talk. Not being able to access Social Media really means what? Social Media isn't a given right. That's why we're not given handles at birth or when we become teenagers or whatever. There isn't a social media part of the government that must make sure our social media rights are held.

Can someone please explain why this is such a big deal to people? It's social media. You have rules you need to adhere to when you sign up. You break them, you lose your ability to use it. Am I missing how these things work?

 

[Houseman]

What I'm trying to wrap my head around is why people are so angry at the decision of removing a man who lead a cult to an angry insurrection?

If you really want to understand the answer, stop asking loaded questions.

Not being able to access Social Media really means what?

Imagine if Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc., were all staunchly Republican owned and operated. Imagine if they suppressed, censored, or manipulated search results in order to harm Democrat or left-leaning views and opinions. Combined, they would have control over what hundreds of millions of people see and think. They would effectively control the winner of every election. Any alternative sites would be attacked, demonized, and shut down.

Do you see how that could be bad?

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Food water and shelter/safety should all be a right, not data harvesting echo chambers. Also Zukkaberg needs to be tried for enabling war crimes and so much more, but whatevs. Freeze peach bullshit or something, prioritise inciting hate crimes, misinformation and terrorism is just sooooo much more important than human life itself, especially for emotionless manipulative psychopaths!

 

[bluegate]

Right wing nutters do.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Can someone please explain why this is such a big deal to people?

Did the last nine months just not happen, or did I hallucinate that the majority of the year was spent under lockdown and most people's predominant (if not only) social outlet was social media?

 

[ObsidianJones]

Did the last nine months just not happen, or did I hallucinate that the majority of the year was spent under lockdown and most people's predominant (if not only) social outlet was social media?

When I'm talking about Social media, I am talking about Twitter and apps like that. You could always call. Again, this is probably me being an introvert more than anyone else, but if you didn't have social media, you had your phone, and the video functionality there in.

And personally, I did the zoom thing. It was more chaotic than regularly hanging out. I can easily chalk up not getting why people like social media to me being an introvert, but I do not get why people consider it to be a right.

 

[BrawlMan]

And personally, I did the zoom thing. It was more chaotic than regularly hanging out. I can easily chalk up not getting why people like social media to me being an introvert, but I do not get why people consider it to be a right.

Because some people are selfish, entitled, buttholes that believe everything belongs to them on a silver platter. Regardless if they deserve it or not. And expect everyone to suck their genitals and deal with it, or believe what they say have no consequences.

 

[happyninja42]

Following the insurrection of January 6th, 2021, Ex-President Donald Trump was de-platformed by most major Social Media sites. To me, I didn't think it's a big deal. I don't do social media to that extent (I'm sure this qualifies as some sort of social media).

But to see how people are acting, Social Media might as well thrown him in the most inhumane jail there is. People are acting like this is some gross overreach of Social Media's powers. Insurrectionists are on record saying they were there at the call of Donald Trump. That they heard his message spread via his media.

Hell, several times Facebook and Twitter rewrote their rules to accommodate Trump still on the platform. Don't people think that inciting an attack on the capitol of the United States of America is enough to warrant a strong response?

But this is old news. We already have a thread about how Trump was banned. What I'm trying to wrap my head around is why people are so angry at the decision of removing a man who lead a cult to an angry insurrection? Like somehow, that made them aware that the rules might actually apply... and they shouldn't. That removing someone's ability to scream their nonsense on the internet will somehow dehumanize them.

I can be blocked by this site tomorrow. I will be bummed. I will go on. The Escapist will not hire people to follow me every day of the week to make sure I can't talk to anyone. I will still be able to talk. Not being able to access Social Media really means what? Social Media isn't a given right. That's why we're not given handles at birth or when we become teenagers or whatever. There isn't a social media part of the government that must make sure our social media rights are held.

Can someone please explain why this is such a big deal to people? It's social media. You have rules you need to adhere to when you sign up. You break them, you lose your ability to use it. Am I missing how these things work?

It's a big deal because they equate someone having access to a service provided by a company, to the first amendment right of free speech, and any time someone gets shut down in such a way, they claim it's censorship, and thus a crime, and unamerican. "They're trying to silence him!! Silence the truth!" blah blah. Fact is, a LOT of people, think they have the right to just say anything, to anyone, at any time, in any context, and it's ok. I recall at an old job of mine, there were 2 women in a training class I was taking, for a new bit of software we were learning about. One of the women is lesbian, and the other CLEARLY didn't like this, and kept making barbed comments to her about her orientation. And when she finally got tired of it and called her out on it, the offending woman blew up, yelling at the top of her lungs "Well I'm a child of GAWD, and he says what you do is a sin! So I can say what I want!" or something to that effect, I'm paraphrasing a bit. But she did try and declare her right to insult people around her, and expect to have ZERO consequences to it, because GEEEZUS! So, basically, there are a lot of fucking idiotic people in this world, that think they shouldn't suffer consequences to their actions, and that they should be able to do anything they want, at any time. So if they are blocked for breaking the rules of a platform, (rules they likely didn't even fucking read, because who reads the EULA stuff?) they lose their shit, and claim foul.

 

[Revnak]

Social Media shouldn’t exist, next question.

 

[Agema]

Social media is here to stay and will continue to be increasingly important. But its domination by quasi-monopolistic big players should be broken up: more entrants will be good for competition, and also to provide more ranges of views and attitudes.

If people want a genuine social media "public space", they should lobby government to properly fund, build and maintain one.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Social Media shouldn’t exist, next question.

So much this. Social media has always been by far the worst media and the other medias are already 90% crap.

 

[SilentPony]

The only thing Social media has done is shown us how full of shit the boomers are when they say millennials are the worst generation ever. Turns out everyone was shit, always, all the time, they just didn't have a microphone to the world.

 

[happyninja42]

The idea of a globally networked communication system that everyone can participate in, is NOT a bad thing. The problem is that it's really terribly regulated, and is rife for exploitation and abuse. Bottom line, if we are eventually going to actually reach the point of having a "global society", we will need ways to communicate with each other across the globe. And frankly, social media does that VERY well. It's just the content, and the oversight of that content, needs some MAJOR rethinking, and updating for the modern world. And having it being run by ancient turtles from a generation even older than MINE, (mine being the last generation that really knew what it was like to grow up without a computer/cell phone), is just not how you move forward with it.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

It's the town square argument.

If Apple owns the town square where can you speak?

You home?

Well most people have mortgages which are owned by banks which are private companies which if they wanted to be assholes could call for all your mortgage payment to be repaid as they were dropping you, they're private companies their services aren't a right.

Going back to Apple you can't protest outside a number of Apple store, did you know that? You know why? Apple bought the spaces from local governments, Apple owns some of the formerly public spaces round their stores.

As has been shown by the literal global pandemic the internet is something where there needs to be a town square as such for people to talk for if / when we can't talk outside. The bigger issue being how a handful of companies now have become essentially the internet corporate congress. They use protections on their speech by government but act like their own small government denying other companies the same rights and protections just on a whim.

If you really want to see a "What could happen" example I strongly recommend the series Continuum.

 

[Eacaraxe]

You could always call.

Well, there's the other 90% of the problem, now isn't it. Call using whose products, and on whose services?

I'ma let you in on a little secret. Let's take Gab, Parler, Minds, and all these other little upstarts that have been set up and knocked down by the politico-media complex over the last few years. Scratch the surface, and you find that assets owned by Fidelity, BlackRock, Vanguard, and SSgA are being weaponized to manufacture consent for other assets owned by Fidelity, BlackRock, Vanguard, and SSgA, defunding competition to and therefore protecting assets owned by Fidelity, BlackRock, Vanguard, and SSgA.

When the "real", supposed, competition is actually owned by the same damn corporations: Disney, Comcast, Visa, and of course, Twitter. I don't believe I need to remind you two of those corporations in that little rogue's gallery are coincidentally the two biggest telecoms in the country that enjoy a state-mandated duopoly on internet access.

You think "hate speech" and "extremism" are the real causes? What happened during the YT adpocalypses, again? Where's the action against Twitter and Facebook? I hear a whole lot of talking, fuck-all for doing. Funny, that.

 

[ObsidianJones]

Well, there's the other 90% of the problem, now isn't it. Call using whose products, and on whose services?

I'ma let you in on a little secret. Let's take Gab, Parler, Minds, and all these other little upstarts that have been set up and knocked down by the politico-media complex over the last few years. Scratch the surface, and you find that assets owned by Fidelity, BlackRock, Vanguard, and SSgA are being weaponized to manufacture consent for other assets owned by Fidelity, BlackRock, Vanguard, and SSgA, defunding competition to and therefore protecting assets owned by Fidelity, BlackRock, Vanguard, and SSgA.

When the "real", supposed, competition is actually owned by the same damn corporations: Disney, Comcast, Visa, and of course, Twitter. I don't believe I need to remind you two of those corporations in that little rogue's gallery are coincidentally the two biggest telecoms in the country that enjoy a state-mandated duopoly on internet access.

You think "hate speech" and "extremism" are the real causes? What happened during the YT adpocalypses, again? Where's the action against Twitter and Facebook? I hear a whole lot of talking, fuck-all for doing. Funny, that.

The fundamental fallacy of Laissez-Faire Economics is that while the government can't interfere, there are little to no checks and balances on the companies themselves. You'll get a slap on the wrist like the break up of Facebook because of a monopoly, but most companies start from humble beginnings and the successful ones own lobbying firms to get their tax breaks complete with the government applauding their acts on one hand and accepting their bribes with the other.

Big Corps are either going to invent new avenues with shiny new brand names that don't point back to the parent, or use their tax breaks for Mergers and Acquisitions existing properties.

That's Capitalisms.

But I wasn't issued my state-ran telephone number and decided that I wanted the private option. A phone is a device that I didn't make using a service that I don't have. If we want to get into the weeds, it is bullshit that I can't even use radio waves and I must be regulated by the FCC if I want to. But barring that, the companies erected the towers, has use of a satellite, has their CDMA or GMS network, and then does the maintenance for it. When I buy a phone, I'm paying for their services. And they are supposed to provide it as long as I keep the payments up. When money exchanges hands, they have a contract to uphold as well as I do.

No money, no phone.

And from there, I can enjoy a little more freedom than Twitter or these public things. I'm not paying for it, the companies involved don't owe me anything. I am there at their liking. Given that they aren't actually getting anything from me and they formed the company as a business venture, and not an altruistic endeavor, they can cut me off at any time it becomes prudent to them. That's Capitalism.

 

[Houseman]

Given that they aren't actually getting anything from me

They're harvesting your data and showing you ads. They are getting plenty from you. You are the product itself.

 

[Burnhardt]

Can someone please explain why this is such a big deal to people? It's social media. You have rules you need to adhere to when you sign up. You break them, you lose your ability to use it. Am I missing how these things work?

Because they are idiots who think the US Constitution applies everywhere.

And when I say everywhere I mean everywhere. Which includes not only outside of the US, and it territories, but also the Internet.

 

[Eacaraxe]

The fundamental fallacy of Laissez-Faire Economics is that while the government can't interfere, there are little to no checks and balances on the companies themselves. You'll get a slap on the wrist like the break up of Facebook because of a monopoly, but most companies start from humble beginnings and the successful ones own lobbying firms to get their tax breaks complete with the government applauding their acts on one hand and accepting their bribes with the other.

Big Corps are either going to invent new avenues with shiny new brand names that don't point back to the parent, or use their tax breaks for Mergers and Acquisitions existing properties.

That's Capitalisms.

But I wasn't issued my state-ran telephone number and decided that I wanted the private option. A phone is a device that I didn't make using a service that I don't have. If we want to get into the weeds, it is bullshit that I can't even use radio waves and I must be regulated by the FCC if I want to. But barring that, the companies erected the towers, has use of a satellite, has their CDMA or GMS network, and then does the maintenance for it. When I buy a phone, I'm paying for their services. And they are supposed to provide it as long as I keep the payments up. When money exchanges hands, they have a contract to uphold as well as I do.

No money, no phone.

And from there, I can enjoy a little more freedom than Twitter or these public things. I'm not paying for it, the companies involved don't owe me anything. I am there at their liking. Given that they aren't actually getting anything from me and they formed the company as a business venture, and not an altruistic endeavor, they can cut me off at any time it becomes prudent to them. That's Capitalism.

Getting some real battered wife energy from this point. You're going to point out every systemic flaw inherent to capitalism, then simply just say "well, that's the way things are, may as well lube up ahead of time and try to enjoy it"?

I mean hell, it's awful damn funny you deadass go straight to the telephone as apologia for this. I'm old enough to remember Ma Bell. Hell my dad worked for Ma Bell when I was a kid, he got laid off when the federal government Sherman'ed its ass. And guess what, Ma Bell's back, bigger and more influential than ever; only difference is we traded in rotary phones for modems, and took a couple steps backward when we traded party lines for shared bandwidth and long distance fees for data caps, throttling, and usage fees.

And by the way, those private companies don't pay for infrastructure construction and maintenance. You do, Mr. Taxpayer. All while those private companies under-deliver, defraud their own customers with zero legal recourse on customers' part, protect their monopolies through bribery and anti-competitive business practices, reap the profits, and pay little to no taxes in return.

Then we wring our hands and wonder why or how the US has some of the worst internet service, in terms of quality of access and access itself, at the highest prices, among the developed world.

That's Capitalism.

 

[ObsidianJones]

Getting some real battered wife energy from this point. You're going to point out every systemic flaw inherent to capitalism, then simply just say "well, that's the way things are, may as well lube up ahead of time and try to enjoy it"?

I mean hell, it's awful damn funny you deadass go straight to the telephone as apologia for this. I'm old enough to remember Ma Bell. Hell my dad worked for Ma Bell when I was a kid, he got laid off when the federal government Sherman'ed its ass. And guess what, Ma Bell's back, bigger and more influential than ever; only difference is we traded in rotary phones for modems, and took a couple steps backward when we traded party lines for shared bandwidth and long distance fees for data caps, throttling, and usage fees.

And by the way, those private companies don't pay for infrastructure construction and maintenance. You do, Mr. Taxpayer. All while those private companies under-deliver, defraud their own customers with zero legal recourse on customers' part, protect their monopolies through bribery and anti-competitive business practices, reap the profits, and pay little to no taxes in return.

Then we wring our hands and wonder why or how the US has some of the worst internet service, in terms of quality of access and access itself, at the highest prices, among the developed world.

That's Capitalism.

You misunderstand.

I'm going to point out every flaw inherent to capitalism and go "Isn't this what you all wanted?".

This is the system that people hold onto and say "WELL IT'S BETTER THAN ANYTHING ELSE WE HAVE. Socialism, Communism, anything other is just rubbish and we're great here no matter how much we've been screwed by it".

The same people on the Right who are usually decrying Trump's banning the loudest are in conflict with the very thing they supposedly treasure more than anything else: The Unregulated Might of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. It perplexes me.

I am not bewildered by the autonomy that a business that produces a free service (meaning that the customer isn't paying, but their actual involvement will somehow produce revenue) has over that service. Thereby their dictation on how you are to use that service seems like it should rest in the purview of the company itself, as long as said rules don't interfere with the laws of Government in which they operate in.

And you're absolutely right about the telephone company part. It slipped my mind from when I was learning Insurance. But again, this is where I am just perplexed on why people are so Gung-ho about Capitalism when it takes every opportunity to screw over the average people within it. As you pointed out, we still don't have high speed internet. Partly because their lobbyists made sure to have states outlaw a model that could bring high speed internet to the masses.

But again, this is my point. People fight, scream, yell, and try to overthrow a government because "MY CAPITIALIST AMERICA IS THE GREATEST! NO ONE SHOULD TAKE ANYTHING FROM ME!!!"... but they are signing up to have everything mandated by companies that are only beholden to American laws in terms of giving everyone equal opportunity to get screwed over by their 'service'.

If you don't want the Government to rule over Companies, then they are largely left to their own devices. You have no rights. You have what barest of minimums they can give you while getting a gigantic profit. So why is anyone shocked that this stuff happens?