I don't understand Social Media, Part Two: "Do people really feel Social Media is a Right?"
- Thread starter ObsidianJones
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It entitles them to protections in exchange for certain things. It's also rights they don't seem to care about others having to greater or lesser degrees. Remove companies rights and the people in said companies still would have their own rights. It would just be now companies wouldn't be treated as thought they are people.
illegal stuff as oppose to all the other sites on AWS that I'm sure are perfectly good and nice like I dunno twitter which literally only got round to banning pedophile networks in the past year.
No no, see, they'd only be held liable for stuff their users post if they have any moderation at all whatsoever. If they gave complete and total free reign to every botnet, terrorist, state actor, scam artist, click farm, porn aggregator, neo-nazi, and bit coin miner, they'd be in the clear.
I believe there was several incidents in Indonesia of sectarian violence, and I think there’s an open international legal case related to one in Ethiopia. Of course just dozens in India. Aside from that, there’s been mountains of close calls in Latin America, possibly avoided solely because Spanish is a language some of their administrators know. WhatsApp is partially responsible for Bolsonaro’s election for example (yes I know that’s Portuguese not Spanish). Brazil is one of the places where Silicon Valley execs decided to do “market expansion” by offering free internet but only to access particular social media sites, so people will post links to fake articles alleging blood libels that nobody can actually check. Same thing occurs in the Philippines. Aside from some podcasts on Facebook’s fuckups I don’t know of many sources on this personally though. If you’re interested, I’d recommend the Behind the Bastards episodes on Facebook, though I get if you don’t trust a leftist podcast being recommended by a communist.
Moralism. Meaningless. Goals matter. Ideals and principles are just new religions. If your goals require or allow you to utilize detestable means, you had shitty goals.
- May 6, 2020
- 1,134
- 1,214
- 118
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- White Male
Thank you for your reply. It was well thought out. I was aware of the instances in India.
As for your suggestion: I'm willing to give everyone a fair shake.
Even communists.
It's a complicated issue.
It's all very well to say that platform X is some company's property and their rules apply, but then some platforms have serious power, and can do serious evil. Having the government regulate that makes a lot of sense until you remember that the government also can do serious evil.
Banning Trump from a social media platform is not remotely the same as blocking random person Y for breach of their terms of service (or in practice, ignoring actual breaches and banning someone complaining about this, as often happens). It is an extreme act, and setting a dangerous precedent. OTOH, Trump remains cartoonishly evil and everyone should have done this ages ago, you're not supposed to treat the PotUS like that, but that's on the firm understanding that the PotUS doesn't deserve/require being treated like that.
It's all very well to say that platform X is some company's property and their rules apply, but then some platforms have serious power, and can do serious evil. Having the government regulate that makes a lot of sense until you remember that the government also can do serious evil.
Banning Trump from a social media platform is not remotely the same as blocking random person Y for breach of their terms of service (or in practice, ignoring actual breaches and banning someone complaining about this, as often happens). It is an extreme act, and setting a dangerous precedent. OTOH, Trump remains cartoonishly evil and everyone should have done this ages ago, you're not supposed to treat the PotUS like that, but that's on the firm understanding that the PotUS doesn't deserve/require being treated like that.
I think you are forgetting that companies are property, owned by shareholders. They have some independent legal status as entities in their own right, but what you mean by taking away companies' rights in this case is taking away rights of their owners to run their own property.
Would you like it if the government declared your house public property, and demanded you let anyone into your front room to say whatever they liked?
The government already has the power to do that when there is a need with things like search warrants or eminent domain. Protecting the livelihood of people is just as important as catching someone who sells drugs, if not more so.
FB relevant sources, updated links, apart from whatever is on the instagram one, as am not wanting to make a profile to check
- https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-n...ions-members-facebook-documents-show-n1236317
- https://archive.is/rCvAy#selection-1323.0-1327.269
- https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/facebook-ignore-political-manipulation-whistleblower-memo
- https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/facebook-failed-kenosha?bfsource=relatedmanual
- https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/facebook-employee-leaks-show-they-feel-betrayed
- https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/facebook-zuckerberg-what-if-trump-disputes-election-results?bfsource=relatedmanual
- https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-haircut-explained-augustus-caesar-2019-10
- https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/...rberg-fix-facebook-before-it-breaks-democracy
- https://www.theguardian.com/comment...tracts-mark-zuckerberg-roman-hardman-augustus
- https://time.com/5880118/myanmar-rohingya-genocide-facebook-gambia/
- https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xg897a/hate-speech-on-facebook-is-pushing-ethiopia-dangerously-close-to-a-genocide
- (The Boy Kings: A Journey into the Heart of the Social Network book link, not showing on preview, but that's what is meant to be here. It keeps trying to turn it into a media for some reason)
Last edited:
You probably wouldn't have complained when laws were passed to say "you can't fire or refuse to hire someone because they're black". You wouldn't have used the "but that's taking away their rights!" argument then, right?
It's not a right they should have, just like racial discrimination is not a right they should have. I wouldn't feel bad about taking it away.
Robert Evans is a hero, turning libs into anarchists through jokes about machetes and Raytheon.
- May 6, 2020
- 1,134
- 1,214
- 118
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- White Male
I think it's a very good interview. He not only articulates a point I strongly agree with (supporting the UK in the Falklands war), but answers questions clearly and directly.
Just so we're clear here, are you saying that they shouldn't have the right to discriminate as to what sort of speech they allow on their website? Or at the very least, are you suggesting that they shouldn't be able to discriminate on the basis of something that's normally a protected class?
Well if my front room was open letting people in to use it anyway as part of the business I'd say governments would have some say. Same with people who run some home business etc still have to abide by regulations.
I mean I've drunk in some pubs that were not much more than a converted front room size wise lol
Search warrants require the reasonable suspicion of a crime, and are not a reasonable comparison.
Eminent domain certainly is a reasonable comparison. The government can do it, but the point is not that the government can but whether it should.
I think it's interesting you don't see a difference between discriminating against someone on the basis of their race and declining to do business with someone who has failed to honour their contract.
I don't even want to see who that's addressed to.
This is the kind of slippery slope argument that people tried to assign to gays having rights, but this time actually hurtful.
To have the right to say whatever you want on a website is, just ignoring the radicalization of millions of republicans, harmful to others for the simple reason of to allow these type of speak on websites means to scale back or prohibit criminalization of this speech. To be able to say anything, there wouldn't have to be any consequence. To have no consequence is to have nothing but morality to keep people in check. And if that was enough, this world would
The idea that someone can freely dehumanize others but expect them to treat everyone as an equal individual is so laughably backwards, it can only be born of malignancy. If people were so inherently good, we would not need laws. We would not bother with any of this government.
We've literally seen the growing anger and hatred created by words from this American Government, and how it was left unchecked. We saw people deciding to live in their bubbles, happily drinking in their hate Demagoguery every night.
Free Speech should stay what it actually always have been.
Hey, by the way, I wanted to look up the Fourteenth Amendment to give more context on it. And I saw this beauty here
So... It seems with all the gerrymandering, voter suppression and purges... It seems that the Republican controlled Southern states might have shot themselves in the foot?
And good news! Hey Trump Family. Everyone who spoke about the meeting and how they needed to fight for the rights of this country... Kind of prevented yourselves from ever holding office again. Kind of a short sighted move there.