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

[CM156]

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.

Are you sure you intended this as a response to me? I was asking for clarification from Houseman for what he believes.

Yes. There would probably have to be some exceptions, but that's the gist of it.

That's a very bad idea.

 

[Houseman]

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.

Are we talking about rights or contracts? We seemed to have switched topics at some point.
You can't make racial discrimination okay by adding it into the contract. Some contracts are unenforceable, or perhaps even illegal.

I'm just arguing that there should be protection against political discrimination, even online, even under the domain of private companies, like how there's protection from racial discrimination.

Is there protection against racial discrimination online? If not, there probably should be.

That's a very bad idea.

Why do you think so?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

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.

I dunno part of the issue is about equal enforcement on social media etc.

E.G. Leslie Jones was free to set her followers on some-one telling them to "Get Em" Or right now a fairly well know Hollywood comedian is running round twitter telling certain politicians to go fuck themselves and that they're fascists. Or the time a Disney star went on a doxxing spree.

In another threat I found 10+ tweets easily of people encouraging others to attack or kill Donald Trump.

 

[CM156]

Why do you think so?

I think your comparison is comparing two very different things. People being unable to be hired due to their race is a far cry from people not being able to post whatever they want on Twitter.
People have all sorts of political views, some rational and some not so rational. To suggest that just because social media allows the former means it needs to allow the latter has no basis in the law.

Should big tech companies be broken up? Yes. And I think doing that will allow for more competition in the social media space.

 

[Houseman]

People have all sorts of political views, some rational and some not so rational. To suggest that just because social media allows the former means it needs to allow the latter has no basis in the law.

I know that it doesn't have any basis in law, but it should, because social media has amassed too much power and has become the new town square.

The case cited there speaks about whether or not the government can ban sex offenders from accessing social media (they can't), and not whether the businesses themselves can ban you, but they call it "the modern public square".

The problem is that it can't be both considered "the modern public square" and "privately owned".

 

[Schadrach]

without an iota of irony or consideration for the potential ramifications of their own positions.

I've noticed this as a habit. I think that too many of them believe that rules are only for applying against their opponents, and they should not be subject to them because they are "righteous". It doesn't help that big tech promotes this by not applying rules equally to them.

 

[CM156]

The problem is that it can't be both considered "the modern public square" and "privately owned".

Oh but it can.
And it is.

Remember what Voat was like?

Also, I looked at your court ruling. The court did not extend this "can't be prevented from social media use" to private companies, only to the government restricting it.
Simply put:
There are some things that the government can't do that private businesses can.
There are some things that private businesses can't do that the government can.
There are some things that neither can do.
And there are some things that both can do.

 

[Agema]

Are we talking about rights or contracts? We seemed to have switched topics at some point.

The problem is that your analogy doesn't work. see also #64.

 

[Dreiko]

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.

Search warrants just require the claim of reasonable suspicion by people looking to get in to a place they have no business getting into. It doesn't have to actually be reasonable. Some compromised judge just needs to deem it to be so. With the patriot act you had judges in shadow courts giving such warrants willy nilly and letting em spy on everyone. The cat is out of the bag, might as well have it catch some mice at least to make it work for all the fish it ate up to this point.


And my point here is that this thing you're trying to protect is already lost so might as well do some good for the little man at the expense of the 1% since we have already lost what we were supposed to be protecting with that particular principle of what a government should do. Otherwise only the bad guys will get anything out of its demise.

 

[Agema]

Search warrants just require the claim of reasonable suspicion by people looking to get in to a place they have no business getting into.

I honestly don't know how you can type that bollocks and expect it to be taken seriously. Reasonable suspicion of a crime literally makes it the police's business to be able to enter a place.

If your argument hinges on corrupt judges, then we may as well argue nobody should ever be convicted for murder on the basis that the coppers occasionally fit someone up.

And my point here is that this thing you're trying to protect is already lost so might as well do some good for the little man at the expense of the 1%...

Oh please. The only people on this forum genuinely against the 1% are the ones who are openly hard socialist. Everyone either doesn't mind or is posing.

 

[Gergar12]

It's the new public square, and yes for the day the left, and center-left have won due to AWS, and other services pulling down right-wing sites, but then those sites will just go underground, or offline.

In order to do the hard work of destroying Trumpism/radical extreme conservatism/authoritarianism you need

Get rid of 2A, and yes that includes me
Investigate all Police departments
Critical thinking, and civics courses in school
Economic Justice for rural areas

If you do all but the top one you will get a pending civil war
If you do all but the 2nd one you will get apartheid-lite
If you do all but the last one you will get Europe, and Canada with a racism backlash occurring, and the election of a conservative that cuts the welfare state for cities so we are all poor or hates people of color immigrating
If you do all but the 3rd one you will get Trump 2.0, but less mean

 

[stroopwafel]

They all have their own audience. Facebook is Karens, anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theories. Instagram is pretty girls. Tiktok is the kids. Twitter is an open sewer. Trumpers have..parler? Bit out of the loop here to be honest.

Who cares what corporation runs what. It's obvious by now they fulfill a basic need.

 

[Dreiko]

They all have their own audience. Facebook is Karens, anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theories. Instagram is pretty girls. Tiktok is the kids. Twitter is an open sewer. Trumpers have..parler? Bit out of the loop here to be honest.

Who cares what corporation runs what. It's obvious by now they fulfill a basic need.

I think Parler was canceled by amazon or something. Not sure how that works.


And twitter kinda varies based on how you use it. I just follow game companies and creators/voice actors I'm a fan of from Japan primarily, they're great and polite and so on. There's like, sub-groups, there's things like black twitter or anime twitter or pornstar twitter, so on and so long. If you stay out of the idiotic political bits it's pretty awesome. My feed is full of excited fans and new game info and cute images of dogs and stuff lol.

But yeah if you jump in the retarded political fray, it's cancer.

It's the new public square, and yes for the day the left, and center-left have won due to AWS, and other services pulling down right-wing sites, but then those sites will just go underground, or offline.

In order to do the hard work of destroying Trumpism/radical extreme conservatism/authoritarianism you need

Get rid of 2A, and yes that includes me
Investigate all Police departments
Critical thinking, and civics courses in school
Economic Justice for rural areas

If you do all but the top one you will get a pending civil war
If you do all but the 2nd one you will get apartheid-lite
If you do all but the last one you will get Europe, and Canada with a racism backlash occurring, and the election of a conservative that cuts the welfare state for cities so we are all poor or hates people of color immigrating
If you do all but the 3rd one you will get Trump 2.0, but less mean

Critical thinking would also destroy all of the SJW-themed infrastructure so that will never be included. Or if it is it will be a distorted biased version of it where being critical means accepting one side as correct and criticizing things for not adhering to it, as opposed to just being given the skills to make your own determination about whether something is right or wrong.


Remember, critical thinking is not about learning to think the right thing, it's about learning how to think, where that leads you will be shaped by a myriad of situational factors and it can even lead you to reaching an evil conclusion but if your process getting there was critical then that is still a valid one.

 

[Silvanus]

Who cares what corporation runs what. It's obvious by now they fulfill a basic need.

Sometimes they do; the basic needs for communication, connection, and a constantly-updating stream of current events. And sometimes, perhaps unintentionally, they co-opt that basic need. The user has a basic need to be kept abreast of current events; the social media company uncritically presents disinformation. The user believes their need is satisfied, but they're being used & lied to.

I say "perhaps unintentionally", because whilst the ultimate authors of disinformation are probably well aware of what they're doing, the social media platforms usually just promote them through the use of brainless algorithms. Of course, that doesn't let the social media companies off the hook. Negligence is little better than malice.

And that's why we should care which corporations run what. Some corporations are more negligent or malicious than others. And if too much market-share is concentrated in a single company, that company will have less and less compulsion to address its negligence or malice.

 

[stroopwafel]

Sometimes they do; the basic needs for communication, connection, and a constantly-updating stream of current events. And sometimes, perhaps unintentionally, they co-opt that basic need. The user has a basic need to be kept abreast of current events; the social media company uncritically presents disinformation. The user believes their need is satisfied, but they're being used & lied to.

I say "perhaps unintentionally", because whilst the ultimate authors of disinformation are probably well aware of what they're doing, the social media platforms usually just promote them through the use of brainless algorithms. Of course, that doesn't let the social media companies off the hook. Negligence is little better than malice.

And that's why we should care which corporations run what. Some corporations are more negligent or malicious than others. And if too much market-share is concentrated in a single company, that company will have less and less compulsion to address its negligence or malice.

Yeah, but it's also damned if you do damned if you don't situation. With the misinformation leading up to the Trump election social media companies said they were just a platform and not a journalistic media institution. Then four years later when they censor misinformation they get grilled for having to much say over 'free speech' by restricting people's access.

It's pretty obvious the social media companies themselves don't care about any of this. Their only real interest is user data and advertisers. Their politicial stance is whatever way the wind blows.

 

[Silvanus]

Yeah, but it's also damned if you do damned if you don't situation. With the misinformation leading up to the Trump election social media companies said they were just a platform and not a journalistic media institution. Then four years later when they censor misinformation they get grilled for having to much say over 'free speech' by restricting people's access.

They'll be condemned by someone-or-other whatever they do, sure, but that's in the very nature of having a stance at all.

 

[Schadrach]

I think Parler was canceled by amazon or something. Not sure how that works.

Amazon controls an almost shocking amount of the total computing power available, and as such a lot of sites (you'd be surprised how many sites that run at a large scale - most things that are big but not big enough to build multiple datacenters around the world for their own private use) are ran on Amazon AWS. Including Parler. Or at least they were. Now they need an alternative.

Critical thinking would also destroy all of the SJW-themed infrastructure so that will never be included. Or if it is it will be a distorted biased version of it where being critical means accepting one side as correct and criticizing things for not adhering to it, as opposed to just being given the skills to make your own determination about whether something is right or wrong.

Maybe they got critical thinking and critical theory confused?

 

[CaitSeith]

It's the town square argument.

Except twitter isn't a town square. It's more like a super popular food court in a mall.

 

[ObsidianJones]

Are you sure you intended this as a response to me? I was asking for clarification from Houseman for what he believes.


That's a very bad idea.

It actually was... tangentially. I was sort of jumping off of what you were responding to, in a sort of "I can't believe you had to address that" sort of thing. The slippery slope argument was directed to the person you were responding to. Not you. Again, I don't know who it is, but the very idea just... flipped a switch in my head.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Except twitter isn't a town square. It's more like a super popular food court in a mall.

It's becoming like it considering you know plague year etc.