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

[Houseman]

Because one set of rich dudes wanted taxes to cross the world and benefit them?

And the other set of rich dudes wanted to not give them those taxes?

Great, now apply that to this case.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

The batshit authoritarian lady, of course, has an absolute right to stay on the Enterprise-D and yell and scream in Ten Forward for however long she wants about the fabricated treason of the movement for Black lives Starfleet officers with Romulan ancestry, the wishes of Capt. Picard and the rest of the crew notwithstanding.

So you're all in favour of forging the first link against people you don't like? All because you think they MIGHT be a threat to some-one?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

And what discussions precisely were these? "Please join my direct action gun ownership group that supports Trump" is not actionable, is it? Nor is "Let's go to Washington to attend Trump's speech and protest about our stolen democracy", because many public protests are legal. It is absolutely true that Facebook, Twitter and so on could and will have been used as recruitment and organisational tools for people who stormed Congress. But nor can Facebook or Twitter reasonably ban them unless they breach a code or do something outside the platform that is illegal.

Well yes, apparently even more obvious things were being said in facebook group lol

One might also note the irony of people saying FB and Twitter are anti-conservative, and then arguing conservatives recruited and planned assault on the legislature on it. Umm...

They can be both incompetent and biased.

Yes, maybe Parler is a problem in ways FB or Twitter are not. The reality of social media is that people put unacceptable material up outside the control of the platform owners. The mark of responsibility we're holding here is to have functional processes to remove it and I guess some transparency over the processes.

Which Parler did have. All that were found was a handful of posts from new accounts that were less than 24 hours old.

As was stated post #112 as of November 2020 Parler had effectively no way of identifying forms problematic material (outside, maybe, another user reporting it). We're not just talking about sloppy standards, inconsistency, etc. There was apparently nothing there, and there still wasn't by Jan 6th. This could be reasonably be held a worse standard than their larger competitors. Whilst I don't particularly love the big market players and all their arseholery, nor do we really need crappy minnows either, especially those deliberately feeding on civil disorder for market share.

Twitter has such inconsistent standards that human reports being looked at by a human would be a step up.

Also there obviously were systems on Parler or it would have been flooded with illegal porn. The kind of which Twitter was reported as failing to remove.

Brand association can matter, but new brands can always be made. Many companies do have values that they can believe in institutionally, although these can be diluted over time. I can believe that Google, upon inception, did have an altruistic nature inbuilt by its founder and perhaps in some way it still does. But little survives when the dead-eyed investors and businessmen take over and make their presence felt, because chances are they don't give a monkey's about anything but the bottom line.

True but brand associations can be a bit different to brand values

Lone psychopaths aren't much worth worrying about for the most part, the problem are organisations and ideologies. Whilst I accept that there will always be some people who are always going to find something to make them go out and kill, I think a more substantial number are encouraged to by people and ideas around them.

Well the internet is a wonderful tool for such people to find one another and organise. Also ideas like they're saving the world and their actions are heroic and historic and will go down in history books etc. It might not sound like something that should be seen as an issue but can become one when executives etc start being targeted.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Off course they'll fall back on the "private company" argument. It has been used so often by the (far) right to defend racist or sexist business practices in the past that it just too satisfying not to throw it back at them now they're whining about their shitty tweets. But that doesn't usually represent their real opinion, which is why most (if not all) also add justifications to explain whether they actually agree or not with the decision and why.

I don't know, maybe the US would have something like the NHS?

Well it seems now people are more than happy to use that reasoning and will be until it bites then in the ass again. It's setting a bad precedent and I said as much before. But hey what goes around comes around and I'm sure people will be more than happy to remind people of them celebrating stuff when it does come back round.

 

[Seanchaidh]

So you're all in favour of forging the first link against people you don't like? All because you think they MIGHT be a threat to some-one?

The first? The first? You're being ridiculous.

 

[Avnger]

The first? The first? You're being ridiculous.

I honestly think he's just that privileged. It occurring before has never even crossed his mind.

 

[Agema]

Well yes, apparently even more obvious things were being said in facebook group lol
...
Which Parler did have. All that were found was a handful of posts from new accounts that were less than 24 hours old.

"Apparently"? So have you got some real evidence here, or is this just what the randos on whatever right-wing chat board you use say?

For instance, you're there claiming Parler had all these protections up, but #112 is explicitly saying otherwise, with added detail that makes it seem like he has a better idea what he's talking about.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

"Apparently"? So have you got some real evidence here, or is this just what the randos on whatever right-wing chat board you use say?

For instance, you're there claiming Parler had all these protections up, but #112 is explicitly saying otherwise, with added detail that makes it seem like he has a better idea what he's talking about.

Shadowy PAC once funded by Trump ally Mercer promoted Capitol Hill march that led to riot

A mysterious political action committee that claims to back Black Republicans has been promoting rallies tied to false claims of election fraud against Trump.

www.cnbc.com

The Black Conservatives Fund, which has more than 80,000 followers on Facebook, called on people to come to the rally on Wednesday as well as the ensuing march on Capitol Hill.

Trump followers organised their attacks on the Capitol building in plain sight on social media

The violence in Washington was organised and encouraged on both mainstream and alt social media platforms before pro-Donald Trump supporters stormed the Capitol building

inews.co.uk

Facebook groups: both hidden and open

Protestors had used Facebook groups, many of which were private and rely more heavily on administrators to police content than the company’s own moderation efforts, to mobilise support for the attacks.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

The first? The first? You're being ridiculous.

True by this stage were on about the 8th link

I honestly think he's just that privileged. It occurring before has never even crossed his mind.

I dunno you have to be pretty privileged in life that nasty words online are the biggest issue in your life. I just prefer to play the game of "Fair is fair" in regards to things.

 

[Agema]

Shadowy PAC once funded by Trump ally Mercer promoted Capitol Hill march that led to riot

A mysterious political action committee that claims to back Black Republicans has been promoting rallies tied to false claims of election fraud against Trump.

www.cnbc.com

I reiterate: recruiting people to attend a speech on public land is not, per se, an actionable offence on social media.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I reiterate: recruiting people to attend a speech on public land is not, per se, an actionable offence on social media.

unless anyone said anything people didn't like about I dunno going inside the building.

Or you know people think it was a clear dogwhistle.