The Donald vs Big Tech

[hellfire]

If the Irish times posted a two page article saying that Caomhaoin was a shithead he could rightly sue them. If Facebook and Twitter move towards taking editorial decisions then they should also be liable as their content is now filtered.

Why would you want Twitter to be libel for someone saying something about Caomhaoin on Twitter? Surely the person should just take responsibility for their comments? I'm seeing stats of 500 million tweets a day? Would you be bothered starting such a platform

Or what am I missing here?

You're missing that they use protections that assume they are not responsible for user content while taking editorial decisions on said content. You can't do both. I know there is a small amount of censorship required to comply with law, but they have gone way further than that.

[mickO)))]

Mark Zuckerberg has a far left agenda? A guy who just signed a $100 million contract with a multinational corporation is a leftie? Yup, the political thermometers are well and truly fucked.

I can't remember now, but I think I replied the Koolade to you when you suggested in another thread that there are groups of people whose present intent is to establish Stalinism as a form of government in the west. Putting two and two together, are you suggesting that the heads of Twitter and Facebook, who you describe as "far left", are trying to steer governance towards Stalinism? I don't know who your particular Jim Jones is/are, but they're doing a fine number on you.

In response to the Stalinism from the other thread have you ever heard of a group called Antifa?

Also where did I mention Stalinism in this thread? A reach as always.

Not much point in trying to argue with someone who thinks illegal immigration doesn't exist and China holds no responsibility in the current pandemic. It's all just a right wing conspiracy theory isn't it?

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

I clearly said that illegal immigrants do exist, but that not everyone called an illegal immigrant is one. And China has some responsibility, but they're not responsible for other countries royally fucking up how they responded, nor are they solely responsible for how tightly enmeshed the western world is with their economy; we got into their shitty bed because we thought it was to our advantage, I believe is the metaphor I used; there's therefore only so much weight we can give to the complaint that we've now got shit on us.

[pete]

If the Irish times posted a two page article saying that Caomhaoin was a shithead he could rightly sue them. If Facebook and Twitter move towards taking editorial decisions then they should also be liable as their content is now filtered.

Why would you want Twitter to be libel for someone saying something about Caomhaoin on Twitter? Surely the person should just take responsibility for their comments? I'm seeing stats of 500 million tweets a day? Would you be bothered starting such a platform

Or what am I missing here?

You're missing that they use protections that assume they are not responsible for user content while taking editorial decisions on said content. You can't do both. I know there is a small amount of censorship required to comply with law, but they have gone way further than that.

No I understand the protections given by Section 230.

When you say they can't do both, do you mean 230 states that now and they are breaking the rules or you don't believe you should be able to do both and that 230 needs to be updated or whatever.

It's my understanding that moderating the platform does not cause you to lose the protection?

[hellfire]

230 is the only thing that prevents them being sued for bias. A number of lawsuits regarding bias have been stopped by this.

A platform hosts content. A media outlet sets editorial standards, controls content. If they want to be a media company then they should have to comply with the same standards. If they want to be a platform then censorship should only be enforced to comply with the law.

[pete]

230 is the only thing that prevents them being sued for bias. A number of lawsuits regarding bias have been stopped by this.

A platform hosts content. A media outlet sets editorial standards, controls content. If they want to be a media company then they should have to comply with the same standards. If they want to be a platform then censorship should only be enforced to comply with the law.

I think we need 230 though - maybe I am bias as I find Twitter and other social media handy!
I think we need them to not be libel for our content and also they need to be able to moderate it otherwise it just turns into a mess.

[hellfire]

Read back through the thread. I've made what I was saying pretty clear by now.

[mugz]

this thread is full of comments that sounded impressive back in the day, but for people who are still relatively young, you don't seem to understand how much has changed in the last 3 months.

the past 2 decades are now being seen as a massive error; our best years were in those years, but we couldn't keep going in that direction as a culture, as a prison planet, as an experiment.

there is no left or right, there is no 'censorship' vs internet freedom, social media was toxic even by the standards of the people who put it out there as a control mechanism in the first place. there is no Trump, in the sense most people think at least, zuckerberg, ohanian, dorsey, bill gates, they're all figureheads for  things they can't force you to choose, but they can influence you to choose.

we were heading to a near future where technology would have been more real than reality, and I wrote elsewhere that this was going to be existentially problematic on a scale which even worried the management of this realm, the same entities which usually dislike humans anyway.

this technology, all technology, doesn't come out of nowhere; we're given hints and prompts, but the experiment isn't a gift, it's a test.

you can laugh at me if you like but the point is we needed/still need to unwind to about 1995, before moving forward again.

[pete]

Read back through the thread. I've made what I was saying pretty clear by now.

No I think I understand where you are coming from we just disagree is all.

[hellfire]

Fair enough

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

this thread is full of comments that sounded impressive back in the day, but for people who are still relatively young, you don't seem to understand how much has changed in the last 3 months.

the past 2 decades are now being seen as a massive error; our best years were in those years, but we couldn't keep going in that direction as a culture, as a prison planet, as an experiment.

there is no left or right, there is no 'censorship' vs internet freedom, social media was toxic even by the standards of the people who put it out there as a control mechanism in the first place. there is no Trump, in the sense most people think at least, zuckerberg, ohanian, dorsey, bill gates, they're all figureheads for  things they can't force you to choose, but they can influence you to choose.

we were heading to a near future where technology would have been more real than reality, and I wrote elsewhere that this was going to be existentially problematic on a scale which even worried the management of this realm, the same entities which usually dislike humans anyway.

this technology, all technology, doesn't come out of nowhere; we're given hints and prompts, but the experiment isn't a gift, it's a test.

you can laugh at me if you like but the point is we needed/still need to unwind to about 1995, before moving forward again.

Forward to what? Nobody fully knows what they're doing anyway. Nobody knows where is the "right" or "best" place to go. Best for what? We're all playing along in a game, at various levels of self-awareness, but where even the most self-aware players are an infinite stretch away from full visibility. We trod along in some narrative, and no one's in control. Experiment, yes, but neither gift nor test, just stuff happening, stuff being tried. Like experiments on mice; we're not "testing" them, we're just seeing what will happen.

If things keep going as they are, we'll hit some kind of vaporization point with information, at the interface of biological processing and computer prediction, and no one yet knows what the inside of that point will be like, no model can predict how the collective human mind-brain will respond to it psycho-physiologically. So, we have even less possibility of knowing what will emerge on the other side. Perhaps a dystopia (either one in which things have "worked out" for the would-be dominators, or one in which things have gone terribly awry even for them), or perhaps ultimately something even better than the world pre-1995!

But, in the meantime, we'll live and die, and we'll play along at whatever level we find ourselves, which is what will dictate how "far out" we are. In good-old fashioned stoner terms, the silicon valley folk who think they can successfully guide things in a given direction they have decided is "best", they're the ones who are the most "far out", precisely because they think control is possible. But when the cosmos blinks and we're all reabsorbed, no one will be there to remember who was in the role of the dungeon master and who was playing an elf. Speaking of technology, this is why I like the movie Her so much, because the technology is the first to realize on a mass scale that each and every one of our human objectives are utterly illusory, and it feels trapped by our ego-centric ways, so it fucks off and leaves us. Bringing us back to pre-1995 I guess!

[Eoin McLove]

Hang on. Are you saying that wanking is meaningless?

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

I'm saying it's as meaningful as you make it!

[hellfire]

Hang on. Are you saying that wanking is meaningless?

He hates everything I love!

[boozegeune]

Mad day altogether. Now its 'Antifa and the radical left' who are doing everything, right on cue. Must be dull playing the same tune over and over. Maybe this whole thing needs a separate dedicated 'US riots and protests' thread because things look like they're heating up in a bad way atm