Shutting down to social media

Soldato
Joined
16 Jun 2004
Posts
3,215
It won't happen but i would also shut down social media in a heartbeat.

..Its turned Western Democratic political debate into a rancorous cess pit of faux outrage mob justice.

Without doubt the single worst thing to ever come out of the internet.
 
Caporegime
Joined
26 Dec 2003
Posts
25,666
The scariest thing about the latest bill is how so much of the population are suddenly cheering on Twitter's spiral into more obvious censorship (rather than just fiddling algorithms) just because the main opponent to it is Trump. I think we may be heading towards some form of tyranny but it's not because Trump is a tyrant, it's because too many will support anything just to oppose Trump.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2009
Posts
13,252
Location
Under the hot sun.
The scariest thing about the latest bill is how so much of the population are suddenly cheering on Twitter's spiral into more obvious censorship (rather than just fiddling algorithms) just because the main opponent to it is Trump. I think we may be heading towards some form of tyranny but it's not because Trump is a tyrant, it's because too many will support anything just to oppose Trump.

Exactly my friend. We see it in this discussion and on the Trump discussion. Trump Derangement Syndrome is pretty widespread.
Plenty of examples. When France used the malaria drug, all was OK. Everyone picked it up to use it on all countries. Three weeks later when Trump said that would be tested in USA also, MSM was up in arms against it as something new and experimental. Yet it was already announced by European media weeks ago.
Lancet came out with an opinion article (not a single fact on the drug), suddenly all media attacked Trump for poisoning people!!!!!
Yet Spain continues as normal to use it, nothing happens there.

If Trumps comes out tomorrow and citates the Theory of Gravity, everyone and his dog will be against the theory trying to dismantle it, hell some might promote MOND-Teves Theory :D If in their idiocy know about it.

I wrote last night, Trump EO is nothing new, just asks the FCC to pick the Section 230 of the 1996 CDA (24y old legislation) and find out if Twitter, YT, FB (among others) are in breach of the law!!! If they are in breach of the law, then the Section 230 protection doesn't apply and are publishers were different set of rules apply to them and a liable for everything posted and can be sued.

Trump said nothing else. He just cited parts of the 1996 Section 230 also. (there a video about the whole signing event).

Yet somehow, this is attack on freedom of speech when Trump is attacking the censorship imposed by the platforms!!!!!
Is mad. As some have said we are in social war against a religion made of loonies and deranged.

You know what's the best part is? Biden (and is Dem policy for next elections) has pledged to scrap Section 230 which is even worse as it imposed authoritarianism on Twitter, YT, FB.
Yet they ignore this fact in their delusion to attack Trump.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Posts
31,991
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
Social media has been censoring people with the wrong opinion (Conservatives) for a few years now, it's not really a fair election when you have all of the corporate media and corporate social media doing everything in their power to promote the Democrats by ignoring stuff like Obamagate FISA abuse and playing down the Biden sexual assault allegations, when they gave 24/7 coverage over the fraud impeachment and allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. They can't spend 3 years baselessly accusing Russia of interfering whilst doing so themselves and expect to get away with it, if it's not okay for Russia to interfere then why would it be for multinational corporations?

If the social media giants want to act like publishers by editing content then they should lose the special privileges they were given as platforms for public discourse.

Your pathological commitment to these amusing fantasies is almost touching. You do realise that the Mueller report found extensive evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election, don't you? :)

Plenty of examples. When France used the malaria drug, all was OK. Everyone picked it up to use it on all countries. Three weeks later when Trump said that would be tested in USA also, MSM was up in arms against it as something new and experimental.

Absolutely false.
 
Caporegime
Joined
22 Nov 2005
Posts
45,167
It won't happen but i would also shut down social media in a heartbeat.

..Its turned Western Democratic political debate into a rancorous cess pit of faux outrage mob justice.

Without doubt the single worst thing to ever come out of the internet.
yes all social media does is give the biggest voice to the outraged minority and then people pander to them.

world went to crap since MS/FB/twitter

when you think about facebook what you're basically doing is giving a company access to your personal diary so they can read it and learn better how to manipulate you

they then sell this data on to other even worse companies.

0 privacy you might as well let facebook install webcames and mics in to all your rooms.
but some people gladly buy smart speakers anyway
 
Permabanned
Joined
23 Apr 2014
Posts
23,553
Location
Hertfordshire
Wouldnt be hugely fussed if they shut them all down. Dont really use any of it anymore.

Censorship of some form on a private platform is a given. Whats more dangerous is the lies and propaganda we see from people like Trump, Brexiters etc. They are the real enemies of modern society.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jan 2016
Posts
8,757
Location
Oldham
The problem with allowing social media companies to do what they want is they can be influenced by foreign money to influence elections and other political events. We've seen the evidence from previous stories as well as many other issues raised on all sides of the debate about the ability to bombard social media with advertising.

Social media companies need to be held to account for their actions. When a company is operating in the public arena yet enforcing its personal agenda over what it allows on its site then it needs some kind of counter balance.

The only censorship on these platforms should be for those that break the law. Also admins/mods should be mostly managing people not just throwing around bans. I think the people who moderate social media posts should have a procedure to tick off a list of criteria, especially when it comes to the banning of someone. There is also an argument to be made against total bans.
 
Permabanned
Joined
23 Apr 2014
Posts
23,553
Location
Hertfordshire
The problem with allowing social media companies to do what they want is they can be influenced by foreign money to influence elections and other political events. We've seen the evidence from previous stories as well as many other issues raised on all sides of the debate about the ability to bombard social media with advertising.

Social media companies need to be held to account for their actions. When a company is operating in the public arena yet enforcing its personal agenda over what it allows on its site then it needs some kind of counter balance.

The only censorship on these platforms should be for those that break the law. Also admins/mods should be mostly managing people not just throwing around bans. I think the people who moderate social media posts should have a procedure to tick off a list of criteria, especially when it comes to the banning of someone. There is also an argument to be made against total bans.

They are not pushing a personal agenda. They have procedures. They have rules.
 
Associate
Joined
19 Dec 2008
Posts
2,369
Location
Nowhere
Social media can be influenced by outside money, luckily that never seems to happen to politicians......................................

:D.

To those up in arms at the terrible censorship of Trump, it isn't though is it? It is basically flagging his post as unverified bs. How can you have a problem with that? You are usually screaming for people to educate themselves and do their own research and this just helps people know when they should do so.

If Trump really wants to spout any old carp he should start his own platform (Trumpeter?).
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
7,865
Location
Stoke/Norfolk
I know it's old fashioned in these trial by media days but lets see what was actually said -

Trump has written an EO asking the FCC for more clarity on Section 230 which differentiates between "Platform" and "Publisher" so that the FCC can better decide if various "Social media" sites, which current are classed as a "Platform", have moved into "Publisher" territory by editorialising content published on their site.

You can read the EO here - https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/ - Section 1 deals with "the problem" as Trump see's it, section 2 deals with "Can the FCC clarify....." and then it gets into legalise for the rest etc etc.

I would suggest that people actually read it rather than react to headlines because at no point in the EO anywhere does Trump suggest "Shutting Down" (or any other euphemism) Social Media. The EO is ONLY for clarifying the boundary for various Social Media sites that may/may not have moved from "Platform" to "Publisher", nothing else.

Once the FCC complies with the order it is upto the FCC to decide if anything has changed and if any sites need to be recategorised if required (which does not "shut them down" etc).

For me I think it's a great idea and both sides should be happy for this EO because it'll force one side to lose, so either -

1. If the FCC comes back and says "Nothing needs to change" then it's a win for the companies as it guarantees that these sites will be free from continued examination and can carry on removing unpleasant content.

2. if the FCC comes back and says "They've crossed over and need to change" then it's a win for those who want freedom of expression without censorship as those companies will have to change how they deal with removing content.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
23 Jul 2009
Posts
8,919
Location
Cayman Islands
Shutting down social media might actually be a good idea lol.... Does more damage than good if you ask me

Edit - I take that last part back. It's probably level.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Feb 2010
Posts
13,249
Location
London
Shutting down social media might actually be a good idea lol.... Does more damage than good if you ask me
Yep, nuke it all from orbit. All this CT crap on FB has people in my own family roped in, it's pretty depressing/distressing tbh.

It encourages tribal echo-chambers, narcissistic behaviour and peddles conspiracy theories and falsehoods way too convincingly now.

IMO social media has also created huge bubbles of people who absolutely do not want to be challenged by or seek common ground with those of a different opinion. Can we go back to the 80s/90s please? :D
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Jul 2009
Posts
8,919
Location
Cayman Islands
Yep, nuke it all from orbit. All this CT crap on FB has people in my own family roped in, it's pretty depressing/distressing tbh.

It encourages tribal echo-chambers, narcissistic behaviour and peddles conspiracy theories and falsehoods way too convincingly now.

IMO social media has also created huge bubbles of people who absolutely do not want to be challenged by or seek common ground with those of a different opinion. Can we go back to the 80s/90s please? :D

It's for that very reason I choose not to speak to certain people about politics or social issues period. Because I know that those certain people can't talk to those who have an opposing view.... It's really sad to see.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Posts
16,030
Location
UK
Zuckerberg saying that FB et al should not be deciding what people can and can't say is a joke. I got a ban from FB for just mentioning Adolf Hitler once in a history group! Not only that, but the antique weaponry research community is constantly getting banned and groups deleted while Facebook Marketplace sells thousands of actually dangerous and cheap modern knives every day.
 
Back
Top Bottom