This is about as stupid an analogy as you can get.
Big Tech Authoritarianism
- Thread starter mmj_uk
- Start date
This is about as stupid an analogy as you can get.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,129
What on Earth does "virtue one up each other" even mean? Does it appear in the Kama Sutra?
I imagine that any electricity supplier to Apple and Google is legally entitled to withdraw their service and that Apple and Google would moderate their behaviour or organise alternative suppliers. Seems entirely reasonable in a free society. Of course in a totalitarian state things might be different.
Three of your mates going to a small bank (not sure what this means) does not make a balanced view, lol.
Your points make sense but your focus is all over the place. You also seem to keep trying to put words in my mouth. Debate manipulation doesn't make sense.
You clearly have no idea what censorship is if you think the POTUS private account being banned is a form of censorship.
Private enterprise should have responsibility, it's very simple. Not to control the views or agendas of its platform but to sense check extremist plots that could ultimately cause physical harm to society. If this was a platform rammed full of pedo's saying touching children was fair game and planning a mass abduction of children, would you be thinking differently?
I think what people are failing to recognise is how narrow and extremist the views of Parler's demographic were.
Parler senior management were actively attempting to pay people with a broader political view(along with a decent social following) to join the platform to recruit a more diverse range of opinions. It failed miserably.
Parler failed to admit that their user base planning deadly sieges was wrong and gave two fingers to Apple's request to implement better data checks.
What is required however is a reform of how the algorithms on the major platforms stack content; By that I'm referring to the way it only shows users publications or content they'd be more likely to engage in. For example, if I engage with an extremist thread or publication on Facebook, the system will recognise this and serve me content broadly similar to this rather than a varying degree of opinions. This is what causes harm and manipulates the simpletons of society.
I think what people are failing to recognise is how narrow and extremist the views of Parler's demographic were.
Parler senior management were actively attempting to pay people with a broader political view(along with a decent social following) to join the platform to recruit a more diverse range of opinions. It failed miserably.
Parler failed to admit that their user base planning deadly sieges was wrong and gave two fingers to Apple's request to implement better data checks.
What is required however is a reform of how the algorithms on the major platforms stack content; By that I'm referring to the way it only shows users publications or content they'd be more likely to engage in. For example, if I engage with an extremist thread or publication on Facebook, the system will recognise this and serve me content broadly similar to this rather than a varying degree of opinions. This is what causes harm and manipulates the simpletons of society.
I'm not saying one source is a balanced view. A balanced view is taking opinions from many sources, and anecdotal experiences that people have forms part of a balanced view, in my opinion.
We've both made points in our previous posts how this isn't about Trump. Yet you've brought him back in to the conversation. The official white house account was also temporarily suspended.
When one company bans someone, Trump in this instance, other companies follow suit. In this situation Trump and any group supporting him have been removed from 10+ platforms, which have nothing directly to do with Trump other than people being his supporters and talking.
I'm sure it would be an interesting situation if it did happen. I doubt it would because a lot of these companies work close together.
Anyways I've made the points I wanted to make.
Don't forget the long awkward pause as they give the president special ban immunity for years.
Man of Honour
That's no longer true. A handful of companies have such dominance that the only "competition" is what they allow. They'll either buy or ban any other options. Due to the degree of control those few companies have, all it takes is removing the app from Apple and Google app stores and removing payment processing by Visa and Mastercard.
Technically, competition is allowed. In practice, it isn't. Your view is based on a world before widespread use of the internet, smartphones and social media. A world that no longer exists. Even extremely authoritarian regimes have some trouble maintaining their authority against the authority of the few companies controlling communications and payments and do so by controlling those companies (e.g. China).
People created an alternative to Twitter - Parler. Once it gained enough users to be even a potential alternative option, it was shut down by the handful of companies that have almost total control. Your argument no longer applies to reality. Things have changed.
Commissario
This, so many times, this.
Permabanned
Parler can just move elsewhere or fund their own servers. The alt-tech sites content is pretty horrendous, why would anyone normal want to be associated with them......
Man of Honour
I agree with the post by mmj_uk that you are posting that non-sequitor in "reply" to.
I think Trump is an incompetent arsebrain.
Reality isn't as simple as only two options for everything.
Man of Honour
Move where?
Fund their own servers how?
And how could they tell people they exist? The only public voice about Parler is the voice of people villifying it. The same goes for any alternative to the dominant companies.
You're effectively suggesting that anyone who wants an alternative to comms apps should make their own global comms infrastructure and their own payment processing companies. But even if they tried, they wouldn't be allowed to do so as those alternatives would be shut down.
Permabanned
Absolutely no reason they cant run their own servers, millions of companies do so. They have no need to create their own global comms infrastructure or payment processing.....whats that relevant to....
Unless they built it all completely using Amazon tech of course, would have to rebuild it all.
These are not people with different "views" they are extremist nut jobs.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,129
In which case it would not be missed by many if it disappeared then - except by those vilifying it of course.
Obviously the same way the big sites are funded. Advertisi... oh wait... negative effect on advertisement money is why they're not welcome.
That's awkward. These modern places for talking online cost loads of money to run.
So what needs to happen is these private companies paying advertisement money need to be forced to be more tolerant about the content they let their products be advertised next to. They shouldn't be allowed to say they don't want their insurance banners next to highly thoughtful discussion on jews controlling the world or the value of black people.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,129
Do you think that Insurance Companies should be compelled to throw advertising money away?
I guess increased taxation is the solution
"Highly thoughtful discussion" - yeah, right, on overturning democracy and curtailing human rights I guess
Highly thoughtful discussion? You can generally count the IQ on one hand.
You are confusing "the internet" with services provided over the top of it. Time to take a look at the OSI 7 layer model, perhaps?
Last edited:
Soldato
I look in there because its good to know what is happening. It is a cesspool of hatred and conspiracy theorists. The worst of right wing twitter has moved there and become a huge echo chamber where they just increase the tempo by feeding off each other. Its hardly a bastion of free speech either, very easy to get banned for even just mocking Trump.
You would be perfectly within your rights to do so if there wasn't a contract saying otherwise. Companies do this all the time. Fox News sacked a presenter not long ago because her speech, which I guess they approved of until it went too far and advertisers pulled their money. These are businesses, they are out to make money for their shareholders. If that revenue is in anyway threatened they have every right to take action.
Parler will be back up in a matter of days and on servers where their users threatening and encouraging each other to kill politicians won't bother the company. There is always some company that will take their money.