(Title Censored)

Homepage Forums Politics (Title Censored)

This topic contains 156 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by  Unseen 1 month, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 157 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #42672

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Fellow Unbelievers,

    I have no love for Elon Musk and have vociferously criticized him for being on the Gummint teat instead of bankrolling his ventures privately as a good Free-Market Capitalist should. I also think him giving his child a name in symbols not even used in cuneiform is just terribly weird and no service to children.

    However, that said, I think the fact that someone can offer to buy Twitter means that these Big Tech social media platforms are not the eternal Omnific monoliths that everyone makes them out to be.

    Anyone else remember America OnLine, CompuServe, Prodigy (owned by Sears, Roebuck & Company, another name to scrach heads to remember,) the Netscape vs. MicroSoft fight to the death, Napster, MySpace, Friendster, Yuwie, GroupOn, abd all the other “New, New Things” that were supposed to take over everything and rule forever?

    How did that all pan out? It will eventually be the case with Facebook, Instagram, Greasy Kid’s Stuff TikTok, and, yes, Twitter.

    By the way, isn’t there something terribly contradictory on stilts to call for Gummint regulation of Internet platforms in the name of promoting freedom of expression? Hasn’t Government always been the eternal enemy of free expression? Hasn’t it been Government power to censor that was used by and evoked by religions, slavemasters, party elites, and all others who stand to lose from free expression?

    What if those same regulations are turned back upon the advocates and used against their freedom of expression.

    That precisely is what happened with the FCC’s “Fairness Doctrine” in broadcast media. A law that was supposed to give “equal time” to “all significant viewpoints” ended with stations of the Big Three broadcasters not giving air time to any editorial viewpoints and limiting Presidential Debates to the two major Parties, with an occasional Third Party buying airtime spots late at night.

    Get Gummint the Hell out of the role of gatekeeping and curating platforms for opinion content and statements of fact and any other expression that doesn’t violate the equally-held Individual Rights of others!

    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Info Age Spelling
    #42674

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Unseen,

    Some perspective here: Accord to this article below anywhere from 1 to 2 Percent of the U.S. Military is gang-affiliated with any one of 53 gangs, including Klan, Neo-Nazi, and White Supremacist gangs:

    Gang Presence in the United States Military–Wikipedia
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_presence_in_the_United_States_military

    Using simple math with a 1,376,658 active members, this means the U.S. Military has 27,533.16 gang members or the equivalent of over 27.5 Azov Battalions of 1000 troops.

    None of this means either Ukraine or the U.S. are inherently evil or not worth defending, but rather, they have evil elements in their midst that need expulsion from the ranks and we need civilian Free-Merkets in now-banned products to deprive gangs of revenue stream. (Or, as I had posited earlier, maybe Zelenskyy is sending the Azov Batallion to slaughter by design. 😁)

    Every Military has rotten apples. The trick that make for a good military and a good nation is how to get the bad apples out of the barrel.

    #42678

    Davis
    Moderator

    The greatest investment Musk could make and gift he could give to humanity is torch twitter to the ground. I take it far beyond Autumn’s description as a place where discussions might not happen but those deriding other’s views and I would say that is a giant proportion. I have virtually never learnt anything from twitter but have only had some cheap emotional reaction by having my own ideas confirmed or a cheap emotional negative reaction by reading ideas I disagree with. The algorithms are literally designed to mostly give me and have me feed off such drivel. Facebook is barely better. At least with facebook I can see my friends vacation photos (though, if you remember, we used to be able to email those without the adds, echo chambers, thirst for “likes” and the feelings of inadequacy and even depression people have by views other’s “perfectly manicured lives”).

    The harms of social media are barely discussed and heavily heavily outweigh the benefits.

    #42679

    _Robert_
    Participant

    @Enco, I would ask my libertarian buddy for examples of wonderful libertarian societies, and well..he had little to say. I don’t think people inherently favor or enjoy laws, rules, regs, or paying taxes for oversight but without them all you get is violence, theft, warlords and enslavement. People suck, always did always will. In fact, corruption is what happens when people disregard rules and regs. Granted, my friend was skeptical about all large human organizations but was a perennial optimist on the personal level. Thus, he was always getting fvcked over and never ever saw it coming. and somehow, he still would blame the government when his family was picking his pockets, LOL.

    The FCC fairness act is an attempt to keep the mega corps and billionaires from buying up all the broadcast media channels and then getting to decide everything we heard. I guess you prefer that.

    #42680

    Unseen
    Participant

    I watch this couple pretty regularly. Agree or not, they are always interesting. FYI, they are generally left-of-center.

    BTW, Musk has not said that there will be no curating or banning or deplatforming. What he has said is that he will make the algorithm open source. Right now, it’s often a mystery why such things happen. If you can look and see why you lost your ability to post, at least you have something to base your appeal on.

    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by  Unseen.
    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by  Unseen.
    #42684

    Davis
    Moderator

    The FCC fairness act is an attempt to keep the mega corps and billionaires from buying up all the broadcast media channels and then getting to decide everything we heard. I guess you prefer that.

    I have noticed that some people who worship the free market, they tend to overlook the fact that in order for a market to actually be “free” it cannot be monopolised. I don’t know whether such people ignore this because they secretly think they could (or in some alternative reality might have) been the one to monopolise the market and become a filthy rich titan, or because they admire those who manipulate and destroy competition etc. Amazon is a case in point of how much people suck. Governments, meant in theory to represent our interests, prefer the trivial short term gain of a few jobs and how that affects their political career over dealing with the behemoth anti-trust issues of amazon ruthlessly destroying competition (and yes I am aware they offer a platform for others to sell…that is not the point). Anyone who truly cares about a free market would be clamouring for action on anti-trust issues with the big tech companies, or in countries with telecom triopolies that gouge them (Canada), or airline ticket price fixing and so on and so on. I tend to hear a lot of outrage over “high taxes” and government assistance to feed the starving but next to nothing over rampant anti-trust issues.

    #42686

    Unseen
    Participant

    @davis

    You rightly point out that we have a monopoly problem. Amazon has become a monopoly primarily by having a better business model that led to them becoming indispensable. It’s too large and ubiquitous and responsible legislators who don’t take bribes from lobbyists would probably have broken Amazon up by now.

    To my knowledge, Elon Musk monopolizes nothing. The free exchange of ideas is not an ally of monopoly, it is its enemy, and Twitter is not the only place where people can express themselves. There’s Reddit and Youtube, for example, where Musk gets lots of criticism, and people who prefer to live under a dictatorship of anonymous censors or an impersonal AI can still find a place to hide.

    #42690

    Davis
    Moderator

    Unseen, two things:

    Going from a corporation where a board, elected by multiple shareholders to ownership by one person is obviously a concentration of great power and wealth into the hands of one person. While he isn’t monopolising the market, he is definitely acquiring considerable power and potential wealth. Having said that, my discussion of monopolies had nothing to do with twitter and was a separate issue.

    Musk is either going to make twitter a free for all or he isn’t. If he said there will be moderation…then it will not be a free for all and he is not dedicated to absolute free speech as he claims. If he will allow moderation then I can only imagine that the kind of moderation he will allow will be in his own interests or align with his own values. This pretty much goes against the idea of absolute free speech. Instead of having a board which moderated things which covered a wide variety of values (like avoiding the spread of dangerous absolute falsehoods on COVID and vaccines) it will instead cover the values of one person and those he places in charge of the company…likely influenced…over times by the values that helps him make more money (which is also what the board was doing).

    To sum up: you are either for absolute free speech as you claim…or you will moderate. If you do moderate (which he said he would) then he is just replacing a broad control by multiple agents and putting most of the control into the hands of one person, which I would say…is rarely a win for society.

    #42691

    Davis
    Moderator

    Unseen, two things:

    Going from a corporation where a board, elected by multiple shareholders to ownership by one person is obviously a concentration of great power and wealth into the hands of one person. While he isn’t monopolising the market, he is definitely acquiring considerable power and potential wealth. Having said that, my discussion of monopolies had nothing to do with twitter and was a separate issue.

    Musk is either going to make twitter a free for all or he isn’t. If he said there will be moderation…then it will not be a free for all and he is not dedicated to absolute free speech as he claims. If he will allow moderation then I can only imagine that the kind of moderation he will allow will be in his own interests or align with his own values. This pretty much goes against the idea of absolute free speech. Instead of having a board which moderated things which covered a wide variety of values (like avoiding the spread of dangerous absolute falsehoods on COVID and vaccines) it will instead cover the values of one person and those he places in charge of the company…likely influenced…over times by the values that helps him make more money (which is also what the board was doing).

    To sum up: you are either for absolute free speech as you claim…or you will moderate. If you do moderate (which he said he would) then he is just replacing a broad control by multiple agents and putting most of the control into the hands of one person, which I would say…is rarely a win for society.

    I do not believe for a second he is doing this for his ideals but for his own interests, and judging by his bizarre and reckless behaviour in the past…I wouldn’t hold my breath that this will only be in the benefit of the few or privileged. This is nothing new.

    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by  Davis.
    #42693

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    […] There’s Reddit and Youtube, for example, where Musk gets lots of criticism, and people who prefer to live under a dictatorship of anonymous censors or an impersonal AI can still find a place to hide.

    Reddit is still diverse. It includes non-censored sub-reddits, and everyone has a wide choice of what kind of sub-reddit to “hide” in or be vocal in. I think of it as a kind of federation of diverse social groups. Similar for YouTube, in spite of some Google oversight. In fact the tolerance of disinformation and conspiracist channels and other “free speech” is rather high.

    There are very few perfect venues for “free speech”, and who knows for sure how long Elon will be in charge, or if any limits on tolerance of damaging speech or politics will be imposed? I’m not expecting any form of perfection to last forever.

    Twitter has been, and will continue to be an interesting experiment, as well as an often useful resource. While an observation like “a dictatorship of anonymous censors” is less of a concern to me as long as other choices in the venue are also available. I think discussions and free speech work best when various kinds of audiences and forums can co-exist. The danger of “dictatorship” emerges when it actually controls all venues.

    I know you already knew that. I’m just tired of outrage machines, even if they’re just symptomatic of human nature that evolved and optimized for social interactions well before these modern inventions.

    #42695

    Autumn
    Participant

    Similar for YouTube, in spite of some Google oversight. In fact the tolerance of disinformation and conspiracist channels and other “free speech” is rather high.

    With YouTube they tend to lean on demonetization, and also burying certain content to some degree by affecting how it interacts with search engines and such. I’d wager the biggest source of removed content is due to DMCA claims.

    A bit of a tangent, but its mildly amusing that Bungee has had to file complaint with YouTube due to DMCA claims against Bungee for Bungee posting its own copyrighted material. And at the same time, it speaks to the difficulty of regulating internet content. The volume of traffic is too high to really look at content case by case. Much of it seems t be automated, or at least carried out by individuals who are discouraged from spending a great deal of time on any complaint. There is definitely a practicability issue, one that often sees content or content creators removed from platforms unjustly.

    #42709

    Unseen
    Participant

    The Pfizer documents revealed among other things that natural immunity, which you get by getting sick with the disease, is at least as good as getting vaccinated,

    I hate to say it, but this is nonsense. So, IF you survive, now you have immunity. This is a basic logical failure. 95% of the side effects people experience are also symptoms (but worse) of the disease. Once the vax was available, nearly everyone in the ICU was unvaccinated; many who posted on FB “I have an immune system”. They fucked around and found out that it is your overactive, unspecific immune system that helps to kill you. The one they did not “train” with a vaccination, resulting in an aggressive inflammatory response with the release of a large amount of pro-inflammatory cytokines in an event known as “cytokine storm”. I realize now that this type of 2-step understanding must be difficult for many to grasp or something.

    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by  Unseen.
    #42711

    Unseen
    Participant
    #42719

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Natural immunity, IF you survive…yet again. Holy fuck balls. Hard to believe how stupid this “natural immunity” argument is. Bag of bricks logic level. Why Quarantine at all. In fact, let’s just all just try to catch the disease and let gawd sort it out.

    In fact, that is a very common MEME found on the Facebook posts of the recently deceased. The average IQ has gone up…just a little thanks to Covid.

    #42720

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Autumn, Davis, Jake, and Robert,

    Here are some wise words on Biden’s new Disinformation Governance Board of The Department of Homeland Security from David Lowery of Kamper Van Beethoven and Cracker:

    “One of my older cousins gave me some good advice when I was twelve: never bring something to a fight you don’t want shoved up your ass later.”
    https://mobile.twitter.com/davidclowery/status/1519804001382014976

    I kinda figured something like this would come from a band member of Cracker.
    They expressed some great Libertarian/Individualist social and economic sentiments here 😁:

    Cracker “Get Off This”

    Anyhow, if you folks want to live in some control-freak Stepford Utopia in some place like Sim City, Second Life, Civilization, Metaverse, or some other “dream-in-every-home” program or app, have at it.

    But bring it outside those realms and try to force it on everyone else, especially across the drink here in the United States, and you will have some serious problems on your hands.

    There were millions of signatories of this document below when it came out, most probably still around. And for each signatory, millions more who share the sentiment but didn’t sign. You think they’re not going to route around, hack, or bug up attempts to stop the free flow of information?

    A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace–Wikipedia
    https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Declaration_of_the_Independence_of_Cyberspace

    Only the messenger here.

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 157 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.