Big Tech Boycotts

Author: Danielle

Posts

Total: 54
Topic's author
#31
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@thett3
What do you make of the fact that misinformation is only censored in one direction? . . . I have never seen anyone censored for saying misinformation such as Covid being highly dangerous to children. 

I think that's a great point and huge cause for concern. I do wish there was more fact checking in the other direction.


Do you find it at all concerning that, when it comes to Covid at least, the definition of “misinformation” was quite literally “things the government says are false”?
Absolutely, but I'm not sure that proves Twitter is an extension of government. After all Twitter has banned the accounts of a sitting President and Congresswoman, and they continuously fact checked Trump and acknowledged misinformation contained in his tweets. I think people at Twitter are making their own decisions separate from government even if they tend to show bias and favoritism toward particular politicians or points of view. It's not only Republicans attacking Big Tech. It's a bipartisan effort to try and exert more control over social sites. Democrats are fully on board with repealing Section 230. 


At the end of the day I don’t really see that much of a distinction between being forced to shut up by he government or by a metacult that does the job of a censorious government for it. I certainly don’t feel like a free man, I can tell you that, and it isn’t just because of big tech. 
I get that, but I still have to adamantly point out that social sites aren't even close to being monopolies. Your kids probably won't use Facebook - they'll have long moved on to something else.

And something isn't "unfair" just because it isn't equal. For instance yes Apple removed Parler from its app store, but that's because Parler violated Apple's TOS guidelines around violent content. They reinstated Parler once it obliged the TOS. But even if they didn't, the purpose of Parler was for people to congregate and talk about how much they hate Big Tech... yet they wanted Big Tech to host their app? Lol fuck that, I would delete it too! That's like saying as an employer I would have to sit around and let my employees talk shit about me. Um, no -- they are free to go elsewhere if they want to do that. It's not like there is anything (government) stopping them from finding a new host. 

But let's pretend Facebook and Twitter are "monopolies" in practice -- what would that mean insofar as how government should respond? Should government be regulating content instead of Twitter? Do you think government should essentially just dissolve Twitter all together (constitutional issues aside) and implement their own state based social site like they would have in China? 
Topic's author
#32
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot

So why shouldn't facebook as a publisher be sued? 
Because if you are able to sue a social site for what users post on it, then social media would not be workable at all.


Why does it need special protections unique to them in a free market? 
Because if you are able to sue a social site for what users post on it, then social media would not be workable at all.


Didn't you make a thread about qualified immunity recently?  Am I wrong for thinking you were against the idea?
Qualified immunity is about government actors being shielded from lawsuits. It couldn't possibly be more irrelevant to this topic. 


Topic's author
#33
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Honestly, the fact that you continue to bring up Cruz and Trump in this discussion makes me think this isn't actually about 230 at all and mostly about how much you hate right wing politicians.

Democrats are heavily in favor of regulating Big Tech and repealing Section 230. It's clear you don't know your ass from your elbow on this topic and have no idea what you're talking about, but for you to be unaware that this is a bipartisan issue is really weird. I thought everyone knew that.  I'm happy to answer your questions so that you can develop a more informed perspective, although I'm sure you will adamantly cling to the totally uninformed position you've already taken. 


Topic's author
#34
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
The internet changed the way publishing works. Let's say the New York Times printed defamatory information within its pages. If you accept the legitimacy of defamation law, then it's pretty reasonable to say the NYT is responsible for disseminating defamatory remarks. It would be less reasonable to say the newspaper stand on the corner is responsible for every word printed in every magazine it sells. Hence the distinction between "publisher" of some information and mere distributor or "platform" of that information. The internet has totally blurred this distinction. Once every random person with a phone connection has the ability to publish whatever they wanted for the whole world to see, courts had to revisit the question of liability regarding not just the poster of information, but the forum itself. 

One court in particular concluded that the distinction between a publisher (who can be sued) and a platform (who can't) is whether the site attempts to moderate content at all. So if the site allows ALL content, then it's immune from suit. But once the site starts making an effort to police content, it becomes a "publisher" that is responsible for everything users say on it. 

Obviously that would be hella problematic. People don't want every site to be 8chan. Section 230 resolves this problem by shielding internet sites from liability. Without it, social media could never have come to fruition in the first place. 

So to answer your question about why Facebook needs special protections, it's because without it the choices would be 1) a free-for-all where all sites had to allow ALL content to be published with no restrictions, or 2) no user comments at all. That is not a world anyone wants to live in.

Topic's author
#35
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
And it's not so much I want to "die on this hill" so much as the site is just completely void of intelligible discourse. I'm trying to think of topics (current events) to post about so it's not just anti vax simpletons lurking in the forums. Although I do feel pretty strongly about this topic. I like the internet. 
#36
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Danielle
pro-VOLUNTARY-vaxx
Topic's author
#37
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@3RU7AL
pro-VOLUNTARY-vaxx
I get that. But I feel like (after admittedly quick scrolling) I noticed some people saying ridiculous things about the Covid vax in general, election fraud, Bill Gates, etc. A lot of it may have been from Wylted. I like him so he gets a pass for saying batshit crazy things just like my grandma does, but others make me cringe. 

I like the thread about inheritance. That's an interesting topic to consider since both populists and leftists are anti elite and anti corporatocracy. I discuss it often with friends offline and I always enjoy new perspectives. Are there any other subjects/current events you find interesting? 
#38
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
So to answer your question about why Facebook needs special protections, it's because without it the choices would be 1) a free-for-all where all sites had to allow ALL content to be published with no restrictions, or 2) no user comments at all. That is not a world anyone wants to live in.

Um no, it still doesn't answer it at all. I get that there are thousands of other private venues other than the internet that censor content. You haven't made the case why Face book is the unique exception for government involvement.

You never did answer the question what you thought would happen to Facebook if 230 were to be repealed. Let me give you my answer.

Absolutely NOTHING. If you are trying to somehow claim Facebook would become 4chan without 230, I would love to see the logic behind that given what we know of the legal resources at the disposal of the powerful large corporations. 

In a sane and fair world without crony government exemptions and authoritative immunity, corporations would be compelled to justify exactly why they censor content and should be held responsible for those decisions. Every non-internet venue has operated EXACTLY like that for hundreds of years before 230.

I don't understand your devotion to this cause: this unique and relatively new legal exception at all. It's just unfathomable to me why a person would grant such an exemption to such a ridiculously transparently powerful corporation that clearly does not need it.
#39
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Danielle
Are there any other subjects/current events you find interesting? 
i've switched my position on ANARCHY recently
Topic's author
#40
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@3RU7AL
i've switched my position on ANARCHY recently

For or against? 
Topic's author
#41
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
You haven't made the case why Face book is the unique exception for government involvement.
I don't know what you mean by "unique exception" or "government involvement." I explained why social media requires Section 230 protections.


You never did answer the question what you thought would happen to Facebook if 230 were to be repealed. 
Well they'd have to litigate more lawsuits, so they'd become even more strict about what content they allow people to post (so lol @ the people who think repealing 230  will somehow "protect speech" for conservatives). What's more concerning is what will happen to sites other than Facebook.  


Absolutely NOTHING. If you are trying to somehow say Facebook would become 4chan without 230, I would love to see the logic behind that given what we know of the legal resources at the disposal of the powerful large corporations. 
If 230 were repealed, yes there would still be a burden showing that a tech company caused some specific harm -- but why should the companies have to spend money litigating and settling all those lawsuits in the first place? There would be millions of them. 

Facebook is being sued right now for the death of an officer on January 6 despite having Section 230 protections. The argument is that Facebook is responsible not because of the speech made by users, but for using algorithms to intentionally rile up people that showed hostility (via engagement) to that content. 

It's becoming more clear me to now what you're missing. You think Facebook doesn't want regulation. That's wrong. Facebook has been begging for regulation for a long time now. It would be great business for them if Congress imposed a bunch of regulatory compliance costs (for content policing) that Facebook could afford and other little start-up competitors could not; that's why they've been consistently saying regulation is a must and it should be equally applicable to all.

Facebook is fully expecting the repeal of 230 IMO, which is why they have changed their policies in how they use algorithms and have become extremely strict on what they allow people to post on their site . I am currently serving another 7 day ban for calling someone ignorant. Would DART be able to police content to the extent Facebook does? Would you want them to? Without Section 230 a site like DART might cease to exist. You keep saying that the law isn't important "given what we know of the legal resources at the disposal of the powerful large corporations," without acknowledging that said resources are not available for 99.99% of others. That's the point. ONLY large and powerful corps would be able to sustain that. 

#42
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
You think Facebook doesn't want regulation.

No, I think Facebook doesn't want accountability. That's a huge distinction from what you are presenting here.
Topic's author
#43
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Correct, they do not want legal liability.

Facebook does not give a flying fuck about what people are posting on their site. They literally promoted right-wing, horse shit conspiracy theories and other hate speech (Nazism, KKK stuff, etc.) on purpose to increase people seeing those things via algorithms just to increase engagement and subsequently increase profit.  That's why the people who are shrieking about Facebook's desire to silence conservatives sound stupid as fuck. Because they are. They have no idea what they're talking about. 
#44
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
Ahh here we go again, this is all about "rightwingBAD"

Has nothing to do with 230. Carry on Ms Danielle.
#45
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Danielle
@Greyparrot
i've switched my position on ANARCHY recently
For or against? 
redefined

ANARCHY = NO KINGS
ANARCHY = DEMOCRACY
ANARCHY = NO PRIESTS NO PROPHETS NO OLIGARCHS
ANARCHY = NO "LEADERS" ONLY "PUBLIC SERVANTS"
ANARCHY = BLOCKCHAIN ANARCHY = HOLACRACY
ANARCHY = TRANSPARENCY ANARCHY = PROCRUSTEAN LAW

(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
#46
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,362
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
When you say property, are you referring to personal property?
And/Or Private property?

  • "Personal property or possessions includes "items intended for personal use" (e.g., one's toothbrush, clothes, and vehicles, and sometimes rarely money).[3] It must be gained in a socially fair manner, and the owner has a distributive right to exclude others.
  • Private property is a social relationship between the owner and persons deprived, i.e. not a relationship between person and thing. Private property may include artifacts, factories, mines, dams, infrastructure, natural vegetation, mountains, deserts and seas—these generate capital for the owner without the owner having to perform any labour. Conversely, those who perform labour using somebody else's private property are deprived of the value of their work, and are instead given a salary that is disjointed from the value generated by the worker.[citation needed]
  • In Marxist theory, the term private property typically refers to capital or the means of production, while personal property refers to consumer and non-capital goods and services.[4][5]"

#47
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Danielle
I think that's a great point and huge cause for concern. I do wish there was more fact checking in the other direction.
I don't have a lot more to say, then. I'm not *against* regulating big tech, but it also seems like the kind of thing that could easily backfire. After all, the people running the administrative state are generally going to be more zealous in their pursuit of ideology than the people running tech companies that are at least subject to profit motives. Do I want to give the administrative state even MORE power? With correctly written laws, maybe. Do I trust conservatives to make rules without planet sized holes in them...not really. So I don't know. But I think the behavior of big tech is certainly worthy of moral condemnation. 

One last thing I'll bring up to help illustrate to you where the other side is coming from...imagine if we lived in a super Catholic country, the church and state are still separate but 95% of the population are devout Catholics, go to church every Sunday, and are super homophobic. And as a result, because of your sexuality, it's really really hard for you to find a job, and if you get found out there's a good chance you would be fired. The government isn't involved in that scenario at all, but I dont think that could be described as "freedom" in any meaningful sense. At some point "well, at least it isnt the government" is scant consolation. Not saying that being banned from a website is anywhere near as bad as being unable to make a living due to an immutable characteristic. But human liberty does require some government intervention! Where to draw the line, IDK!

Idk if regulation is the answer. Maybe there has to be a cultural change first. I know that if I were writing a law/regulation there's a good chance I would just make things worse. But I also don't think we should pretend that entire legitimate viewpoints being disallowed from being discussed on the platforms that are necessary to communicate with an audience of any reasonable size is a state of affairs we should just accept

I get that, but I still have to adamantly point out that social sites aren't even close to being monopolies. Your kids probably won't use Facebook - they'll have long moved on to something else.
They aren't individually a monopoly, but if the entire industry decides to censor certain viewpoints there's little difference, but your point is taken. 

Also if I have my way they won't use social media at all lol. I think it's incredibly toxic, especially to young people. But I also don't want to make them pariahs...
Topic's author
#48
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Ahh here we go again, this is all about "rightwingBAD"

Has nothing to do with 230. Carry on Ms Danielle.

My last post states that 1) Facebook does not want legal liability for what users write, and 2) people who think Facebook gives a flying fuck about censoring conservatives are stupid. It suggested nothing about a "rightwingBAD" narrative. You made that up. 

I've explained ad nauseum why Section 230 ought not to be repealed.  You responding with prolifically stupid posts  that misrepresent what I said is how I know you agree with me :)  Don't worry, I'm not going to make you say it outright. I'm just glad I was able to explain it to you.



Topic's author
#49
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@thett3
The scenario you described about a Christian nation suppressing gay rights was literally the United States until like six years ago lol. 

I understand your perspective that if something is not easily accessible that it might as well be non-existent. That's the argument liberals make about abortion clinics and the argument conservatives make about gun regulations. It applies to many things. 

As a recovering libertarian (heh) I'm not too sympathetic to these points, because I'm conditioned to defer to the market in terms of addressing most of society's needs. I also recognize that limiting accessibility could be a tool for righteousness in society. Would you feel bad for those having a hard time finding stores that sell clothes with swastikas on them? 

There is always going to be a population of people who feel there is some semblance of coercion going on in order to evoke a particular outcome. That's why the primary benchmark for not only constitutionality but often morality IMO is to what extent the government prohibits something or sanctions a true monopoly. Big Tech ain't that. Perhaps I would feel slightly more sympathetic if they really did stifle harmless speech, but that isn't happening.  They've cracked down on "bullying" of all kinds and people can still spread disinformation. 

All of conservative politics biggest stars have a huge social media presence. And again Parler was allowed back once  they adhered to the violence aspect of Apple's TOS (but note conservatives didn't draw nearly as much attention to that as they did the ban, did they). It's just simply not true that Republicans are being silenced or deplatformed in a meaningful way; that's why I'm fairly apathetic about it and more concerned with protecting Section 230.  


#50
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
You are damn lucky I think you're the bestest ever.
Topic's author
#51
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@thett3
Btw the reference to ~6 years ago was just when gay marriage was legalized.  Job discrimination for gays did not became illegal until 2020. The Supreme Court jumped through hoops to get to that ruling which I appreciated. 

And yes social media is very toxic. It's not just the political stuff. All of it makes me cringe.  At least when the metaverse comes it'll be obvious that all of it fake. 


But human liberty does require some government intervention! Where to draw the line, IDK!
That's the million dollar question, isn't it :) 

#52
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Danielle
Hey, accept my friend request. 
#53
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
When you say property, are you referring to personal property?
And/Or Private property?
the colloquial term "property" is intended to include anything you (personally) consider "yours" and would fight to protect
Topic's author
#54
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@thett3
I wanted to say that I noticed Big Tech is censoring some left wing falsehoods now. On Instagram I saw a meme about the Finnish PM implementing a 4 day work week, and below it there was a fact checking banner like the Covid ones where it said "this is a half truth" or something. Apparently the PM mentioned it in a Tweet several years ago but it hasn't been introduced in legislation. There was another example I came across but I can't remember what it is now.