4 ms·

> So I'd say the main problem with your comment, among many others, is this cynical view that everything is as terrible as it can be, anyway. If that were true,

by ProAm 8y ago

> So I'd say the main problem with your comment, among many others, is this cynical view that everything is as terrible as it can be, anyway. If that were true, we'd have lost already and the US would be indistinguishable from, say, Yemen. I think there is a lot to be said about the Dog and Pony show we see during campaign season to what politicians actually do and accomplish once in office. Whether they are outright lies or just knowingly false promises or attempts to slander an opponents images, it's definitely a show that rarely has anything to do with what they will do if elected. Cynical? Probably yes, but it's also based on a lifetime of watching what occurs in this country every few years. So whether its the 'home team' sending out these messages of what will change, or how bad X person is, etc.. or a foreign entity anyone who believes what they see, hear or read during a campaign cycle is a person not in touch with reality. But I still believe that any attempts to regulate this is just political grandstanding after all it's the internet, everyone has a voice.

moorhosj 8y ago
==But I still believe that any attempts to regulate this is just political grandstanding after all it's the internet, everyone has a voice.== I'll ignore the fact that many mediums (print, radio, tv) have been regulated and ask this: Is a bot part of everyone? If I control 5 bots, do I now get 5 voices instead of just one?
- ProAm 8y ago
  Yes, with citizens united if you work for a company you already get 2 voices. If people are so swayed with what the consume on the internet we are already doomed.
  - moorhosj 8y ago
    ==If people are so swayed with what the consume on the internet we are already doomed.== The counter to this would be: If people aren't swayed with what they consume on the internet then Facebook, Instagram, Google, Snap, Twitter, Pinterest and more would have market caps of about $0. The primary revenue stream for each of these companies is advertising on the internet. Since large corporations pay these companies significant dollars to advertise on their platforms, we can assume that their analysis shows some type of return on that investment. With that in mind, maybe there is a middle ground between your fatalism and the standard political grandstanding.
    - ProAm 8y ago
      > we can assume that their analysis shows some type of return on that investment. I wouldn't assume anything there. > With that in mind, maybe there is a middle ground between your fatalism and the standard political grandstanding. I'm sure there is but I still dont see why the government should be required to regulate SOCIAL media companies. It's social media for a reason.
      - moorhosj 8y ago
        ==I wouldn't assume anything there.== If you are going to dismiss it, then you should bring some evidence. Failing that, it is safe to assume that if profit-seeking corporations continue to spend billions of dollars a year for advertising, there is some return on investment. If there wasn't, the market would adjust. == It's social media for a reason. == I don't understand what this means. They added the word social, so it is no longer media?
        ProAm 8y ago
        > If you are going to dismiss it, then you should bring some evidence. There is plenty of evidence that supports both sides of the claim. It's pointless to discuss because it will not stop the market. > I don't understand what this means. They added the word social, so it is no longer media? It's media in the essence that it's a means of communication, and media alone, especially social media, shouldn't be regulated by the government on private platforms. The government has no reasonable reason to stop people from voicing their opinions, or expressing satire, or discussing politics on social discussion platforms.
        moorhosj 8y ago
        ==There is plenty of evidence that supports both sides of the claim.== Please share your evidence. ==The government has no reasonable reason to stop people from voicing their opinions, or expressing satire, or discussing politics on social discussion platforms.== Bots are not people, which renders the point moot. Even if bots were granted rights, they are committing fraud by assuming fake identities and attempting to sway people's actions for gain. Fraud is a crime, crimes are regulated by the government.

by ProAm 8y ago

moorhosj 8y ago

==But I still believe that any attempts to regulate this is just political grandstanding after all it's the internet, everyone has a voice.== I'll ignore the fact that many mediums (print, radio, tv) have been regulated and ask this: Is a bot part of everyone? If I control 5 bots, do I now get 5 voices instead of just one?

ProAm 8y ago
Yes, with citizens united if you work for a company you already get 2 voices. If people are so swayed with what the consume on the internet we are already doomed.
- moorhosj 8y ago
  ==If people are so swayed with what the consume on the internet we are already doomed.== The counter to this would be: If people aren't swayed with what they consume on the internet then Facebook, Instagram, Google, Snap, Twitter, Pinterest and more would have market caps of about $0. The primary revenue stream for each of these companies is advertising on the internet. Since large corporations pay these companies significant dollars to advertise on their platforms, we can assume that their analysis shows some type of return on that investment. With that in mind, maybe there is a middle ground between your fatalism and the standard political grandstanding.
  - ProAm 8y ago
    > we can assume that their analysis shows some type of return on that investment. I wouldn't assume anything there. > With that in mind, maybe there is a middle ground between your fatalism and the standard political grandstanding. I'm sure there is but I still dont see why the government should be required to regulate SOCIAL media companies. It's social media for a reason.
    - moorhosj 8y ago
      ==I wouldn't assume anything there.== If you are going to dismiss it, then you should bring some evidence. Failing that, it is safe to assume that if profit-seeking corporations continue to spend billions of dollars a year for advertising, there is some return on investment. If there wasn't, the market would adjust. == It's social media for a reason. == I don't understand what this means. They added the word social, so it is no longer media?
      - ProAm 8y ago
        > If you are going to dismiss it, then you should bring some evidence. There is plenty of evidence that supports both sides of the claim. It's pointless to discuss because it will not stop the market. > I don't understand what this means. They added the word social, so it is no longer media? It's media in the essence that it's a means of communication, and media alone, especially social media, shouldn't be regulated by the government on private platforms. The government has no reasonable reason to stop people from voicing their opinions, or expressing satire, or discussing politics on social discussion platforms.
        moorhosj 8y ago
        ==There is plenty of evidence that supports both sides of the claim.== Please share your evidence. ==The government has no reasonable reason to stop people from voicing their opinions, or expressing satire, or discussing politics on social discussion platforms.== Bots are not people, which renders the point moot. Even if bots were granted rights, they are committing fraud by assuming fake identities and attempting to sway people's actions for gain. Fraud is a crime, crimes are regulated by the government.