4 ms·

==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 c

==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.
      - ProAm 8y ago
        > Please share your evidence. You can google on your own, I will not be doing. Nor replying further to this conversation thread. > Bots are not people, which renders the point moot. Exactly so there is no need to regulate information or opinion coming out of a essentially a robot. They are not committing fraud as for social media has never been regarded as a system of truth there is no law that says I must tell the truth when posting on social media. Nor has social media every been restricted to one account per person. This has been a fun conversation but I am done speaking on it as for nothing we discuss will change anything or either's opinion.
        moorhosj 8y ago
        I'll continue to assume you have no evidence as you continue to not produce any. ==Exactly so there is no need to regulate information or opinion coming out of a essentially a robot.== Two comments ago it couldn't be regulated because it would "stop people from voicing their opinions, or expressing satire, or discussing politics"; now you say they are just robots. Which is it, people or robots? Your stance is equivalent to believing Samuel Clemens couldn't be held liable for something that "Mark Twain" did/said. If you build a bot and that bot commits fraud, you have committed fraud. ==This has been a fun conversation but I am done speaking on it as for nothing we discuss will change anything or either's opinion. == You are speaking for yourself, not me.

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.
    - ProAm 8y ago
      > Please share your evidence. You can google on your own, I will not be doing. Nor replying further to this conversation thread. > Bots are not people, which renders the point moot. Exactly so there is no need to regulate information or opinion coming out of a essentially a robot. They are not committing fraud as for social media has never been regarded as a system of truth there is no law that says I must tell the truth when posting on social media. Nor has social media every been restricted to one account per person. This has been a fun conversation but I am done speaking on it as for nothing we discuss will change anything or either's opinion.
      - moorhosj 8y ago
        I'll continue to assume you have no evidence as you continue to not produce any. ==Exactly so there is no need to regulate information or opinion coming out of a essentially a robot.== Two comments ago it couldn't be regulated because it would "stop people from voicing their opinions, or expressing satire, or discussing politics"; now you say they are just robots. Which is it, people or robots? Your stance is equivalent to believing Samuel Clemens couldn't be held liable for something that "Mark Twain" did/said. If you build a bot and that bot commits fraud, you have committed fraud. ==This has been a fun conversation but I am done speaking on it as for nothing we discuss will change anything or either's opinion. == You are speaking for yourself, not me.