5 ms·

> We are talking of censorship conducted by the government, the worst kind there is. Why the censorship is done by a corporation is so much better than the one

by kartan 8y ago

> We are talking of censorship conducted by the government, the worst kind there is. Why the censorship is done by a corporation is so much better than the one done by an elected government? I think that censorship is the wrong thing not who does it. > So on to the idea that Google and Facebook should be regulated, I think it's an absolutely horrible idea. For what it seems the USA election was deeply impacted by a foreign hostile government using Facebook ads. There are countries where sectarian violence is on the rise thanks to how Facebook prioritises stories for engagement. Facebook or Google need to be regulated because they are radicalizing people in search of more engagement to sell more ads. That is not a good situation, and there is no incentive for them to stop doing it. As it is the best way to get more money. Should these companies be allowed to run what accounts as psychological experiments on big portions of the population without any supervision? For me, the answer is no. It is unethical and it will impact negatively the people affected. > Just fucking educate people on fact checking and elementary logic. This supposes that the fault is in the individuals not in the system. And that it is easier to change all the population than to regulate a handful of companies. I am all for better education, but to solve the problem with the big tech companies regulation is needed.

Kaveren 8y ago
> Why the censorship is done by a corporation is so much better than the one done by an elected government? I think that censorship is the wrong thing not who does it. Because a company can censor whatever they want, and you don't have to use Facebook if you don't want to. With the government, there is an inherent threat of violence if you don't comply. Very simple.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- kuraudo 8y ago
  Yes, currently they can. The argument is that this is not desirable given how much sway these companies have over politics. For example, I have read that Donald Trump was elected as a result of Twitter; I wonder if he can win re-election when all of his support inevitably gets banned? It will be interesting to watch. If the public square has become the internet, it behooves the government to regulate it for political speech in the same way they do sex,race,religion, .etc.
- anoncake 8y ago
  > and you don't have to use Facebook if you don't want to. That must be a nice fantasy land you're living in.
bad_user 8y ago
> "Why the censorship is done by a corporation is so much better than the one done by an elected government? I think that censorship is the wrong thing not who does it." Speaking as a child of communism, the difference is that in case the government is doing the censorship you're no longer free to build your own platform, you're no longer free to have your own voice. In one case it's a matter of freedom, in another it's just a matter of cost. The difference is night and day. --- > "For what it seems the USA election was deeply impacted by a foreign hostile government using Facebook ads. There are countries where sectarian violence is on the rise thanks to how Facebook prioritises stories for engagement." Introducing censorship won't help fix these issues and there's absolutely no evidence that regulation helps in increasing the quality of news. Worse, government mandated censorship is pretty much irreversible without a revolution. This notion that people need protection from external influence has been the explanation for the censorship happening behind the Iron Curtain. It's the logic used by dictators and oligarchies. --- > "Should these companies be allowed to run what accounts as psychological experiments on big portions of the population without any supervision? For me, the answer is no. It is unethical and it will impact negatively the people affected." You still have the freedom to delete your Facebook account and note that I totally agree about privacy protections. I love the GDPR, but don't push censorship on me just because you are unable to distinguish fact from fiction. Also don't lump privacy together with fake news, in order to appeal to emotions, because they are not the same thing. Why don't you throw a "think of the children" in there too.
- whyaduck 8y ago
  Regulation isn't censorship. The FCC has been regulating broadcast news for decades in the US. The bullet points in the article are so far from "censorship" that anyone jumping to that claim is hard to take seriously. Also "child of communism" is a combination appeal to emotion with an appeal to authority thrown in for good measure. It's an attempt to paper over a breathless strawman argument - so, triple threat, I guess.
- kartan 8y ago
  > Introducing censorship won't help fix these issues Regulation does not equate censorship. There are other things that can be done. What do you think about this one "The report also said social media companies should agree to "code of conduct" to govern their commercial agreements with publishers."? It looks like a good idea that the tech giants should be held accountable for how they run their advertisement business that affects the behaviour of all the population. "Should these companies be allowed to run what accounts as psychological experiments on big portions of the population without any supervision?" is a valid question. It is not censorship. What do you think about it?
raxxorrax 8y ago
> For what it seems the USA election was deeply impacted by a foreign hostile government using Facebook ads I would still request evidence about the scope of this, because basic evidence suggests strongly that the influence was minuscule. So I would heavily question "deeply impacted". Perhaps this whole story was just fake news? I would even be satisfied with any ad from any country having the ability to significantly sway any election. There are far more probable explanations for the result of the election.
- boombust 8y ago
  Alright settle down, Vladimir. The point of advertising is to change people's behaviours and opinions. The entire purpose of the content is to modify behaviour. Cynics and trolls may think it doesn't have a 'significant' impact but it works which is why it is a multi-billion dollar industry. Anyways, here is your evidence of the impact that Russian meddling had on the US elections, you troll https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
  - cristiancavalli 8y ago
    This document doesn’t really speak to the impact that the operations had in US elections outcomes, just what intelligence tools were used. Plus calling someone a troll or Vladimir just because they ask a legitimate question and don’t subscribe to an accepted group-think is about as childish as it gets. Please stop bringing down the conversation.
    - boombust 8y ago
      No, it is troll-like behaviour. It is not a legitimate question if the intent of the comment is to deny the claims of the effectiveness of Russian interference, which is nonsense. It is impossible to know the full extent that Russian interference had on the election, but dismissing its impact because there is no proof of its 'effectiveness' is laughable. We know political ads work. It is why every single modern political campaign runs them. A google search gives you a rough idea of the reach this political campaign had. Put those simple principles together and you get why all western intelligence communities are in agreement that russia interfered and affected the US presidential election. Given how susceptible people are to advertising it shouldn't come as a surprise. When someone posits a statement that is just insanely ignorant (and demonstrably wrong) like "I would even be satisfied with any ad from any country having the ability to significantly sway any election." then the intent to derail the conversation is clear. Any knowledge of political history (and advertising) would tell you that such a statement is clearly ridiculous. Being obstinate and a pedant doesn't make automatically make you a critical thinker. In this case, it blinds you from seeing the obvious. Some sources for you even though you are probably too busy commenting something contrarian to google this shit yourself. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/without-the-russians-trump-wouldnt-have-won/2018/07/24/f4c87894-8f6b-11e8-bcd5-9d911c784c38_story.html?utm_term=.5f2f30ee574f https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/without-the-russians... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/technology/facebook-google-russia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/technology/facebook-googl...

by kartan 8y ago

Kaveren 8y ago

> Why the censorship is done by a corporation is so much better than the one done by an elected government? I think that censorship is the wrong thing not who does it. Because a company can censor whatever they want, and you don't have to use Facebook if you don't want to. With the government, there is an inherent threat of violence if you don't comply. Very simple.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
kuraudo 8y ago
Yes, currently they can. The argument is that this is not desirable given how much sway these companies have over politics. For example, I have read that Donald Trump was elected as a result of Twitter; I wonder if he can win re-election when all of his support inevitably gets banned? It will be interesting to watch. If the public square has become the internet, it behooves the government to regulate it for political speech in the same way they do sex,race,religion, .etc.
anoncake 8y ago
> and you don't have to use Facebook if you don't want to. That must be a nice fantasy land you're living in.

bad_user 8y ago

> "Why the censorship is done by a corporation is so much better than the one done by an elected government? I think that censorship is the wrong thing not who does it." Speaking as a child of communism, the difference is that in case the government is doing the censorship you're no longer free to build your own platform, you're no longer free to have your own voice. In one case it's a matter of freedom, in another it's just a matter of cost. The difference is night and day. --- > "For what it seems the USA election was deeply impacted by a foreign hostile government using Facebook ads. There are countries where sectarian violence is on the rise thanks to how Facebook prioritises stories for engagement." Introducing censorship won't help fix these issues and there's absolutely no evidence that regulation helps in increasing the quality of news. Worse, government mandated censorship is pretty much irreversible without a revolution. This notion that people need protection from external influence has been the explanation for the censorship happening behind the Iron Curtain. It's the logic used by dictators and oligarchies. --- > "Should these companies be allowed to run what accounts as psychological experiments on big portions of the population without any supervision? For me, the answer is no. It is unethical and it will impact negatively the people affected." You still have the freedom to delete your Facebook account and note that I totally agree about privacy protections. I love the GDPR, but don't push censorship on me just because you are unable to distinguish fact from fiction. Also don't lump privacy together with fake news, in order to appeal to emotions, because they are not the same thing. Why don't you throw a "think of the children" in there too.

whyaduck 8y ago
Regulation isn't censorship. The FCC has been regulating broadcast news for decades in the US. The bullet points in the article are so far from "censorship" that anyone jumping to that claim is hard to take seriously. Also "child of communism" is a combination appeal to emotion with an appeal to authority thrown in for good measure. It's an attempt to paper over a breathless strawman argument - so, triple threat, I guess.
kartan 8y ago
> Introducing censorship won't help fix these issues Regulation does not equate censorship. There are other things that can be done. What do you think about this one "The report also said social media companies should agree to "code of conduct" to govern their commercial agreements with publishers."? It looks like a good idea that the tech giants should be held accountable for how they run their advertisement business that affects the behaviour of all the population. "Should these companies be allowed to run what accounts as psychological experiments on big portions of the population without any supervision?" is a valid question. It is not censorship. What do you think about it?

raxxorrax 8y ago

> For what it seems the USA election was deeply impacted by a foreign hostile government using Facebook ads I would still request evidence about the scope of this, because basic evidence suggests strongly that the influence was minuscule. So I would heavily question "deeply impacted". Perhaps this whole story was just fake news? I would even be satisfied with any ad from any country having the ability to significantly sway any election. There are far more probable explanations for the result of the election.

boombust 8y ago
Alright settle down, Vladimir. The point of advertising is to change people's behaviours and opinions. The entire purpose of the content is to modify behaviour. Cynics and trolls may think it doesn't have a 'significant' impact but it works which is why it is a multi-billion dollar industry. Anyways, here is your evidence of the impact that Russian meddling had on the US elections, you troll https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
- cristiancavalli 8y ago
  This document doesn’t really speak to the impact that the operations had in US elections outcomes, just what intelligence tools were used. Plus calling someone a troll or Vladimir just because they ask a legitimate question and don’t subscribe to an accepted group-think is about as childish as it gets. Please stop bringing down the conversation.
  - boombust 8y ago
    No, it is troll-like behaviour. It is not a legitimate question if the intent of the comment is to deny the claims of the effectiveness of Russian interference, which is nonsense. It is impossible to know the full extent that Russian interference had on the election, but dismissing its impact because there is no proof of its 'effectiveness' is laughable. We know political ads work. It is why every single modern political campaign runs them. A google search gives you a rough idea of the reach this political campaign had. Put those simple principles together and you get why all western intelligence communities are in agreement that russia interfered and affected the US presidential election. Given how susceptible people are to advertising it shouldn't come as a surprise. When someone posits a statement that is just insanely ignorant (and demonstrably wrong) like "I would even be satisfied with any ad from any country having the ability to significantly sway any election." then the intent to derail the conversation is clear. Any knowledge of political history (and advertising) would tell you that such a statement is clearly ridiculous. Being obstinate and a pedant doesn't make automatically make you a critical thinker. In this case, it blinds you from seeing the obvious. Some sources for you even though you are probably too busy commenting something contrarian to google this shit yourself. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/without-the-russians-trump-wouldnt-have-won/2018/07/24/f4c87894-8f6b-11e8-bcd5-9d911c784c38_story.html?utm_term=.5f2f30ee574f https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/without-the-russians... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/technology/facebook-google-russia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/technology/facebook-googl...