5 ms·

> I understand the gut feeling to be suspicious of any large org to filter information. People on this very thread are screaming "censorship!" as if they were O

> I understand the gut feeling to be suspicious of any large org to filter information. People on this very thread are screaming "censorship!" as if they were Orwell in the streets warning us the end is nigh. I mean, these companies have a monopoly or near monopoly on communications, and they have openly said they are going to arbitrarily remove information that they don't like, without any kind of transparency or accountability. Is the fact that congress is not enacting a law supposed to mean that it is not censorship, and that we can't complain about it? Would you be ok with other private networks doing it? Besides, if we must have censorship, could we at least have someone more deserving of our trust do it? These policies of removing "fake news" greatly worsened COVID-19. As late as February, they were removing "disinformation" that it was infectious human to human. Telling someone to mask up in early March could get you banned. Posting first party evidence of the chaos in China in January could get you banned. It was fake news and disinformation. They were protecting us. These companies should be begging us for a second chance to filter the truth for us. Not just are these companies fallible, but they also have a very obvious neoliberal agenda. I've watched every single progressive podcast I liked get shadowbanned or outright removed from every major platform over the last year. Why are people so eager for this?

unethical_ban 6y ago
Your first sentence contains the lie, er, problem. >arbitrarily What is arbitrary about it? do you assume that because you don't have a list of their rules of engagement, that you don't have the "warrant" for these takedowns yourself, that it is arbitrary and politically biased in motive? >Telling someone to mask up in early March could get you banned. I straight up think that's bullshit. I would want evidence of that occurring or evidence that that was ever laid out as policy. >Would you be ok with other private networks doing it? "Private networks" do it all the time. Newspapers decide what to print, and whether they print lies or truths, and whether they do so fairly. The best journalists put truth first. These virtual bulletin boards are, as a matter of fact, massive platforms where any small amount of gamesmanship can lead to the very quick spread of information, good-faith or not. To think they should sit and do nothing is folly. >Posting first party evidence of the chaos in China in January could get you banned. It was fake news and disinformation. They were protecting us. What >Not just are these companies fallible, but they also have a very obvious neoliberal agenda. I've watched every single progressive podcast I liked get shadowbanned or outright removed from every major platform over the last year. What Your entire post is filled with so much unsubstantiated statement-as-fact I don't know where to begin.
- apostacy 6y ago
  > What is arbitrary about it? do you assume that because you don't have a list of their rules of engagement, that you don't have the "warrant" for these takedowns yourself, that it is arbitrary and politically biased in motive? I'm sure that they have some internal logic behind the scenes, of course. But it is effectively arbitrary, since their process is completely opaque to us and subject to 'arbitrary' change on their part. Even if they were completely transparent though, would that even be any better? They exercise absolute control with no accountability, over a platform that is ubiquitous and essential. > I straight up think that's bullshit. I would want evidence of that occurring or evidence that that was ever laid out as policy. Their policy is unchanged since then, and is quite explicit. Facebook defers 100% to the WHO. And the WHO defers to China. Maybe I can't prove to your satisfaction that the WHO is compromised. It is possible that the WHO is just really incompetent. But it doesn't matter, they were deeply ineffective. And anecdotally, I know people who fled China in December and January. You could leave China if you left via Wuhan airport. We tried warning people. I tried warning people. I was banned in February for "fake news". There was a preponderance of evidence of what was happening. Video after video of Chinese solders wearing hazmat suits rounding people up. But according to Facebook, all of it was completely fake, and we should't panic or talk about it. And I assume you are going to disregard everything I've said, unless I reconstruct timeline of everything I've said, and spoonfeed it to you. > "Private networks" do it all the time. Newspapers decide what to print, and whether they print lies or truths, and whether they do so fairly. The best journalists put truth first. Let me be very clear about something: corporations exist at the pleasure of the public. In theory anyway. You have no right to incorporate, and you have to be accountable to the people in exchange the privileges that you enjoy. And most any company their size, especially a provider of infrastructure, is in bed with the government. They did not pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They massively benefit from government subsidy, and they suppress any competitors. They are not a private network. > These virtual bulletin boards are, as a matter of fact, massive platforms where any small amount of gamesmanship can lead to the very quick spread of information, good-faith or not. To think they should sit and do nothing is folly. OK, so if disinformation is such a problem, then why should we allow one billionaire creep to be our information policeman? I should do it. I should be your information police officer. Why not? I've done less creepy things than Mark Zuckerberg. > What > What

unethical_ban 6y ago

Your first sentence contains the lie, er, problem. >arbitrarily What is arbitrary about it? do you assume that because you don't have a list of their rules of engagement, that you don't have the "warrant" for these takedowns yourself, that it is arbitrary and politically biased in motive? >Telling someone to mask up in early March could get you banned. I straight up think that's bullshit. I would want evidence of that occurring or evidence that that was ever laid out as policy. >Would you be ok with other private networks doing it? "Private networks" do it all the time. Newspapers decide what to print, and whether they print lies or truths, and whether they do so fairly. The best journalists put truth first. These virtual bulletin boards are, as a matter of fact, massive platforms where any small amount of gamesmanship can lead to the very quick spread of information, good-faith or not. To think they should sit and do nothing is folly. >Posting first party evidence of the chaos in China in January could get you banned. It was fake news and disinformation. They were protecting us. What >Not just are these companies fallible, but they also have a very obvious neoliberal agenda. I've watched every single progressive podcast I liked get shadowbanned or outright removed from every major platform over the last year. What Your entire post is filled with so much unsubstantiated statement-as-fact I don't know where to begin.

apostacy 6y ago
> What is arbitrary about it? do you assume that because you don't have a list of their rules of engagement, that you don't have the "warrant" for these takedowns yourself, that it is arbitrary and politically biased in motive? I'm sure that they have some internal logic behind the scenes, of course. But it is effectively arbitrary, since their process is completely opaque to us and subject to 'arbitrary' change on their part. Even if they were completely transparent though, would that even be any better? They exercise absolute control with no accountability, over a platform that is ubiquitous and essential. > I straight up think that's bullshit. I would want evidence of that occurring or evidence that that was ever laid out as policy. Their policy is unchanged since then, and is quite explicit. Facebook defers 100% to the WHO. And the WHO defers to China. Maybe I can't prove to your satisfaction that the WHO is compromised. It is possible that the WHO is just really incompetent. But it doesn't matter, they were deeply ineffective. And anecdotally, I know people who fled China in December and January. You could leave China if you left via Wuhan airport. We tried warning people. I tried warning people. I was banned in February for "fake news". There was a preponderance of evidence of what was happening. Video after video of Chinese solders wearing hazmat suits rounding people up. But according to Facebook, all of it was completely fake, and we should't panic or talk about it. And I assume you are going to disregard everything I've said, unless I reconstruct timeline of everything I've said, and spoonfeed it to you. > "Private networks" do it all the time. Newspapers decide what to print, and whether they print lies or truths, and whether they do so fairly. The best journalists put truth first. Let me be very clear about something: corporations exist at the pleasure of the public. In theory anyway. You have no right to incorporate, and you have to be accountable to the people in exchange the privileges that you enjoy. And most any company their size, especially a provider of infrastructure, is in bed with the government. They did not pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They massively benefit from government subsidy, and they suppress any competitors. They are not a private network. > These virtual bulletin boards are, as a matter of fact, massive platforms where any small amount of gamesmanship can lead to the very quick spread of information, good-faith or not. To think they should sit and do nothing is folly. OK, so if disinformation is such a problem, then why should we allow one billionaire creep to be our information policeman? I should do it. I should be your information police officer. Why not? I've done less creepy things than Mark Zuckerberg. > What > What