10 ms·

Big Tech and Big Media really overplayed their hand this time, IMO. Millions and millions of people are now skeptical and looking for an alternative, even from

Big Tech and Big Media really overplayed their hand this time, IMO. Millions and millions of people are now skeptical and looking for an alternative, even from Fox News. It might not be to Parler, or to the next site after that, but fragmentation will continue to happen. Facebook and media at large only have power if they have viewers, which is a far less stable resource than iron, or oil, or other corporate mainstays. A decade from now, I think we’ll view the 2020 election as the tipping point.

grey-area 6y ago
2020, or more likely 2016 will perhaps be seen as a turning point in the fortunes of the US Republic, when the democracy began to unravel, the law was used as a weapon against enemies, and the rule of law was replaced by mob rule with different factions warring in the streets. The parallels between the US at this moment and pre-war Europe or Rome at the time of the Catiline conspiracy are striking - the centre cannot hold, and the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
- blackrock 6y ago
  Why can’t the dissenting States just secede from the Union? It is a democracy after all.
  - Rick1 6y ago
    Well some have tried. There was a civil war about it.
    - axaxs 6y ago
      Exactly. Many of the people who make civil war/anti south jokes are the same people who want California to secede, which makes no sense. In its simplest form, the civil war wasn't fought because the north thought slavery was bad. It was fought because several states tried to leave the United States.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        Why did they try to leave, again? Hint: Most of the secession declarations include language like this: > But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.
        axaxs 6y ago
        Sigh, I never made a claim as to why the south left. Slavery is not the reason for the war, secession is. You can easily make the case that slavery was the reason for secession, which isn't wrong, but a moot point. If states had seceded because they didn't like tea, we'd still have had a war.
      - jahewson 6y ago
        > Many of the people who make civil war/anti south jokes are the same people who want California to secede Citation needed.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - coldtea 6y ago
    It's not a democracy, it's a federal republic.
    - KMag 6y ago
      It's a constitutional republic / representative democracy. Republics and democracies aren't mutually exclusive. It's certainly not a direct democracy, but that doesn't make it not a democracy.
      - ekianjo 6y ago
        In a pure democracy there is no such thing as a constitution, as in the underlying principles can be changed by the majority in power. Having a constitution leads to more stability.
    - d_e_solomon 6y ago
      https://reason.com/volokh/2018/01/17/the-united-states-is-both-a-republic-and/ https://reason.com/volokh/2018/01/17/the-united-states-is-bo...
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - Brakenshire 6y ago
    It’s curious that the country/federation that introduced the concept of self-determination doesn’t allow self-determination for its constituent states.
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > country/federation that introduced the concept of self-determination doesn’t allow self-determination for its constituent states Individual self determination. If a local majority secedes every time it wants to trample on a minority, or in the case of the civil war, an oppressed majority, two things happen: one, politics devolve into fractured feudalism. Local elites have a mechanism for wresting absolute control. That, not the Constitution or a Bill of Rights or elections, becomes the basic unit of power. Two, our two-plus century record of peace on the homeland shatters. Every election or court case found unseemly by a contiguous local majority prompts a Twitter and existential crisis. Foreign adversaries hammer the wedge and split the nation into warring vassal states and too-small-to-matter opposing countries.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      It sort of does, in theory anyways. The constitution states that the government can be dissolved when the people feel it's necessary. That's not based on a single state though. But, the states should have a lot of power within their boarders, but it seems the 10th ammendment is often ignored and the judiciary fails to check the legislature on its overreach.
  - ufmace 6y ago
    Even if it was made legally possible for states to secede, I doubt it would help much - we're all too mixed up with each other. The Bluest states all have a lot of Red in their more rural areas, and the Reddest states all have a lot of Blue in their biggest cities. If such a thing were to happen, the states that ended up on each side would probably end up doubling down on the oppression of those in the other tribe who are still in their state, to encourage them to move to a state that's on their side.
- pydry 6y ago
  It seems less of a turning point and more of a "squeeze the accelerator even harder" year. It was almost all a continuation of existing trends. I have a dreadful feeling that the turning point for all of this societal dysfunction will be following the aftermath of a world war.
  - eternalban 6y ago
    I would not lose sleep over a world war. The social classes (globally) that are flooring the accelerator have no desire to glow in the dark. And we're not in lockdown globally so that the elite can spend time in bunkers deep underground. We're in lockdown so that elite privileges ("Grand Tour", etc.) can be restored, while the "common man" is put in his or her place, with strict regiments governing thought, speech, action, and movement. It is wise to ignore the cultural and political stun and smoke grenades, and pay attention to what is actually happening in real world. As usual, follow the money.
    - pydry 6y ago
      It's funny, there's a scene at the beginning of the play "an inspector calls" (set just before WW1) that mirrors exactly what you just said. I think it was a historical callback to a real, commonly held opinion at the time ("the interests of capital" was how he phrased it). I don't think our elites particularly want a world war either. I think they're perfectly prepared to push us in that direction in an attempt to cling on to their wealth and power though. They will prefer liberalism but they'll support far right populist who protects their property if that fails to garner popular support.
      - ahelwer 6y ago
        The difference is nukes.
- chrononaut 6y ago
  Hm.. perhaps in the faceless namespace that is the Internet, but much of that interaction hasn't yet percolated into every day life of the vast majority of individuals. Any person not participating in these exchanges and these networks might not even recognize that these heated interactions are happening. Another part of the complication (fortunately) is that there is also no "real life" external markers that separate us on these issues. You may know where people stand on the Internet about issues, but step outside and it's a sea of ambiguity with every individual you meet. And at that point, people just go about their day treating everyone with respect. (At least in the same amount they have been the last 60 years, which in some cases is not much respect)
  - h2odragon 6y ago
    Masks are becoming that. Considering the science of how much a cloth mask can do to save us from a virus, its hard not to suspect the social signal might be the point.
  - jahewson 6y ago
    You didn’t notice the flags, bumper stickers and hats?
- goodluckchuck 6y ago
  > the democracy began to unravel, the law was used as a weapon against enemies, and the rule of law was replaced by mob rule with different factions warring in the streets. I think a lot of those are good things and things we’ve been taught to over-value, without regard for their dangers and without an appreciation for the attendant responsibilities. The country was founded with a HEAVY skepticism of democracy. It allowed for some democratic influence, but the constitution goes to great lengths to restrain, channel, and temper the will of the people. It was adopted at a time when voting was highly regulated and limited to people who were considered best qualified to handle the responsibility. Even today the Constitution contemplates that presidents should be elected, not by the people directly, but by their state legislators. The whole idea of allowing direct democracy in presidential elections is a cop-out by legislators who’ve found a way to avoid that responsibility. Same with using the law as a sword... that’s largely how it’s supposed to work. This idea that the FBI should be independent flies in the face of having 3 branches. It’s impractical. They’re humans, they also have axes to grind. The difference is that they’re appointed and not easily removed. Leadership is human and will therefore always enforce the law according to whatever axe they have to grind. The goal of a successful republic should be to accept, channel, and utilize that human nature. However, I agree that there is an overarching crisis in the form of the internet which is destabilizing entrenched powers the same way the printing press did (leading to the renaissance). A lot of it also comes from the renaissance itself and traditional media. It remains true that there are people who are responsible and learned enough in maters of government to be able to vote, and others who aren’t. However the old rules of racism and sexism have - for all their terrible faults - also lost their utility in this respect. You government can’t count on “white landowning men of good character” to be a ‘superior’ pool to draw insight from. Since our economy is no longer 99.9% agricultural, being “a landowner” is no longer a guarantee that landowners are among the most prosperous and responsible individuals. Now many of our most informed and influential people own little to no land, and those that own modest acreage may be far less knowledgeable. Women and non-whites are (rightfully) now allowed to be and actually are very well educated and experienced in having serious responsibilities, etc. So it’s very hard to effectively discriminate between high-quality and low-quality voters... Meanwhile everyone is almost socially required to care about politics, to be informed, hold opinions, vote, speak out, etc. when there are frankly a lot of people in the world who have other shit going on in their lives and who don’t have the time and resources to waste worrying about politics. Simply not knowing and not caring is viewed as some sort of sin, by both sides, because they view these people a potential votes they could win. I think this is where a lot of the pandering and vitriol is created, because things have to seem super clear to get people - who don’t want to care - to care. Even if you don’t know the first thing about politics, you know the nazis are the bad guys and the communists are the bad guys... Soo, yes, that’s who the other side is!
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  Historians actually point to Vietnam as the point when the average American gave up on their government. Once that happened, the government gave up on the average American, allowed middle class jobs to disappear, and spent more time joining global virtue signaling parties and subsidizing bombs in Yemen than fixing lead pipes in cities.
  - watwut 6y ago
    Which historians? I read quite a loud of American history lately and this is first time I see this claim.
    - jrootabega 6y ago
      You wouldn't know him, he goes to a different school.
    - hobs 6y ago
      It's not a controversial opinion as far as I can tell - https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/11/23/1-trust-in-government-1958-2015/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/11/23/1-trust-in-g... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/01/30/how-americans-lost-faith-in-government/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/... https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/how-americans-lost-faith-in-the-presidency/537897/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/how-ame... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/opinion/sunday/vietnam-the-war-that-killed-trust.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/opinion/sunday/vietnam-th...
      - watwut 6y ago
        It is not really historians and it does not really push the narrative of government "given up on citizens as reaction to them not trusting government". Government and citizens are not even two super distinct entities, government are citizens and is put in place by citizens.
        6y ago
- caf 6y ago
  ...when the democracy began to unravel, the law was used as a weapon against enemies, and the rule of law was replaced by mob rule with different factions warring in the streets. This could have easily been written about the late 1960s / early 1970s, though - the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, the 1968 Democratic National Convention, Hoover's FBI and COINTELPRO, the Black Panthers, the Weather Underground and Watergate. The top wobbled but righted itself; perhaps it will do so again.
- jimbob45 6y ago
  Bullshit, buddy. Ant getting target-tanked by China means America is still the best place for innovation and risk-taking. Every generation thinks they have it the worst.
refurb 6y ago
I have to agree that big tech really messed this one up. Their attempt at regulating speech on their platforms (entirely their own right to do however they want) has resulted in both sides being pissed. I had commented on this a while ago that it was like War Games - the only way to win this game was not to play at all. The second they started being the arbitrator of speech they were guaranteed to piss people off. Then they tried to adjust and pissed another group off. And even before all that crap below up, they had the gov't taking a long and hard look at the anti-trust problem. The platform censorship just threw gasoline on that smoldering fire. The smartest move now is to fire all their public relations and government affairs folks. They handled this about as poorly as they could.
- cm2187 6y ago
  Except one side is pissed at them not doing it enough while the other is pissed at being on the receiving side of the censorship. There is a party of authoritarianism at the moment.
  - philjohn 6y ago
    Don't forget "fact checks are a form of censorship". How did we, as a species, drop so low that to say that the thing a person says is disputed gets blown up into a huge issue. I have no problem with people of ANY political persuasion being fact checked - is it perfect? No. But is it better than nothing? On balance, it appears so.
- notahacker 6y ago
  I dont think Big Tech got every call right, but I really don't see how they please both sides here. Especially when one side, from the top down, considers everything other than sycophantic praise for its leader to be 'fake news', and the other side has some people opining that even reporting things the other side says without qualification is irresponsible journalism. If anything, I'd say hindsight makes some of their more dubious decisions (slapping content warnings on stuff deemed to be aimed at undermining the democratic process) look better.
PicassoCTs 6y ago
The problem is- that they never invested in growing healthy engagement instead of enragement. Instigating a tribal warfare climate to push adds is just to easy of a business model. Then the goat was chosen to moderate the cabbage and here we are. If the predictions hold, the ironic end will be, some CEOs blown up by a terrorism wave they helped to create. Thus ended the lesson and the revolution can now eat its kids
djsumdog 6y ago
I think we need some meaningful section 230 reform, but I'm not sure if that's even possible at this point. I wrote this the other day: https://battlepenguin.com/politics/is-meaningful-section-230-reform-possible/ https://battlepenguin.com/politics/is-meaningful-section-230...
oneplane 6y ago
Calling a vague group of entities 'Big X' isn't as useful as people think. It's not like there is a strong definition, or that everyone identifies the same with it. It's also not helpful to personify a vague group of even more groups (of business entities) and then assume they all had some concerted 'hand to play'. It's possible that there is some emergent behaviour in markets with large companies and it might even seem like it's a single 'person', but it's not and it makes discussing specifics really hard. Perhaps it's an american thing, but it seems really odd looking from the outside in.
- bzb6 6y ago
  It must’ve been my imagination all the times that Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc banned conservative accounts the same day. Several times.
  - oneplane 6y ago
    So you think they are not a combination of a a lot of people working in different locations at different times under different policies, and that it must be one big 'person' doing one thing? If we're going to be that far removed from reality you might as well live in the woods and fling poo at each other.

grey-area 6y ago

2020, or more likely 2016 will perhaps be seen as a turning point in the fortunes of the US Republic, when the democracy began to unravel, the law was used as a weapon against enemies, and the rule of law was replaced by mob rule with different factions warring in the streets. The parallels between the US at this moment and pre-war Europe or Rome at the time of the Catiline conspiracy are striking - the centre cannot hold, and the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

blackrock 6y ago
Why can’t the dissenting States just secede from the Union? It is a democracy after all.
- Rick1 6y ago
  Well some have tried. There was a civil war about it.
  - axaxs 6y ago
    Exactly. Many of the people who make civil war/anti south jokes are the same people who want California to secede, which makes no sense. In its simplest form, the civil war wasn't fought because the north thought slavery was bad. It was fought because several states tried to leave the United States.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      Why did they try to leave, again? Hint: Most of the secession declarations include language like this: > But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.
      - axaxs 6y ago
        Sigh, I never made a claim as to why the south left. Slavery is not the reason for the war, secession is. You can easily make the case that slavery was the reason for secession, which isn't wrong, but a moot point. If states had seceded because they didn't like tea, we'd still have had a war.
    - jahewson 6y ago
      > Many of the people who make civil war/anti south jokes are the same people who want California to secede Citation needed.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- coldtea 6y ago
  It's not a democracy, it's a federal republic.
  - KMag 6y ago
    It's a constitutional republic / representative democracy. Republics and democracies aren't mutually exclusive. It's certainly not a direct democracy, but that doesn't make it not a democracy.
    - ekianjo 6y ago
      In a pure democracy there is no such thing as a constitution, as in the underlying principles can be changed by the majority in power. Having a constitution leads to more stability.
  - d_e_solomon 6y ago
    https://reason.com/volokh/2018/01/17/the-united-states-is-both-a-republic-and/ https://reason.com/volokh/2018/01/17/the-united-states-is-bo...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- Brakenshire 6y ago
  It’s curious that the country/federation that introduced the concept of self-determination doesn’t allow self-determination for its constituent states.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > country/federation that introduced the concept of self-determination doesn’t allow self-determination for its constituent states Individual self determination. If a local majority secedes every time it wants to trample on a minority, or in the case of the civil war, an oppressed majority, two things happen: one, politics devolve into fractured feudalism. Local elites have a mechanism for wresting absolute control. That, not the Constitution or a Bill of Rights or elections, becomes the basic unit of power. Two, our two-plus century record of peace on the homeland shatters. Every election or court case found unseemly by a contiguous local majority prompts a Twitter and existential crisis. Foreign adversaries hammer the wedge and split the nation into warring vassal states and too-small-to-matter opposing countries.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    It sort of does, in theory anyways. The constitution states that the government can be dissolved when the people feel it's necessary. That's not based on a single state though. But, the states should have a lot of power within their boarders, but it seems the 10th ammendment is often ignored and the judiciary fails to check the legislature on its overreach.
- ufmace 6y ago
  Even if it was made legally possible for states to secede, I doubt it would help much - we're all too mixed up with each other. The Bluest states all have a lot of Red in their more rural areas, and the Reddest states all have a lot of Blue in their biggest cities. If such a thing were to happen, the states that ended up on each side would probably end up doubling down on the oppression of those in the other tribe who are still in their state, to encourage them to move to a state that's on their side.
pydry 6y ago
It seems less of a turning point and more of a "squeeze the accelerator even harder" year. It was almost all a continuation of existing trends. I have a dreadful feeling that the turning point for all of this societal dysfunction will be following the aftermath of a world war.
- eternalban 6y ago
  I would not lose sleep over a world war. The social classes (globally) that are flooring the accelerator have no desire to glow in the dark. And we're not in lockdown globally so that the elite can spend time in bunkers deep underground. We're in lockdown so that elite privileges ("Grand Tour", etc.) can be restored, while the "common man" is put in his or her place, with strict regiments governing thought, speech, action, and movement. It is wise to ignore the cultural and political stun and smoke grenades, and pay attention to what is actually happening in real world. As usual, follow the money.
  - pydry 6y ago
    It's funny, there's a scene at the beginning of the play "an inspector calls" (set just before WW1) that mirrors exactly what you just said. I think it was a historical callback to a real, commonly held opinion at the time ("the interests of capital" was how he phrased it). I don't think our elites particularly want a world war either. I think they're perfectly prepared to push us in that direction in an attempt to cling on to their wealth and power though. They will prefer liberalism but they'll support far right populist who protects their property if that fails to garner popular support.
    - ahelwer 6y ago
      The difference is nukes.
chrononaut 6y ago
Hm.. perhaps in the faceless namespace that is the Internet, but much of that interaction hasn't yet percolated into every day life of the vast majority of individuals. Any person not participating in these exchanges and these networks might not even recognize that these heated interactions are happening. Another part of the complication (fortunately) is that there is also no "real life" external markers that separate us on these issues. You may know where people stand on the Internet about issues, but step outside and it's a sea of ambiguity with every individual you meet. And at that point, people just go about their day treating everyone with respect. (At least in the same amount they have been the last 60 years, which in some cases is not much respect)
- h2odragon 6y ago
  Masks are becoming that. Considering the science of how much a cloth mask can do to save us from a virus, its hard not to suspect the social signal might be the point.
- jahewson 6y ago
  You didn’t notice the flags, bumper stickers and hats?
goodluckchuck 6y ago
> the democracy began to unravel, the law was used as a weapon against enemies, and the rule of law was replaced by mob rule with different factions warring in the streets. I think a lot of those are good things and things we’ve been taught to over-value, without regard for their dangers and without an appreciation for the attendant responsibilities. The country was founded with a HEAVY skepticism of democracy. It allowed for some democratic influence, but the constitution goes to great lengths to restrain, channel, and temper the will of the people. It was adopted at a time when voting was highly regulated and limited to people who were considered best qualified to handle the responsibility. Even today the Constitution contemplates that presidents should be elected, not by the people directly, but by their state legislators. The whole idea of allowing direct democracy in presidential elections is a cop-out by legislators who’ve found a way to avoid that responsibility. Same with using the law as a sword... that’s largely how it’s supposed to work. This idea that the FBI should be independent flies in the face of having 3 branches. It’s impractical. They’re humans, they also have axes to grind. The difference is that they’re appointed and not easily removed. Leadership is human and will therefore always enforce the law according to whatever axe they have to grind. The goal of a successful republic should be to accept, channel, and utilize that human nature. However, I agree that there is an overarching crisis in the form of the internet which is destabilizing entrenched powers the same way the printing press did (leading to the renaissance). A lot of it also comes from the renaissance itself and traditional media. It remains true that there are people who are responsible and learned enough in maters of government to be able to vote, and others who aren’t. However the old rules of racism and sexism have - for all their terrible faults - also lost their utility in this respect. You government can’t count on “white landowning men of good character” to be a ‘superior’ pool to draw insight from. Since our economy is no longer 99.9% agricultural, being “a landowner” is no longer a guarantee that landowners are among the most prosperous and responsible individuals. Now many of our most informed and influential people own little to no land, and those that own modest acreage may be far less knowledgeable. Women and non-whites are (rightfully) now allowed to be and actually are very well educated and experienced in having serious responsibilities, etc. So it’s very hard to effectively discriminate between high-quality and low-quality voters... Meanwhile everyone is almost socially required to care about politics, to be informed, hold opinions, vote, speak out, etc. when there are frankly a lot of people in the world who have other shit going on in their lives and who don’t have the time and resources to waste worrying about politics. Simply not knowing and not caring is viewed as some sort of sin, by both sides, because they view these people a potential votes they could win. I think this is where a lot of the pandering and vitriol is created, because things have to seem super clear to get people - who don’t want to care - to care. Even if you don’t know the first thing about politics, you know the nazis are the bad guys and the communists are the bad guys... Soo, yes, that’s who the other side is!
mensetmanusman 6y ago
Historians actually point to Vietnam as the point when the average American gave up on their government. Once that happened, the government gave up on the average American, allowed middle class jobs to disappear, and spent more time joining global virtue signaling parties and subsidizing bombs in Yemen than fixing lead pipes in cities.
- watwut 6y ago
  Which historians? I read quite a loud of American history lately and this is first time I see this claim.
  - jrootabega 6y ago
    You wouldn't know him, he goes to a different school.
  - hobs 6y ago
    It's not a controversial opinion as far as I can tell - https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/11/23/1-trust-in-government-1958-2015/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/11/23/1-trust-in-g... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/01/30/how-americans-lost-faith-in-government/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/... https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/how-americans-lost-faith-in-the-presidency/537897/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/how-ame... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/opinion/sunday/vietnam-the-war-that-killed-trust.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/opinion/sunday/vietnam-th...
    - watwut 6y ago
      It is not really historians and it does not really push the narrative of government "given up on citizens as reaction to them not trusting government". Government and citizens are not even two super distinct entities, government are citizens and is put in place by citizens.
      - 6y ago
caf 6y ago
...when the democracy began to unravel, the law was used as a weapon against enemies, and the rule of law was replaced by mob rule with different factions warring in the streets. This could have easily been written about the late 1960s / early 1970s, though - the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, the 1968 Democratic National Convention, Hoover's FBI and COINTELPRO, the Black Panthers, the Weather Underground and Watergate. The top wobbled but righted itself; perhaps it will do so again.
jimbob45 6y ago
Bullshit, buddy. Ant getting target-tanked by China means America is still the best place for innovation and risk-taking. Every generation thinks they have it the worst.

refurb 6y ago

I have to agree that big tech really messed this one up. Their attempt at regulating speech on their platforms (entirely their own right to do however they want) has resulted in both sides being pissed. I had commented on this a while ago that it was like War Games - the only way to win this game was not to play at all. The second they started being the arbitrator of speech they were guaranteed to piss people off. Then they tried to adjust and pissed another group off. And even before all that crap below up, they had the gov't taking a long and hard look at the anti-trust problem. The platform censorship just threw gasoline on that smoldering fire. The smartest move now is to fire all their public relations and government affairs folks. They handled this about as poorly as they could.

cm2187 6y ago
Except one side is pissed at them not doing it enough while the other is pissed at being on the receiving side of the censorship. There is a party of authoritarianism at the moment.
- philjohn 6y ago
  Don't forget "fact checks are a form of censorship". How did we, as a species, drop so low that to say that the thing a person says is disputed gets blown up into a huge issue. I have no problem with people of ANY political persuasion being fact checked - is it perfect? No. But is it better than nothing? On balance, it appears so.
notahacker 6y ago
I dont think Big Tech got every call right, but I really don't see how they please both sides here. Especially when one side, from the top down, considers everything other than sycophantic praise for its leader to be 'fake news', and the other side has some people opining that even reporting things the other side says without qualification is irresponsible journalism. If anything, I'd say hindsight makes some of their more dubious decisions (slapping content warnings on stuff deemed to be aimed at undermining the democratic process) look better.

PicassoCTs 6y ago

The problem is- that they never invested in growing healthy engagement instead of enragement. Instigating a tribal warfare climate to push adds is just to easy of a business model. Then the goat was chosen to moderate the cabbage and here we are. If the predictions hold, the ironic end will be, some CEOs blown up by a terrorism wave they helped to create. Thus ended the lesson and the revolution can now eat its kids

djsumdog 6y ago

I think we need some meaningful section 230 reform, but I'm not sure if that's even possible at this point. I wrote this the other day: https://battlepenguin.com/politics/is-meaningful-section-230-reform-possible/ https://battlepenguin.com/politics/is-meaningful-section-230...

oneplane 6y ago

Calling a vague group of entities 'Big X' isn't as useful as people think. It's not like there is a strong definition, or that everyone identifies the same with it. It's also not helpful to personify a vague group of even more groups (of business entities) and then assume they all had some concerted 'hand to play'. It's possible that there is some emergent behaviour in markets with large companies and it might even seem like it's a single 'person', but it's not and it makes discussing specifics really hard. Perhaps it's an american thing, but it seems really odd looking from the outside in.

bzb6 6y ago
It must’ve been my imagination all the times that Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc banned conservative accounts the same day. Several times.
- oneplane 6y ago
  So you think they are not a combination of a a lot of people working in different locations at different times under different policies, and that it must be one big 'person' doing one thing? If we're going to be that far removed from reality you might as well live in the woods and fling poo at each other.