5 ms·

Parler, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook were definitely used to storm Congress. Snapchat, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter and Facebook also were definitely used to bu

Parler, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook were definitely used to storm Congress. Snapchat, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter and Facebook also were definitely used to burn down parts of Minneapolis, Chicago, and LA. Massive Big Tech conglomerates must be busted through antitrust enforcement and Section 230 must be updated to ban predatory algorithms which have inflamed 7 years of sectarian chaos. It's not a free speech issue: It's about Too Big To Fail.

dvdhnt 6y ago
> Snapchat, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter and Facebook also were definitely used to burn down parts of Minneapolis, Chicago, and LA. Source? Edit: lol at the downvotes. Anytime someone talks about something obvious regarding society/wealth inequality, all the wannabe Elon Musks come out to demand sources. But infringe on their dear property rights or otherwise critique the current economic system, and oh boy, they have that downvote finger ready. Cheers.
- zionic 6y ago
  Are you unironically contesting that popular social media was used to organize riots and massive property damage last summer?
  - dvdhnt 6y ago
    > Are you unironically contesting that popular social media was used to organize No, everything must be organized, I get that. > riots and massive property damage last summer? I'm asking for a source regarding the accusation that they were used to "burn down parts of Minneapolis, Chicago, and LA" And before you ask, yeah, I take issue with the idea of most of those events being called "riots" - they were almost entirely peaceful protests, with unarmed protesters, that were met by militarized police forces and unnamed federal agents. Furthermore, I take issue with the emphasis on "property damage" as property is fairly meaningless when you fear for your live or live paycheck-to-paycheck. America has an unhealthy obsession with "property damage" as if it should be the driver for any sort of discussion on societal issues, when in fact, it should not be.
    - Qasaur 6y ago
      >Furthermore, I take issue with the emphasis on "property damage" as property is fairly meaningless when you fear for your live or live paycheck-to-paycheck. America has an unhealthy obsession with "property damage" as if it should be the driver for any sort of discussion on societal issues, when in fact, it should not be. Ah right, so the ends justify the means. It is OK to vandalise and destroy a small business if you feel bad and frustrated, but only if you share the corporate-approved politically correct opinion. Do you not see where this road ends?
    - lliamander 6y ago
      > And before you ask, yeah, I take issue with the idea of most of those events being called "riots" - they were almost entirely peaceful protests, with unarmed protesters, that were met by militarized police forces and unnamed federal agents. Most of the people at the capitol on the 6th were peaceful too. However, those "mostly peaceful" riots this past sumer resulted in billions of dollars in property damage, dozens of deaths, and a massive spike in crime (including violent crime). Many of these rioters were either bailed out by politicians (including the incoming VP) or simply refused to be prosecuted by local DAs. Now, I have no doubt that there was police brutality against peaceful protesters, which is horrible and inexcusable. I also think there are many legitimate grievances against the police. I even understand (though do not condone) the attacks made against police precincts and federal buildings. But the suffering inflicted upon innocent civilians by the rioters is completely monstrous and likewise inexcusable. There is no honest moral framework to justify it. It was also incredibly counterproductive. With the excesses taken by police on behalf many governors during the lockdowns, this past year has possibly been the best time in decades to introduce bi-partisan police reform. The riots effectively killed that because many people would rather support the police (who are at least nominally there to protect them, even if they frequently stood down to the rioters) than they are to support the people threatening to loot and burn their homes and businesses. > I take issue with the emphasis on "property damage" as property is fairly meaningless when you fear for your live or live paycheck-to-paycheck. That's pretty obviously not true. If you are living paycheck-to-paycheck and your home (apartment, house, whatever) or the place where you work is destroyed you are going to care a great deal. Even if it is just your car - you might night be able to afford a new car, but without the car you might not be able to get to work and thus lose your job. > America has an unhealthy obsession with "property damage" as if it should be the driver for any sort of discussion on societal issues, when in fact, it should not be. "Property damage" isn't some abstract thing. It's the destruction of peoples homes and livelihoods. It is the very means by which we live. Even if we lived in a perfect socialist utopia with no private property, it should be fairly obvious that the destruction of the communal property that houses and supports the community would be a serious offense.
zionic 6y ago
I’m so done with all of this. It’s time to break them up. Who is “them”? All of them.
- meekmockmook 6y ago
  Zuckerberg, Pichai, Wojcicki, and Dorsey have failed as guardians of the internet. Split their companies into pieces and let organic conversations happen again. I tire of them profiting off of hate while spamming the world with ugly art of squiggly cartoon people in a phony attempt to paint themselves as anything but evil.
  - aezakmi 6y ago
    Why would you want "guardans of the internet", if anything you "need" those to protect it from the governments, everything else is bloat.
  - rootsudo 6y ago
    They never were guardians of the internet. They are the worst scum/good businessman, that led to creation of successful businesses/profit centers riding off engagement. It doesn't matter which way the wind blows, they make money, there's an audience and there's engagement and user-base. To think these people ever thought about being guardians or Internet ambassadors is foolish and downright ignorant. They are profiteers. Tom was so smart to take the Myspace Exit and live a excellent life.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  Especially the media channels - from Fox downwards. Make lying to the public a criminal offence. Without lies these channels are nothing.
  - cbnotfromthere 6y ago
    I see your dedication to the 1st amendment is exemplary. Out of sheer curiosity, who decides what's a lie?
  - 6y ago
malloreon 6y ago
Facebook makes far too much money showing ads to their "more conservative user base" to do anything more than token gestures to stop racism and calls to violence.
- zionic 6y ago
  Let’s be real, they profited massively off the Russian conspiracy hoax as well. They make money when you’re mad and engaged
  - samb1729 6y ago
    What Russian conspiracy hoax are you referring to? I do hope you are not calling the well-understood interference by Russia in the democratic affairs of other nations a hoax but instead referring to something else. The Russian plan to destabilise the west is published in a book since 1997.
mattnewton 6y ago
Idk if simply used by the wrong people is the right way to decide if we should ban a tool. If foreign spies use firefox and thunderbird should we fine mozilla? They might have used nike shoes to walk there after getting a flyer in the mail printed on a cannon printer using an apple computer.. etc etc.
- akmarinov 6y ago
  In Facebook’s case, they specifically show you posts and news that will make you angry, since making you angry engages you more. It’s literally their business plan.
  - leppr 6y ago
    Should we ban tabloids too or are those okay since they're not P2P?
bmarquez 6y ago
Absolutely. The only reason Parler is getting banned and Facebook isn't is because Facebook is too big to fail. Facebook and Twitter have the same amount of questionable content, just better PR and bigger clout.
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  Facebook and Twitter actively remove such content. Does Parler?
  - bmarquez 6y ago
    I've seen Parler moderate content, perhaps not very quickly due to it being a small company. It's Gab that has no moderation (with all the pros and cons of a pure "free speech" network).
- input_sh 6y ago
  I'd argue Facebook is doing something to remove problematic content ("Good Samaritan" section of the Section 230). Definitely not enough and there are myriads of ways that they can improve, but that's clearly different to Parler that does next to nothing.
  - jquery 6y ago
    Facebook is also making gobs of cash. When Facebook was new its moderation was just as weak as Parler.
jldugger 6y ago
I mean, IRC can do the same damn thing in a federated way.
- ViViDboarder 6y ago
  The messages in my IRC channel don’t appear based on how incendiary they are. They are a strictly chronological timeline with no “viral amplification”. Closest we had to that was people reshaping bash.org links.
  - jldugger 6y ago
    I mean, I definitely recall the need to turn off unauthenticated DMs because of all the IRC bots recruiting racists to their "ChimpOut" network, which purported to ban black people. So it's not like you really need viral amplification to coordinate a rally, nor is it that hard to fake.
kemitchell 6y ago
I'm not sure how antitrust enforcement would address content problems. Assuming a social media network could be split off from a larger company as a separate line of business, the legal operating environment influencing its content moderation, algorithms, and so on wouldn't immediately change, just because the business was restructured. I'd expect far more fallout from the financial and operational ramifications, not all of which would be good, than any legal ones. I'm still not exactly sure how Section 230 relates to any of the issues in public discussion. Only that it's good for the platforms, and some folks want to hurt the platforms, so Section 230 must go. I've seen at least one draft of a proposed bill for adding additional conditions to Section 230, but they reminded me, more than anything, of hypothetical First Amendment questions from law school exams. It's by no means clear that platforms, especially new platforms, will simply do whatever you tell them to do in a condition to Section 230.

dvdhnt 6y ago

> Snapchat, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter and Facebook also were definitely used to burn down parts of Minneapolis, Chicago, and LA. Source? Edit: lol at the downvotes. Anytime someone talks about something obvious regarding society/wealth inequality, all the wannabe Elon Musks come out to demand sources. But infringe on their dear property rights or otherwise critique the current economic system, and oh boy, they have that downvote finger ready. Cheers.

zionic 6y ago
Are you unironically contesting that popular social media was used to organize riots and massive property damage last summer?
- dvdhnt 6y ago
  > Are you unironically contesting that popular social media was used to organize No, everything must be organized, I get that. > riots and massive property damage last summer? I'm asking for a source regarding the accusation that they were used to "burn down parts of Minneapolis, Chicago, and LA" And before you ask, yeah, I take issue with the idea of most of those events being called "riots" - they were almost entirely peaceful protests, with unarmed protesters, that were met by militarized police forces and unnamed federal agents. Furthermore, I take issue with the emphasis on "property damage" as property is fairly meaningless when you fear for your live or live paycheck-to-paycheck. America has an unhealthy obsession with "property damage" as if it should be the driver for any sort of discussion on societal issues, when in fact, it should not be.
  - Qasaur 6y ago
    >Furthermore, I take issue with the emphasis on "property damage" as property is fairly meaningless when you fear for your live or live paycheck-to-paycheck. America has an unhealthy obsession with "property damage" as if it should be the driver for any sort of discussion on societal issues, when in fact, it should not be. Ah right, so the ends justify the means. It is OK to vandalise and destroy a small business if you feel bad and frustrated, but only if you share the corporate-approved politically correct opinion. Do you not see where this road ends?
  - lliamander 6y ago
    > And before you ask, yeah, I take issue with the idea of most of those events being called "riots" - they were almost entirely peaceful protests, with unarmed protesters, that were met by militarized police forces and unnamed federal agents. Most of the people at the capitol on the 6th were peaceful too. However, those "mostly peaceful" riots this past sumer resulted in billions of dollars in property damage, dozens of deaths, and a massive spike in crime (including violent crime). Many of these rioters were either bailed out by politicians (including the incoming VP) or simply refused to be prosecuted by local DAs. Now, I have no doubt that there was police brutality against peaceful protesters, which is horrible and inexcusable. I also think there are many legitimate grievances against the police. I even understand (though do not condone) the attacks made against police precincts and federal buildings. But the suffering inflicted upon innocent civilians by the rioters is completely monstrous and likewise inexcusable. There is no honest moral framework to justify it. It was also incredibly counterproductive. With the excesses taken by police on behalf many governors during the lockdowns, this past year has possibly been the best time in decades to introduce bi-partisan police reform. The riots effectively killed that because many people would rather support the police (who are at least nominally there to protect them, even if they frequently stood down to the rioters) than they are to support the people threatening to loot and burn their homes and businesses. > I take issue with the emphasis on "property damage" as property is fairly meaningless when you fear for your live or live paycheck-to-paycheck. That's pretty obviously not true. If you are living paycheck-to-paycheck and your home (apartment, house, whatever) or the place where you work is destroyed you are going to care a great deal. Even if it is just your car - you might night be able to afford a new car, but without the car you might not be able to get to work and thus lose your job. > America has an unhealthy obsession with "property damage" as if it should be the driver for any sort of discussion on societal issues, when in fact, it should not be. "Property damage" isn't some abstract thing. It's the destruction of peoples homes and livelihoods. It is the very means by which we live. Even if we lived in a perfect socialist utopia with no private property, it should be fairly obvious that the destruction of the communal property that houses and supports the community would be a serious offense.

zionic 6y ago

I’m so done with all of this. It’s time to break them up. Who is “them”? All of them.

meekmockmook 6y ago
Zuckerberg, Pichai, Wojcicki, and Dorsey have failed as guardians of the internet. Split their companies into pieces and let organic conversations happen again. I tire of them profiting off of hate while spamming the world with ugly art of squiggly cartoon people in a phony attempt to paint themselves as anything but evil.
- aezakmi 6y ago
  Why would you want "guardans of the internet", if anything you "need" those to protect it from the governments, everything else is bloat.
- rootsudo 6y ago
  They never were guardians of the internet. They are the worst scum/good businessman, that led to creation of successful businesses/profit centers riding off engagement. It doesn't matter which way the wind blows, they make money, there's an audience and there's engagement and user-base. To think these people ever thought about being guardians or Internet ambassadors is foolish and downright ignorant. They are profiteers. Tom was so smart to take the Myspace Exit and live a excellent life.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
Especially the media channels - from Fox downwards. Make lying to the public a criminal offence. Without lies these channels are nothing.
- cbnotfromthere 6y ago
  I see your dedication to the 1st amendment is exemplary. Out of sheer curiosity, who decides what's a lie?
- 6y ago

malloreon 6y ago

Facebook makes far too much money showing ads to their "more conservative user base" to do anything more than token gestures to stop racism and calls to violence.

zionic 6y ago
Let’s be real, they profited massively off the Russian conspiracy hoax as well. They make money when you’re mad and engaged
- samb1729 6y ago
  What Russian conspiracy hoax are you referring to? I do hope you are not calling the well-understood interference by Russia in the democratic affairs of other nations a hoax but instead referring to something else. The Russian plan to destabilise the west is published in a book since 1997.

mattnewton 6y ago

Idk if simply used by the wrong people is the right way to decide if we should ban a tool. If foreign spies use firefox and thunderbird should we fine mozilla? They might have used nike shoes to walk there after getting a flyer in the mail printed on a cannon printer using an apple computer.. etc etc.

akmarinov 6y ago
In Facebook’s case, they specifically show you posts and news that will make you angry, since making you angry engages you more. It’s literally their business plan.
- leppr 6y ago
  Should we ban tabloids too or are those okay since they're not P2P?

bmarquez 6y ago

Absolutely. The only reason Parler is getting banned and Facebook isn't is because Facebook is too big to fail. Facebook and Twitter have the same amount of questionable content, just better PR and bigger clout.

MattGaiser 6y ago
Facebook and Twitter actively remove such content. Does Parler?
- bmarquez 6y ago
  I've seen Parler moderate content, perhaps not very quickly due to it being a small company. It's Gab that has no moderation (with all the pros and cons of a pure "free speech" network).
input_sh 6y ago
I'd argue Facebook is doing something to remove problematic content ("Good Samaritan" section of the Section 230). Definitely not enough and there are myriads of ways that they can improve, but that's clearly different to Parler that does next to nothing.
- jquery 6y ago
  Facebook is also making gobs of cash. When Facebook was new its moderation was just as weak as Parler.

jldugger 6y ago

I mean, IRC can do the same damn thing in a federated way.

ViViDboarder 6y ago
The messages in my IRC channel don’t appear based on how incendiary they are. They are a strictly chronological timeline with no “viral amplification”. Closest we had to that was people reshaping bash.org links.
- jldugger 6y ago
  I mean, I definitely recall the need to turn off unauthenticated DMs because of all the IRC bots recruiting racists to their "ChimpOut" network, which purported to ban black people. So it's not like you really need viral amplification to coordinate a rally, nor is it that hard to fake.

kemitchell 6y ago

I'm not sure how antitrust enforcement would address content problems. Assuming a social media network could be split off from a larger company as a separate line of business, the legal operating environment influencing its content moderation, algorithms, and so on wouldn't immediately change, just because the business was restructured. I'd expect far more fallout from the financial and operational ramifications, not all of which would be good, than any legal ones. I'm still not exactly sure how Section 230 relates to any of the issues in public discussion. Only that it's good for the platforms, and some folks want to hurt the platforms, so Section 230 must go. I've seen at least one draft of a proposed bill for adding additional conditions to Section 230, but they reminded me, more than anything, of hypothetical First Amendment questions from law school exams. It's by no means clear that platforms, especially new platforms, will simply do whatever you tell them to do in a condition to Section 230.