4 ms·

And yet still not a single counter argument explaining why you guys don't build your own social media site instead of whining about the old and stupid leading b

And yet still not a single counter argument explaining why you guys don't build your own social media site instead of whining about the old and stupid leading brands. There's lesson in the irony.

tstrimple 5y ago
They keep trying to build their own social media sites and are confused as to why they all degenerate into cesspools.
- myrryr 5y ago
  Yeah, there is no limit to new social sites, there is a limit to ones which work.
mancerayder 5y ago
Us guys? You're making a lot of assumptions. One of the saddest and most frustrating aspects of big tech's narrowing of permissible discourse is the association of defenders of discourse with red ties, right wing ideas and all of that. An Intro to Constitutional Law course or book would demonstrate how false that is, that up until only a decade or less ago, conservatives were the ones assaulting free speech. And Progressives were vigorously defending freedom of speech. This includes hate speech. They were preventing 'consequences' as people like yourself like to remind us we have no protection from. I can suggest materials to read, but what has degenerated is this thread, so it's pointless effort unless someone wants it. The philosophical arguments made by the Progressives in those days in defense of speech resonate timelessly, from the 1600s to the 2020s. The arguments resonate also beyond narrow ideas of what constitutes government restrictions. Today the question is around whether the FB's and Twitter's and YouTube's should be regulated as utilities and in the public interest, rather than an outmoded ideal around private ownership rights and the 1st Amendment not applying. From misinformation to viewpoint discrimination, it's the real question of our present time.
- varelse 5y ago
  Cool, how about some specific references to settled cases that are relevant to the situation rather than vague references to law books? Back in the day, I remember how Tipper Gore was all about warning us of the dangers of explicit lyrics and videos and she wasn't a conservative or have I lost track of who's on which team? Disliking what became of one political party because of the embrace of a demagogue does not necessarily make one a strong adherent of the other leading brand or is that too nuanced for you? I support the rights of social media sites to moderate content as they see fit and I support the rights of their customers to take their business elsewhere if they don't like how it's run. I won't be going into Hobby Lobby anytime soon nor will I be going to Carl's Jr, but I'm also not going to tell them how to run their businesses. I think that's where we really differ here. Facebook and Twitter will ultimately fall to superior successors that catch the zeitgeist just like they did. But not on any of our schedules.
  - freedomben 5y ago
    Hobby Lobby I know, but why not Carl's Jr? Edit: Ah, I see the founder (who died in 2008) donated and supported anti-gay causes and anti-abortion
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Back in the day, I remember how Tipper Gore was all about warning us of the dangers of explicit lyrics and videos and she wasn't a conservative Al Gore was long known as a conservative Democrat, and his taking up his wife's singular political issue was in line with that; in fact the WSJ complained about his supposed reinvention as a liberal in 2000 during the campaign. (Weirdly, complaining that he had done so in aligning with Clinton, who also was, even as President, a conservative Democrat; this was a partisan campaign hitpiece more than anything, Gore’s actual reinvention as anything but a conservative Democrat didn't really happen until after he was out of electoral politics, when he became a single-issue campaigner on climate change.) https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB966909158678552096 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB966909158678552096

And yet still not a single counter argument explaining why you guys don't build your own social media site instead of whining about the old and stupid leading brands. There's lesson in the irony.

tstrimple 5y ago

They keep trying to build their own social media sites and are confused as to why they all degenerate into cesspools.

myrryr 5y ago
Yeah, there is no limit to new social sites, there is a limit to ones which work.

mancerayder 5y ago

Us guys? You're making a lot of assumptions. One of the saddest and most frustrating aspects of big tech's narrowing of permissible discourse is the association of defenders of discourse with red ties, right wing ideas and all of that. An Intro to Constitutional Law course or book would demonstrate how false that is, that up until only a decade or less ago, conservatives were the ones assaulting free speech. And Progressives were vigorously defending freedom of speech. This includes hate speech. They were preventing 'consequences' as people like yourself like to remind us we have no protection from. I can suggest materials to read, but what has degenerated is this thread, so it's pointless effort unless someone wants it. The philosophical arguments made by the Progressives in those days in defense of speech resonate timelessly, from the 1600s to the 2020s. The arguments resonate also beyond narrow ideas of what constitutes government restrictions. Today the question is around whether the FB's and Twitter's and YouTube's should be regulated as utilities and in the public interest, rather than an outmoded ideal around private ownership rights and the 1st Amendment not applying. From misinformation to viewpoint discrimination, it's the real question of our present time.

varelse 5y ago
Cool, how about some specific references to settled cases that are relevant to the situation rather than vague references to law books? Back in the day, I remember how Tipper Gore was all about warning us of the dangers of explicit lyrics and videos and she wasn't a conservative or have I lost track of who's on which team? Disliking what became of one political party because of the embrace of a demagogue does not necessarily make one a strong adherent of the other leading brand or is that too nuanced for you? I support the rights of social media sites to moderate content as they see fit and I support the rights of their customers to take their business elsewhere if they don't like how it's run. I won't be going into Hobby Lobby anytime soon nor will I be going to Carl's Jr, but I'm also not going to tell them how to run their businesses. I think that's where we really differ here. Facebook and Twitter will ultimately fall to superior successors that catch the zeitgeist just like they did. But not on any of our schedules.
- freedomben 5y ago
  Hobby Lobby I know, but why not Carl's Jr? Edit: Ah, I see the founder (who died in 2008) donated and supported anti-gay causes and anti-abortion
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Back in the day, I remember how Tipper Gore was all about warning us of the dangers of explicit lyrics and videos and she wasn't a conservative Al Gore was long known as a conservative Democrat, and his taking up his wife's singular political issue was in line with that; in fact the WSJ complained about his supposed reinvention as a liberal in 2000 during the campaign. (Weirdly, complaining that he had done so in aligning with Clinton, who also was, even as President, a conservative Democrat; this was a partisan campaign hitpiece more than anything, Gore’s actual reinvention as anything but a conservative Democrat didn't really happen until after he was out of electoral politics, when he became a single-issue campaigner on climate change.) https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB966909158678552096 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB966909158678552096