3 ms·

This isn't a position that social media companies wanted to be in. Blame the people who demand that the social media companies act as censors. This all started

by Aunche 4y ago

This isn't a position that social media companies wanted to be in. Blame the people who demand that the social media companies act as censors. This all started when people stirred outrage at a Coca Cola ad appeared before an ISIS video on Youtube and demanded that companies boycott Youtube ads.

orwin 4y ago
I'm really sorry about that, but how do you want people to act? That's why I don't get the whining on 'cancel culture'. Half the baby boomers generation (the middle/upper class part) keep telling their kids and others to 'vote but don't protest' and then, when told their generation controlled every vote target, 'vote with your wallets. Unless you've never used this phrase or equivalent, you don't get to complain about cancel culture. My generation (well, the one following mine rather) is just applying the advice. I grind my teeth everytime I hear middle/upper class people complaining at boycotts and 'cancel '. What do you want from them? They can't protest, because of violences against statues and McDonald's, They can't strike without getting teared down by most MSM(and because they need to live and nobody's donating to them anymore, except me and a couple people who remember where they came from), and they don't have representative who look like them and actually did the same job. And always, the patronizing 'haha, they can vote with their wallets'. Well, now they do, do you want to prevent that too?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- teakettle42 4y ago
  > I'm really sorry about that, but how do you want people to act? Like the resilient adults they should be. > I grind my teeth everytime I hear middle/upper class people complaining at boycotts and 'cancel '. What do you want from them? I want them to present their views, and attempt to convince others of the merits of those views. I don’t want them to use bullying, intimidation, authoritarianism, or violence to force others to adopt (or pretend to adopt) their viewpoint. > They can't protest, because of violences against statues and McDonald's Why do you treat “protest” and “riot” as synonyms? They’re not. > They can't strike without getting teared down by most MSM So what? You’re not owed agreement from anyone. If they want their strikes to be supported by others, they first need to convince others that they should be supported.
  - sophacles 4y ago
    >> I grind my teeth everytime I hear middle/upper class people complaining at boycotts and 'cancel '. What do you want from them? > I want them to present their views, and attempt to convince others of the merits of those views. > I don’t want them to use bullying, intimidation, authoritarianism, or violence to force others to adopt (or pretend to adopt) their viewpoint. Are you really equating "not choosing to buy stuff" and "not choosing to watch/attend stuff" with violence? Listen, I get it - you think you're entitled to a revenue stream, that whatever nonsense you build deserves money. Here's the deal though, the free market is also about the spender getting to choose what they spend money and time on. If you don't like it, too bad - no one owes you agreement nor money just because.
    - teakettle42 4y ago
      >> I don’t want them to use bullying, intimidation, authoritarianism, or violence to force others to adopt (or pretend to adopt) their viewpoint. > Are you really equating "not choosing to buy stuff" and "not choosing to watch/attend stuff" with violence? No, and I’m genuinely confused as to how you arrived at that interpretation of my statement. > Listen, I get it - you think you're entitled to a revenue stream, that whatever nonsense you build deserves money. How did you arrive at this conclusion? It has no relation whatsoever to what I wrote.
      - sophacles 4y ago
        How did I arrive at it? Well you quoted a bit about boycotts that included a question about alternatives. This type of quoting is often a technique to declare "the text after this before the next quote is a response". So when you then responded with a point about wanting them to make arguments instead, and emphasized it with "not ... violence", you sure seem to have equivocated them. If that wasn't your intent, my bad and I have no idea what you were intending to say. The second conclusion assumes you made the violence point of course and is basically substitution: boycotts = violence = not spending money People are generally entitled to not have violence directed at them. (becomes) People are generally entitled to not have not spending money directed at them. (can simplify as) People are generally entitled a revenue stream.
- Aunche 4y ago
  > I'm really sorry about that, but how do you want people to act? I want people to think more critically about cause and effect rather than spend all their effort on "raising awareness", which encompasses several behaviors, but the worst of which is spreading exaggerated anger. > told their generation controlled every vote target, Boomers control the vote because they're the ones that bother to show up, especially for elections that don't appear on people's social media feed. Seniors are 15x more likely to vote for mayors than those between 18-35 [1]. Fewer than 20% of people know the names of their state legislatures [2]. Meanwhile, there is no shortage of outrage on social media on issues that state legislatures vote for like gerrymandering and now abortion. Rather than research which state representatives are pro-choice, activists would rather yell loudly at the Supreme Court to resign and whine about being disenfranchised when that doesn't work. > vote with your wallets Voting with your wallet in this context would be to stop watching Youtube videos. However, they don't want to do that, and instead would rather making exaggerated claims of Youtube supporting ISIS. So social media companies reacted with their half-assed solutions that lead to situations like what is described in the article. Now, you're seeing people making exaggerated claims about Facebook wanting to be censors. I seriously doubt that people actually give a damn about ISIS videos with a few dozen views or the well-being of pornstars. Rather, they really just trying to raise awareness about evil corporations, which is the case with most of the comments here. However, none of this actually contributes to our collective intelligence of how to actually regulate tech or enact anti-trusts. At best, this anger may cause Facebook to do a little more due diligence about adding people to their terrorist watchlist, but the real problem people care about isn't solved. [1] http://whovotesformayor.org/ http://whovotesformayor.org/ [2] https://hub.jhu.edu/2018/12/14/americans-dont-understand-state-government/ https://hub.jhu.edu/2018/12/14/americans-dont-understand-sta...
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    > I seriously doubt that people actually give a damn about ISIS videos with a few dozen views or the well-being of pornstars. Rather, they really just trying to raise awareness about evil corporations, Lizard brain just knows that it likes it when the number in the top right goes up. Lizard brain knows that vapid comments and over the top calls to action make it go up faster. You get what you incentivize.
seydor 4y ago
Of course they wanted to , they could have denied such requests and let matters go to courts of law, where such matters should be resolved anyway. But it would put a slight dent on quarterly profits so , in the words of Sheryl Sandberg , "I am fine with this"[1] 1. https://www.propublica.org/article/sheryl-sandberg-and-top-facebook-execs-silenced-an-enemy-of-turkey-to-prevent-a-hit-to-their-business https://www.propublica.org/article/sheryl-sandberg-and-top-f...
- Aunche 4y ago
  Not sure how you're disagreeing with me. Your article is another example of Facebook not caring about censoring except to make more profits.
  - jessaustin 4y ago
    You said they didn't want to be in this position. Parent says they're happy to be in this position. Those propositions disagree.
    - Aunche 4y ago
      I'd hardly call complying with Turkish law being "happy to be in this position".
      - jessaustin 4y ago
        In this, you disagree with parent. QED.
upupandup 4y ago
So what I'm hearing is that billionaires who are no longer simply satiated by consumption, are not actively trying to undermine social order to gain power?
babypuncher 4y ago
I vote with my wallet, and my time. If Facebook is shoving things in my face that I do not like, then I stop using Facebook. I haven't logged-in for over two years because of that. If a company I buy products from is spending that money on things I vehemently disapprove of, then I am well within my rights to stop being their customer. This isn't "cancel culture", this is me choosing how I spend my time and money. What I find onerous are all the people telling me that I'm a bad person for exercising these liberties.
- Aunche 4y ago
  Can you point to where I told you you're a bad person for not using Facebook?

by Aunche 4y ago

orwin 4y ago

I'm really sorry about that, but how do you want people to act? That's why I don't get the whining on 'cancel culture'. Half the baby boomers generation (the middle/upper class part) keep telling their kids and others to 'vote but don't protest' and then, when told their generation controlled every vote target, 'vote with your wallets. Unless you've never used this phrase or equivalent, you don't get to complain about cancel culture. My generation (well, the one following mine rather) is just applying the advice. I grind my teeth everytime I hear middle/upper class people complaining at boycotts and 'cancel '. What do you want from them? They can't protest, because of violences against statues and McDonald's, They can't strike without getting teared down by most MSM(and because they need to live and nobody's donating to them anymore, except me and a couple people who remember where they came from), and they don't have representative who look like them and actually did the same job. And always, the patronizing 'haha, they can vote with their wallets'. Well, now they do, do you want to prevent that too?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
teakettle42 4y ago
> I'm really sorry about that, but how do you want people to act? Like the resilient adults they should be. > I grind my teeth everytime I hear middle/upper class people complaining at boycotts and 'cancel '. What do you want from them? I want them to present their views, and attempt to convince others of the merits of those views. I don’t want them to use bullying, intimidation, authoritarianism, or violence to force others to adopt (or pretend to adopt) their viewpoint. > They can't protest, because of violences against statues and McDonald's Why do you treat “protest” and “riot” as synonyms? They’re not. > They can't strike without getting teared down by most MSM So what? You’re not owed agreement from anyone. If they want their strikes to be supported by others, they first need to convince others that they should be supported.
- sophacles 4y ago
  >> I grind my teeth everytime I hear middle/upper class people complaining at boycotts and 'cancel '. What do you want from them? > I want them to present their views, and attempt to convince others of the merits of those views. > I don’t want them to use bullying, intimidation, authoritarianism, or violence to force others to adopt (or pretend to adopt) their viewpoint. Are you really equating "not choosing to buy stuff" and "not choosing to watch/attend stuff" with violence? Listen, I get it - you think you're entitled to a revenue stream, that whatever nonsense you build deserves money. Here's the deal though, the free market is also about the spender getting to choose what they spend money and time on. If you don't like it, too bad - no one owes you agreement nor money just because.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    >> I don’t want them to use bullying, intimidation, authoritarianism, or violence to force others to adopt (or pretend to adopt) their viewpoint. > Are you really equating "not choosing to buy stuff" and "not choosing to watch/attend stuff" with violence? No, and I’m genuinely confused as to how you arrived at that interpretation of my statement. > Listen, I get it - you think you're entitled to a revenue stream, that whatever nonsense you build deserves money. How did you arrive at this conclusion? It has no relation whatsoever to what I wrote.
    - sophacles 4y ago
      How did I arrive at it? Well you quoted a bit about boycotts that included a question about alternatives. This type of quoting is often a technique to declare "the text after this before the next quote is a response". So when you then responded with a point about wanting them to make arguments instead, and emphasized it with "not ... violence", you sure seem to have equivocated them. If that wasn't your intent, my bad and I have no idea what you were intending to say. The second conclusion assumes you made the violence point of course and is basically substitution: boycotts = violence = not spending money People are generally entitled to not have violence directed at them. (becomes) People are generally entitled to not have not spending money directed at them. (can simplify as) People are generally entitled a revenue stream.
Aunche 4y ago
> I'm really sorry about that, but how do you want people to act? I want people to think more critically about cause and effect rather than spend all their effort on "raising awareness", which encompasses several behaviors, but the worst of which is spreading exaggerated anger. > told their generation controlled every vote target, Boomers control the vote because they're the ones that bother to show up, especially for elections that don't appear on people's social media feed. Seniors are 15x more likely to vote for mayors than those between 18-35 [1]. Fewer than 20% of people know the names of their state legislatures [2]. Meanwhile, there is no shortage of outrage on social media on issues that state legislatures vote for like gerrymandering and now abortion. Rather than research which state representatives are pro-choice, activists would rather yell loudly at the Supreme Court to resign and whine about being disenfranchised when that doesn't work. > vote with your wallets Voting with your wallet in this context would be to stop watching Youtube videos. However, they don't want to do that, and instead would rather making exaggerated claims of Youtube supporting ISIS. So social media companies reacted with their half-assed solutions that lead to situations like what is described in the article. Now, you're seeing people making exaggerated claims about Facebook wanting to be censors. I seriously doubt that people actually give a damn about ISIS videos with a few dozen views or the well-being of pornstars. Rather, they really just trying to raise awareness about evil corporations, which is the case with most of the comments here. However, none of this actually contributes to our collective intelligence of how to actually regulate tech or enact anti-trusts. At best, this anger may cause Facebook to do a little more due diligence about adding people to their terrorist watchlist, but the real problem people care about isn't solved. [1] http://whovotesformayor.org/ http://whovotesformayor.org/ [2] https://hub.jhu.edu/2018/12/14/americans-dont-understand-state-government/ https://hub.jhu.edu/2018/12/14/americans-dont-understand-sta...
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  > I seriously doubt that people actually give a damn about ISIS videos with a few dozen views or the well-being of pornstars. Rather, they really just trying to raise awareness about evil corporations, Lizard brain just knows that it likes it when the number in the top right goes up. Lizard brain knows that vapid comments and over the top calls to action make it go up faster. You get what you incentivize.

seydor 4y ago

Of course they wanted to , they could have denied such requests and let matters go to courts of law, where such matters should be resolved anyway. But it would put a slight dent on quarterly profits so , in the words of Sheryl Sandberg , "I am fine with this"[1] 1. https://www.propublica.org/article/sheryl-sandberg-and-top-facebook-execs-silenced-an-enemy-of-turkey-to-prevent-a-hit-to-their-business https://www.propublica.org/article/sheryl-sandberg-and-top-f...

Aunche 4y ago
Not sure how you're disagreeing with me. Your article is another example of Facebook not caring about censoring except to make more profits.
- jessaustin 4y ago
  You said they didn't want to be in this position. Parent says they're happy to be in this position. Those propositions disagree.
  - Aunche 4y ago
    I'd hardly call complying with Turkish law being "happy to be in this position".
    - jessaustin 4y ago
      In this, you disagree with parent. QED.

upupandup 4y ago

So what I'm hearing is that billionaires who are no longer simply satiated by consumption, are not actively trying to undermine social order to gain power?

babypuncher 4y ago

I vote with my wallet, and my time. If Facebook is shoving things in my face that I do not like, then I stop using Facebook. I haven't logged-in for over two years because of that. If a company I buy products from is spending that money on things I vehemently disapprove of, then I am well within my rights to stop being their customer. This isn't "cancel culture", this is me choosing how I spend my time and money. What I find onerous are all the people telling me that I'm a bad person for exercising these liberties.

Aunche 4y ago
Can you point to where I told you you're a bad person for not using Facebook?