Technology and Dissenting Opinions

[crustBrother]

So your problem seems not to be that the information isn't available, it's that it's not available on the easy and obvious platform you want it to be? That's not YouTube's job.

Agreed. It is not their job. Similarly, it is not Haliburton's job to provide me with clean water. And yet, believe it or not, I might still take issue with their business practices with respect to fracking and the potential for that to pollute the water table.

 

[StuAzole]

Ok cool. So if a psychopath decides they don't like someone, or is butthurt for being called out for their own racism like the professor BW initially had the disagreement with, it's 100% acceptable to accuse them of being racist, threaten them, and force them out of their job. Doesn't surprise me that you area okay with that.

Like I said, not a single person, nor you, can articulate why what he did was so offensive or racist. Because it wasn't.

It was a hit job for calling out woke insanity, plain and simple.

If the information about him was false, he's got a defamation claim.

If the termination was invalid, he's got legal recourse.

From the sounds of it, he's doing just fine.

 

[StuAzole]

Agreed. It is not their job. Similarly, it is not Haliburton's job to provide me with clean water. And yet, believe it or not, I might still take issue with their business practices with respect to fracking and the potential for that to pollute the water table.

Not a very strong analogy.

The information you want is out there. So what if YouTube bans it?

Like the NY Post article on Hunter Biden - it's still available.

That's how the information age works.

I don't see how regulation would improve this.

 

[crustBrother]

Not a very strong analogy.

The information you want is out there. So what if YouTube bans it?

Like the NY Post article on Hunter Biden - it's still available.

That's how the information age works.

I don't see how regulation would improve this.

I would not propose regulation to improve this. I would propose peer-to-peer technology such as is used to run the cryptocurrency networks.

Coming soon to a social network near you!

If you want it.

 

[PRCD]

I would not propose regulation to improve this. I would propose peer-to-peer technology such as is used to run the cryptocurrency networks.

Matt Stoller writes a lot about solutions to our monopolistic economy, including Big Tech. Regulators need to bust these up just like they did with Ma Bell and other huge companies which create barriers-to-entry for start-ups.

Coming soon to a social network near you!

If you want it.

I checked Capsule out. Thanks. That's really what I want - a peer-to-peer chat where I can include multiple users. It's the same thing Apple provides with the iPhone, yet it doesn't require an expensive device made by slave labor that locks you into their ecosystem.

 

[afoaf]

Google collapses if you break it up

the spokes (ad-dependent LOB) depend on the hub (search); if you decouple the two they become mostly useless

(slightly hyperbolic, but you get the gist)

 

[StuAzole]

I would not propose regulation to improve this. I would propose peer-to-peer technology such as is used to run the cryptocurrency networks.

Coming soon to a social network near you!

If you want it.

P2P social media already exists. Diaspora, Minds etc.

 

[PRCD]

Capsule looks interesting, doesn't it.

I'd also like to see some social networks that function similar to the ones we have now, but rely on different funding models.

Imagine NPR, but instead of news... social media without the profit motive.

Or do something subscription based like The Surfer's Journal or Wall Street Journal. That wouldn't attract many people, but I'd like to interact with the people it did attract.

Yes. seems like this would need a paywall.

The problems with the current social media and search engine landscape are that it is monopolized and so has become a utility. If you want to sell goods and services on the web, you have to go through them for most intents and purposes. Yet their moderation is definitely ideological in many cases. You're essentially a digital sharecropper that can be kicked off the land at any point. Their monopoly, combined with the fac that your participation in the network and creating content is also what brings others on means it's really not fair for them to pick-and-choose who stays and goes. What are your options for internet commerce, advertising, and brand awareness without social media and Google? They're pretty sucky.

If these monopolies were broken-up, they'd at least have to compete for business which would make them have to compete for customers. I prefer the idea of some sort of decentralized, peer-to-peer network like you showed, but how do you search it and find new people and have them find you?

 

[plasticbertrand]

In the case of BW yes. Do you not see the potential abuses and power grabs for allowing someone to weaponize accusations of racism, and using that as a way to control a narrative or advance their own status or career? You are basically saying that we should always give the accuser the benefit of the doubt and crucify the accused.

Autoprax has posted about this exact issue extensively.


Nice strawman, I never said all of those entities were psycopaths.


LOL, project much?


Of course you don't, because the facts aren't on your side. Still waiting for you to point out what could be considered racist. Since you are such an empath and all who is so in tune with the struggles of everyone, I'm sure you can find somemthing.


A small extremely loud minority using violence to scare someone into resigning = / = removing someone for an actual disciplinary offense. Learn the difference already.

I like how you didn't quote or answer to any of the points I raised.

You claimed everybody is a psychopath but that excludes Twitter, universities, private corporations and government agencies who are doing this?

Everybody in BT case is a psychopath?

Are you even fucking aware of what you're typing?

Classic gaslighting. It's what narcissists do best.

 

[plasticbertrand]

I don't see the comparison between limiting false information from circulating and people tweeting about showing up for a protest.

This is the main problem here, the clash of frames.

false information =/= "dissenting opinion"

The right constantly tries to equate false information and bigotry to dissenting opinions.

 

[grapedrink]

I like how you didn't quote or answer to any of the points I raised.

LOL, Captain Dodge who still can't articulate why what BW did is racists accusing someone of not answering their posts

On that note, yeah, your posts are borderline unanswerable. You basically throw spaghetti at the wall and expect someone to peel off every noodle. Which requires quoting 6-10+ sentences separately. It's a waste of time, and the posts end up disjointed and hard on the eyes.

If you want to pat yourself on the back for winning a war of attrition because people give up on trying to address every friggin point then go ahead. Otherwise, maybe shoot for 2-3 questions/points per post that you want addressed if you want to engage in something that resembles a meaningful debate. Or just keep posting crap, IDGAF.

You claimed everybody is a psychopath but that excludes Twitter, universities, private corporations and government agencies who are doing this?

Everybody in BT case is a psychopath?

Yes, anybody who uses an accusation of racism to forward a personal agenda is a psychopath. It doesn't surprise me that you can't differentiate between a legitimately hurtful grievance and a politically motivated hit job or power grab. I've been very specific about that, so I'm not sure why you are throwing in corporations and universities. Which is exactly what BW accusers did, because she was butthurt that he did not agree with the idea that all white people should stay off campus for a day.

How are we supposed to have meaningful debates when you cannot even politely question someone's ideas for fear of them trying to get you fired? Seems like a convenient way to silence someone's ideas that are in opposition to your own.

Classic gaslighting. It's what narcissists do best.

Nobody here gaslights more than you. You only have empathy when the "victim" and situation fits your politics, which makes you an even bigger psychopath.

 

[StuAzole]

Yes. seems like this would need a paywall.

The problems with the current social media and search engine landscape are that it is monopolized and so has become a utility. If you want to sell goods and services on the web, you have to go through them for most intents and purposes. Yet their moderation is definitely ideological in many cases. You're essentially a digital sharecropper that can be kicked off the land at any point. Their monopoly, combined with the fac that your participation in the network and creating content is also what brings others on means it's really not fair for them to pick-and-choose who stays and goes. What are your options for internet commerce, advertising, and brand awareness without social media and Google? They're pretty sucky.

If these monopolies were broken-up, they'd at least have to compete for business which would make them have to compete for customers. I prefer the idea of some sort of decentralized, peer-to-peer network like you showed, but how do you search it and find new people and have them find you?

Tell us how Twitter is a monopoly.

And remember, words mean what they mean.

 

[Phi1]

I'm not concerned with banning people, I'm concerned with big tech deciding what information is allowed to flow between the citizens of a democratic republic.

I think there are two issues that you’re describing.

One is that Amazon, Google, Facebook and Twitter are essentially monopolies. Edit: that is to say that a lack of regulation seems to have pushed most of their competitors way down. If Twitter isn’t a monopoly then why the following lawsuit?

Trump sued again for blocking people on Twitter

The Knight First Amendment Institute filed a new lawsuit against Trump for keeping several Twitter users blocked on his @RealDonaldTrump account.

www.politico.com

The other is that while it’s not technically a free speech issue, ”they” (the platforms above) are so ubiquitous a person running a business or a campaign without them is at a huge disadvantage.

My other thought on this independent of what I said above: our free speech is being used against us. Misinformation and deep fakes can easily be weaponized. It’s almost like the Internet needs fiction and nonfiction sections. Where does one draw the line between parody, satire, entertainment and purposeful deceit? Most people aren’t going to react to an Onion article, but most people believe if memed, it’s true.

 

[crustBrother]

My other thought on this independent of what I said above: our free speech is being used against us. Misinformation and deep fakes can easily be weaponized. It’s almost like the Internet needs fiction and nonfiction sections. Where does one draw the line between parody, satire, entertainment and purposeful deceit? Most people aren’t going to react to an Onion article, but most people believe if memed, it’s true.

So true. This is a huge problem. Its what motivated google to take down content alleging election fraud, right?

GenZ has evolved a never-seen-before level of skepticism. That could act as sort of an internal snopes.com for them as they consume content, but at what cost?

 

[StuAzole]

I think there are two issues that you’re describing.

One is that Amazon, Google, Facebook and Twitter are essentially monopolies. Edit: that is to say that a lack of regulation seems to have pushed most of their competitors way down. If Twitter isn’t a monopoly then why the following lawsuit?

Trump sued again for blocking people on Twitter

The Knight First Amendment Institute filed a new lawsuit against Trump for keeping several Twitter users blocked on his @RealDonaldTrump account.

www.politico.com

The other is that while it’s not technically a free speech issue, ”they” (the platforms above) are so ubiquitous a person running a business or a campaign without them is at a huge disadvantage.

My other thought on this independent of what I said above: our free speech is being used against us. Misinformation and deep fakes can easily be weaponized. It’s almost like the Internet needs fiction and nonfiction sections. Where does one draw the line between parody, satire, entertainment and purposeful deceit? Most people aren’t going to react to an Onion article, but most people believe if memed, it’s true.

You're the second person to suggest Twitter is a monopoly.

How is Twitter a monopoly?

 

[StuAzole]

So true. This is a huge problem. Its what motivated google to take down content alleging election fraud, right?

GenZ has evolved a never-seen-before level of skepticism. That could act as sort of an internal snopes.com for them as they consume content, but at what cost?

You keep saying Google, but you mean YouTube. Google didn't take down anything from google.com.

If you want to be more precise, your issue is with Alphabet, which may or may not need to be split up.

 

[afoaf]

So true. This is a huge problem. Its what motivated google to take down content alleging election fraud, right?

GenZ has evolved a never-seen-before level of skepticism. That could act as sort of an internal snopes.com for them as they consume content, but at what cost?

this is a good point

QAnon has a very specific demographic

 

[crustBrother]

You keep saying Google, but you mean YouTube. Google didn't take down anything from google.com.

If you want to be more precise, your issue is with Alphabet, which may or may not need to be split up.

I keep saying Google because I'm pretty sure that Google owns YouTube.

Here. Let me google that for you.

who owns youtube at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

Why did YouTube stay with Google instead of going with Alphabet?

If the idea behind the Alphabet restructuring was to streamline Google, then why did YouTube remain part of the search company?

fortune.com

 

[StuAzole]

I keep saying Google because I'm pretty sure that Google owns YouTube.

Here. Let me google that for you.

who owns youtube at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

Why did YouTube stay with Google instead of going with Alphabet?

If the idea behind the Alphabet restructuring was to streamline Google, then why did YouTube remain part of the search company?

fortune.com

Alphabet owns Google and YouTube.

I even read that in your Google linked info

 

[test_article]

Social and mainstream media on the internet have graduated from toys to integral parts of our culture. Scientists, politicians, and educators here in the US are seriously behind the curve in terms of understanding the degree to which technology is changing our culture.

Folks in Europe are doing a little bit better, but the fusion of human consciousness and computing is accelerating. Institutions and individuals will struggle to evolve at a similar pace.

We just take it in stride. Before there was an FAA and 730 billion U.S. air passenger miles per year there were barnstormers. So much culture, so much shifting. It's exhausting.