All I know is if SCOTUS says social media has to take all posters I am going on Truth Social and posting, "Donald Trump is a big fat ugly piece of sh!t."
REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Place like that needs a Eunice and an Al Soldano.All I know is if SCOTUS says social media has to take all posters I am going on Truth Social and posting, "Donald Trump is a big fat ugly piece of sh!t."
why are you trying to play games?Huh? So shadow banning is a thing? Thanks for proving my point.
The whole point of the shadow ban is to make it so that person can't complain about being banned and draw attention to the issue. It's a passive aggressive way of solving the problem.
"clearly"....no. I love how you talk like this is all a foregone conclusion apropos no evidence.If these companies were to actually publish why they ban people and post the specific words that were in conflict with the TOCs, it would go a long way in making the case that they aren't biased. But they never will, because they clearly are.
objection. relevance?So everything he's ever posted is a lie Plenty of established media outlets have been caught in blatant lies and fabrications as well.
which points were those? what are the statements you think are irrefutable proof of literally *anything* let alone some widespread conspiracy to suppress conservative voices by liberal tech NPCs?Nowhere does he address the more egregious points that were directly spoken by the engineers.
Door to door salesmen could be kind of entertaining. Through the screen door, "Sir, I have this 120 pound starving pitbull behind me who obviously wants to eat you, and I'm feeling kind of faint, weak even... my grip is starting to slip..."Bring back the days of scammers who relied on chain mail, dubious ads in the back of magazines/comics, street cons, telephone calls, and door to door salesmen.
Even The Atlantic admits shadow banning is "A Thing"why are you trying to play games?
these are demonstrable claims, yet they are never quantifiably demonstrated.
At the 7 minute mark, Abhinav Vadrevu specifically says "one strategy in shadowbanning" and goes into the strategies associated with it. Which basically admits that it is a practice employed by at least some platforms. All the author of your link does is say that there is no political bias- he doesn't say that it doesn't exist. Double DARP DARPwhich points were those? what are the statements you think are irrefutable proof of literally *anything* let alone some widespread conspiracy to suppress conservative voices by liberal tech NPCs?
Still whining huh? "Wah shadow bans are unfair"Even The Atlantic admits shadow banning is "A Thing"
"But shadowbanning is a thing, and while it can be hard to prove, it is not impossible. Some evidence comes from code, such as the recently defunct website shadowban.eu, which let Twitter users determine whether their replies were being hidden or their handles were appearing in searches and search autofill. A French study crawled more than 2.5 million Twitter profiles and found that nearly one in 40 had been shadowbanned in these ways."Shadowbanning Is Big Tech’s Big Problem
Social-media companies deny quietly suppressing content, but many users still believe it happens. The result is a lack of trust in the internet.www.theatlantic.com
DARP
At the 7 minute mark, Abhinav Vadrevu specifically says "one strategy in shadowbanning" and goes into the strategies associated with it. Which basically admits that it is a practice employed by at least some platforms. All the author of your link does is say that there is no political bias- he doesn't say that it doesn't exist. Double DARP DARP
Loved that documentary.
No . . . . I'm simply establishing the existence of shadow banning. Do you agree that it's a thing?Still whining huh? "Wah shadow bans are unfair"
No, and even if it was it would have been within the rights of the social media companies.No . . . . I'm simply establishing the existence of shadow banning. Do you agree that it's a thing?
Whatsapp has nothing to do with what were discussing here. Absolutely fucking nothing.You responded to a post discussing WhatsApp and it’s use. I agree with grapie’s statement that led to my post. You’re crazy.
Seriously.I feel like I need to start insulting you to get a discussion going lol.
Does it matter if social media platforms aren't neutral? Do they claim to be? What about ones that are clearly not intended to be neutral?
I get what you're saying, but neutrality needs to be a thing (or not) from the beginning don't you think? Twitter has always had algorithms that steer content, and everyone knows that. So it's never been a completely neutral platform. And like all companies, they have a right to be political - it's in the 1st Amendment. So why would it be unfair if they decided to steer discourse?Feel free
Where it should be a concern is when there is a dominant player that gets all of the traffic and may be the only source of information for a certain demographic. For example, if a certain Presidential candidate is critical of big tech, there is nothing stopping them from juicing the algorithms and favoring false content in order to influence an election. This is where bias in the information space, especially with highly vertically integrated tech giants, becomes problem.
We saw how quickly millions on the left, and many here, changed their tune on this issue when Elon was expected to buy Twitter.
To be clear, I don't have a solution and I'm not saying the issue should be treated one way or the other. I'm simply pointing out that it is a complicated issue.
things are changing and people have opinions about thatcan someone give me a tl/dr on all this?
grapedrink is trying to point out that ____________
and team lib is trying to say _____________
I was reading some, but maybe taking a step back and giving a high level synopsis of both sides would help get some clarity and possibly even help find common ground
Holy fookAs usual, you can't follow the thread of the conversation.
Actually, I was just trying to engage. Too much fighting.Seriously.
Grapeboi is the biggest waste of time.
Unless you are into his circular arguments.
Well, I started this thread because I find the SCOTUS case interesting. Trying to impose liability on youtube for something someone else saw and then did is a tough one. And it seems to run counter to the idea of some that social media should be regulated like a utility.can someone give me a tl/dr on all this?
grapedrink is trying to point out that ____________
and team lib is trying to say _____________
I was reading some, but maybe taking a step back and giving a high level synopsis of both sides would help get some clarity and possibly even help find common ground
It isn't unfair in principal, however once you do so you are no longer a platform, you are an editor. The social media giants want to have their cake and eat it too by enjoying the benefits of both.So why would it be unfair if they decided to steer discourse?