1st Amendment Scotus

StuAzole

Duke status
Jan 22, 2016
22,440
5,316
113
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.
They all do it from the very beginning. So you're either left with social media without any algorithm to steer content you might like to you - in which case, why bother - or what we have now.

But the publisher/platform thing isn't a legal distinction that matters. Section 230 is clear on this, and it was true even before Section 230. Further, there has never been a requirement that platforms be ideologically neutral.
 
  • Like
Reactions: plasticbertrand

plasticbertrand

Duke status
Jan 12, 2009
15,531
9,273
113
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.
Enforcing the basic rules of conduct is not "editing".

And what if it was?

You don't even know what you want.
You are just stomping your man-baby feet because things are not going your way.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: grapedrink

Mr Doof

Duke status
Jan 23, 2002
23,086
5,179
113
San Francisco, CA
I wish an evil villain would destroy the internet
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.
People are far too lazy to scam li dat.
Exactly.

See, instead of destroying the Internet, just magically make the scammers return to their roots, so the rest of us can attempt to live better lives...we don't need their help in f-ing up ourselves.
 

ElOgro

Duke status
Dec 3, 2010
26,650
6,832
113
You should read your own posts sometimes.

Whatsapp has nothing to do with this conversation.

Eat a bag of dicks.
If it has nothing to do with the conversation then why was it introduced into the conversation? Because. Context. Matters. (BCM) That you fail to recognize this is a surprise to no one.
8FC3FD16-E133-4647-9152-C8109608BC12.jpeg
No coliflor capeado for you pinche culero.:loser:
 

afoaf

Duke status
Jun 25, 2008
42,180
15,065
113
No . . . . I'm simply establishing the existence of shadow banning. Do you agree that it's a thing?
shadowbanning is a thing because it is a defined concept we discuss

to say that it's HAPPENING is another notion altogether

when I say "it's not a thing" it is a colloquial way of saying "it's not happening"

even the article says it has not been proven...in the lede!

and here's the reality....

to shadowban you have to have implemented the functionality to selectively bury content from a specific user in the feed and search results

to implement the functionality to bury content in the feed it would have needed to have been scoped by a product team, implemented by an engineering team, and tested by a qa team

and if ALL OF THAT HAPPENED we would then have source code that would reveal that this feature exists in the system

which is to say that this would have to be a wide ranging conspiracy with many stakeholders all remaining mum

on the other hand, testing based on placement and position in search results can only tell you that there is *some* variation in how content is presented on a user by user basis which leads us to the point that Stu has been making in the thread....social media's entire business model is premised on dynamically targeting the right content to the right user...so there's always some variability...that's a feature, not a bug.

there is a very distinct lack of evidence and, when considering the overarching victim mentality of right-wing punditry today, the more likely explanation is that this is all just pathetic cries for attention from people who make their hay playing the victim of liberal elites.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: plasticbertrand

plasticbertrand

Duke status
Jan 12, 2009
15,531
9,273
113
If it has nothing to do with the conversation then why was it introduced into the conversation? Because. Context. Matters. (BCM) That you fail to recognize this is a surprise to no one.
View attachment 139312
No coliflor capeado for you pinche culero.:loser:
It was introduced into conversation because grapeboi used Whatsapp as a distraction.
The popularity of Whatsapp is 100% out of context of what we are talking about.
He clumsily tried to make a ridicilous point that Whatsapp is as vital of a service as the phone service itself.

Of course you latched on to it, because you despise anything Team Twinkie stands for, even when it actually makes sense.

Suck it.

9172E288-887C-4F8B-ABAD-C43E4D4F3972.jpeg
 
  • Haha
Reactions: grapedrink

ElOgro

Duke status
Dec 3, 2010
26,650
6,832
113
It was introduced into conversation because grapeboi used Whatsapp as a distraction.
The popularity of Whatsapp is 100% out of context of what we are talking about.
He clumsily tried to make a ridicilous point that Whatsapp is as vital of a service as the phone service itself.

Of course you latched on to it, because you despise anything Team Twinkie stands for, even when it actually makes sense.

Suck it.

View attachment 139328
I disagree with your disagreement you disagreeing disagreeable.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: grapedrink

grapedrink

Duke status
May 21, 2011
20,785
10,055
113
A Beach
He clumsily tried to make a ridicilous point that Whatsapp is as vital of a service as the phone service itself
For a specific demographic, that I was very clear and specific about from the start, where it makes a huge difference in terms of their communication budget because it basically is their phone service. And El Ogro confirmed that, despite your goalpost moving strawman schtick.

Context, liar :loser:
 

plasticbertrand

Duke status
Jan 12, 2009
15,531
9,273
113
For a specific demographic, that I was very clear and specific about from the start, where it makes a huge difference in terms of their communication budget because it basically is their phone service. And El Ogro confirmed that, despite your goalpost moving strawman schtick.

Context, liar :loser:
Oooh ElOgro confirmed it? Then I guess that's settled. :roflmao:

I like when two techtards try to do a tech gotcha.

There are literally hundreds of free messaging apps.
Whatsapp may be the most popular but by no means is it essential.

And still no explanation of what does this have to do with social networks. Holy sh!t.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: grapedrink

grapedrink

Duke status
May 21, 2011
20,785
10,055
113
A Beach
There are literally hundreds of free messaging apps.
Whatsapp may be the most popular but by no means is it essential.
How many of them offer up internet access, messaging and calls as a free add-on (i.e. no data charges) to a cell phone plan to literally billions of people in the developing world :unsure:
:roflmao:
 

plasticbertrand

Duke status
Jan 12, 2009
15,531
9,273
113
How many of them offer up internet access, messaging and calls as a free add-on (i.e. no data charges) to a cell phone plan to literally billions of people in the developing world :unsure:
:roflmao:
Literally all of them.

And WhatsApp doesn't provide internet access. :foreheadslap:

I love when you write something so moronic and then you put a rollie head at the end, like you're gloating because you think you said something smart.

And still no explanation of what does this have to do with social networks. Holy sh!t.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ElOgro

grapedrink

Duke status
May 21, 2011
20,785
10,055
113
A Beach
Literally all of them.
bullshit. With most if not all of them, their Cell phone bill/minutes will get dinged when using a cell signal, and they will have to go back to the cell phone retailer and buy more minutes/points. Before WhatsApp it was a huge racket. The others are only free when there is a free Wi-Fi signal.

Facebook/WhatsApp is data charge free, like Ogro mentioned, hence its popularity. Dumfuk.

And WhatsApp doesn't provide internet access. :foreheadslap:
Facebook has a web browsing feature in some countries that is also cellular data charge free.

And still no explanation of what does this have to do with social networks. Holy sh!t.
Uh, pretty sure WhatsApp is owned by one :unsure: :roflmao: :trout:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: plasticbertrand

plasticbertrand

Duke status
Jan 12, 2009
15,531
9,273
113
bullshit. With most if not all of them, their Cell phone bill/minutes will get dinged when using a cell signal, and they will have to go back to the cell phone retailer and buy more minutes/points. Before WhatsApp it was a huge racket. The others are only free when there is a free Wi-Fi signal.
LOL

They literally all do.

Viber.
Signal.
Telegram Messenger.
Snapchat.
Skype.
IMO.
Facebook Messenger.
Discord.
WeChat.

The list goes on.... :poke:

Facebook/WhatsApp is data charge free, like Ogro mentioned, hence its popularity. Dumfuk.
You said WhatApp is providing internet access, you fucking moron.

Lie, backpedal, deflect and on and on in circles you go.


Facebook has a web browsing feature in some countries that is also cellular data charge free.
LOL It's not a web browsing feature, dummy. You literally got every single thing in this post wrong.


Uh, pretty sure WhatsApp is owned by one :unsure: :roflmao: :trout:
Are they shadow banning on WhatsApp? WTF does this have to do with 1st amendment or anything we're discussing in this thread??


Lie, deflect, backpedal, semantics,Lie, deflect, backpedal, semantics,Lie, deflect, backpedal, semantics,Lie, deflect, backpedal, semantics,Lie, deflect, backpedal, semantics,Lie, deflect, backpedal, semantics,Lie, deflect, backpedal, semantics,Lie, deflect, backpedal, semantics,Lie, deflect, backpedal, semantics.
 

ElOgro

Duke status
Dec 3, 2010
26,650
6,832
113
LOL

They literally all do.

Viber.
Signal.
Telegram Messenger.
Snapchat.
Skype.
IMO.
Facebook Messenger.
Discord.
WeChat.

The list goes on.... :poke:



You said WhatApp is providing internet access, you fucking moron.

Lie, backpedal, deflect and on and on in circles you go.




LOL It's not a web browsing feature, dummy. You literally got every single thing in this post wrong.




Are they shadow banning on WhatsApp? WTF does this have to do with 1st amendment or anything we're discussing in this thread??


Lie, deflect, backpedal, semantics,Lie, deflect, backpedal, semantics,Lie, deflect, backpedal, semantics,Lie, deflect, backpedal, semantics,Lie, deflect, backpedal, semantics,Lie, deflect, backpedal, semantics,Lie, deflect, backpedal, semantics,Lie, deflect, backpedal, semantics,Lie, deflect, backpedal, semantics.
Were you touching yourself when you typed that?