Technology and Dissenting Opinions

Ifallalot

Duke status
Dec 17, 2008
88,300
17,587
113
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.
People do not need to be babysat, they need to figure this out for themselves
 

test_article

Kelly Slater status
Sep 25, 2009
9,440
507
113
Body of Christ, Texas
Unless they want to be heard. If you want an audience, you gotta be online.

If you figure that an online discussion of, say, election results is for the purpose of fact finding, then it will likely involve more than just opinions, right? I would like to think that somewhere in cyberspace there is an open discussion online whereby people are downloading the public record of the ballot counting, downloading all of the video, downloading the case files from all of the campaign's litigation, etc. and are hashing over all of that.

Isn't that what we would like to see? So, who's keeping that from happening?
 
Last edited:

Phi1

Phil Edwards status
May 21, 2002
6,855
3,324
113
Hell Cajon, Ca
You're the second person to suggest Twitter is a monopoly.

How is Twitter a monopoly?
Ok, Twitter isn’t one. My bad, I lumped them together with other big tech that has swallowed up or forced out competition. They’re a niche platform with flavors of other social media platforms.
 

crustBrother

Kelly Slater status
Apr 23, 2001
9,084
5,169
113
Is this your opinion?
Its the conclusion of a company that tracks shifting attitudes and behaviors of generational cohorts from boomer to gen z.

Wish I could link to the data, but they sell that info for money instead of posting it online. I attended their presentation a year or two ago. One of the most interesting studies I've ever seen.
 

crustBrother

Kelly Slater status
Apr 23, 2001
9,084
5,169
113
If you figure that an online discussion of, say, election results is for the purpose of fact finding, then it will likely involve more than just opinions, right? I would like to think that somewhere in cyberspace there is an open discussion online whereby people are downloading the public record of the ballot counting, downloading all of the video, downloading the case files from all of the campaign's litigation, etc. and are hashing over all of that.

Isn't that what we would like to see? So, who's keeping that from happening?
It is happening, right? To some extent it happens right here. For the sake of argument, let's just say it does indeed happen right here on forum.srufer.com.

That's great, but the impact of information on culture is proportional to the size of the audience consuming that information. The size of the audience consuming information flowing through forum.surfer.com is insignificant. The size of the audience consuming information through the major platforms is VAST.

So, in terms of how free speech plays an important role in a democratic republic, it just doesn't matter if information flows freely here if it does not also flow freely on the major platforms.

Or so it seems to me...
 

test_article

Kelly Slater status
Sep 25, 2009
9,440
507
113
Body of Christ, Texas
It is happening, right? To some extent it happens right here. For the sake of argument, let's just say it does indeed happen right here on forum.srufer.com.

That's great, but the impact of information on culture is proportional to the size of the audience consuming that information. The size of the audience consuming information flowing through forum.surfer.com is insignificant. The size of the audience consuming information through the major platforms is VAST.

So, in terms of how free speech plays an important role in a democratic republic, it just doesn't matter if information flows freely here if it does not also flow freely on the major platforms.

Or so it seems to me...
Go on...continue...it doesn't seem like you've finished your thought.

Getting back to fact finding about an election, what happens when some rinky-dink little social media site actually finds a smoking gun, something that needs to be brought to the world's attention?
 

StuAzole

Duke status
Jan 22, 2016
28,244
9,455
113
It is happening, right? To some extent it happens right here. For the sake of argument, let's just say it does indeed happen right here on forum.srufer.com.

That's great, but the impact of information on culture is proportional to the size of the audience consuming that information. The size of the audience consuming information flowing through forum.surfer.com is insignificant. The size of the audience consuming information through the major platforms is VAST.

So, in terms of how free speech plays an important role in a democratic republic, it just doesn't matter if information flows freely here if it does not also flow freely on the major platforms.

Or so it seems to me...
free speech isn’t a private platform’s interest. Free speech is a government/citizen issue. There’s no obligation of any platform to make sure information is not just available but easily available to everyone.
It’s actually quite authoritarian to suggest private companies MUST allow something to be said.
 

Ifallalot

Duke status
Dec 17, 2008
88,300
17,587
113
free speech isn’t a private platform’s interest. Free speech is a government/citizen issue. There’s no obligation of any platform to make sure information is not just available but easily available to everyone.
It’s actually quite authoritarian to suggest private companies MUST allow something to be said.
BAKE THAT CAKE BIGOT
 

test_article

Kelly Slater status
Sep 25, 2009
9,440
507
113
Body of Christ, Texas
...and what happens if a platform ignores a post that generates tons of abuse reports? People who feel abused tend to avoid the abusers if they can. A money-making site wants to encourage users, not alienate them.
 

StuAzole

Duke status
Jan 22, 2016
28,244
9,455
113
Nah, just like everyone else, you prefer to hide behind the Constitution when it suits what you agree with
Haha. The guy who jerks off thinking of all his liberties hates the Constitution.

Also, even the bakery has terms of service - no shirt, no shoes, no service. Twitter would also lose the case of trying to ban members simply because they're gay. I know the law can be confusing.
 
Last edited: