Big Tech Taking Advantage of a "Tragedy"

Post Reply New Topic

On the issue of defining when something is discrimination versus when it is a legitimate choice - better people than me have spent a lot of time thinking about the issue and it cannot possibly be summarised here.

Google, Facebook, and Twitter are not monopolies in their core businesses. Facebook and Twitter are direct competitors, and there are many other competitors with small market shares. Tumblr is the obvious “third” player, while LinkedIn has its own niche. Twitter clones include Mastodon, Aether, Gab, Parler, etc. Increasingly people are using chatting services like WhatsApp (owned by Facebook), Telegram, Signal, Slack, Discord, etc. as well as combined text/video services like Teams, Skype, Zoom, Google Hangouts, etc. Of course, you could argue that Facebook and Twitter’s large install bases mean their competitors will always struggle against them - but they are not monopolies.

Google is far from the only search engine in town. Users can just as easily use Bing, DuckDuckGo, etc. YouTube is a much more dominant player in its field, but even there, many alternative options exist for sharing video, from Snapchat and TikTok to Twitch, Facebook, and Reddit, as well as obvious direct competitors like Metacafe, DailyMotion, Vimeo, etc.

As I have said elsewhere, while the mobile OS game is not a monopoly, that is one area where I can see the case for antitrust action. You could also argue that Google and Facebook’s advertising networks cannot realistically be competed with, but a search for “alternatives to AdSense” produces many hits.

But without getting into the weeds, let’s look at the specifics of Trump’s time of Twitter.

- Trump repeatedly broke Twitter’s rules on hateful conduct and harassment, such as when he repeatedly accused a TV journalist of murder despite the deceased’s family asking him to stop, or when he told four women of colour to “go back to where they came from”.

- In response, Twitter changed their rules exempting major political figures from them, largely so they didn’t have to ban Trump. The main exception remained “inciting violence”.

- Trump repeatedly used Twitter to undermine confidence in the Presidential election and spread misinformation about the results. Instead of banning him, Twitter introduced a new feature.

- Trump’s continued use of Twitter included him encouraging an armed insurrectionist mob to storm the Capitol building. This was deemed to be an incitement of violence, particularly when combined with his meatspace comments about “marching on the Capitol”, Rudy Giuliani’s comments about “trial by combat”, etc.

Twitter set a very high, explicit bar for the banning of Trump and he managed to clear it. They spent years scrambling around, coming up with new policies and new features so they could keep Trump on the platform, and then he gave them no choice. Trump has repeatedly said he wants social media companies to be legally liable for their content. He can’t have it both ways - they’re both legally liable for the things he says and they’re not allowed to do anything about it? Doesn’t add up.

To put it in metaphorical terms, Twitter gave Trump all of the slack he could handle until he used it to hang himself.

There is no one to blame for Trump's problems except Trump himself.

I don't know if anyone has posted this yet, but I have to ask, how is this any different from normal? Section 230 was put into place to prevent social media platforms from being held personally responsible for users posting on them. It dictates that social media platforms must self-regulate and self-approve postings. A certain adult media website is currently in trouble because their lack of moderation has led to illegal posts on their site.

So, by law, Big Tech has been removing whatever media they don't like from their servers for years now. Taking advantage of a tragedy to purge users they don't like isn't even a thing, they are actively encouraged to do that whenever possible. Repealing section 230 will likely result in even more of this sort of activity, as social media platforms move to prevent any posts that could potentially lead to a lawsuit.

The difference between you or I getting banned from Twitter and Donald Trump getting banned from Twitter is that you and I are not worshipped by hordes of blood-thirsty fanboys in need of a leader to inspire them to commit violent acts of treason.

Section 230 has put in place because the social media companies wanted to brand themselves as technology companies and not publishers. That meant they could make money from all this traffic and posting. To argue that social media companies want to control speech is rather weak; they make much more money publishing everything. But speech is not benign. The obvious examples are child pornography, fraud, and threats or incitement of violence. But as the military and intelligence services will tell you because they use these techniques, disinformation can be powerful. The idea that there can be a free marketplace of ideas were the good win out and the bad are lost out is just nonsense. Human psychology does not work that way. We just had an insurrection in our nation's capitol because of disinformation.

But as pointed out, a) they can set terms and conditions for the use of their platforms and b) free speech is not absolute. You will note WP does not allow anything to be posts here. This is a moderated platform.

TRANSLATION: What constitutes discrimination is rather arbitrary, and you yourself can't properly define it. Plus, trying to compare one person being denied service at one brick-and-mortar establishment doesn't compare to major conglomerates that control communication and corner the market, effectively squeezing out competitors, then having the power to provide and deny service as they say fit...again, somewhat arbitrarily.


Facebook and Twitter aren't in direct competition by any means, as they actually serve two different purposes. Furthermore, they work in tandem with one another, and both are promoted and favored by the corporate giant that they're in bed with, which is Google. Google has the ability to promote the companies it does business with and effectively squeeze out and suppress competitors to Google's favored partners (Facebook, Twitter).


Google is more than just a search engine at this point. YouTube, the most popular video sharing platform, is now OWNED by Google. Are you starting to catch on?


I had mentioned that several pages before you even joined this thread, and reiterated it again. Yes, Android phones are effectively Google phones. They make it rather difficult and inconvenient to use non-Google apps and services or any other services not favored/sanctioned by Google. Google is even removing competitors to its favored business partners on Android phones. Is this becoming clearer?

As I stated in my OP, the "weeds" are the very point of this thread, not the cult of Trump or the cult of anti-Trump. But since everyone here seems to get a hard-on for Trump, all right, let's talk Trump:

Twitter evidently allows its users to block other users from replying to their tweets. When Trump first became president, there were a number of people in political opposition to him that he had previously banned. A court order required him to un-ban them, under the guise that he’s now an elected official using Twitter for government business.

Whether this was a good idea or not, the decision was not made by the “private” company Twitter, but rather an American federal circuit court. So, right off the bat, for better-or-worse, whether you agree or disagree…this court-ordered decision changed the dynamics of your tired argument that “it’s just a private company that can determine who says what and not bound by any external oversight.” Apparently, Twitter’s policy isn’t the only factor in play, and Twitter is now a political apparatus.

Trump, of course, is a politician looking out for his own interests. However, he’s not the only one who challenged the election results. This was indeed the most oddly-conducted presidential election we’ve ever seen. To simply say, “It’s misinformation because we’re told it’s misinformation, and we should never question what we’re officially told, and should silence anyone who questions the results,” is scary. This idea that we need to silence any criticism of the official narrative will lead to outright silencing of anyone who questions anything that’s been deemed “official.”

So, Trump is obliged to allow objection to his tweets by a court order, seemingly codifying that Twitter is a political tool. Then, in the capacity of a political tool, Twitter can now pick-and-choose which politician gets a mouth piece? Very troublesome.

More importantly, the march to the Capitol occurred just after a speech Trump gave in-person, not by a proclamation he typed out on Twitter.

Today, Ron Paul is claiming he’s been banned from Facebook. Interestingly, he says he’s never had this problem before, and Facebook gave no reason for the ban and didn’t cite the “problematic” content. I’m worried about where this is all leading, but I guess you people feel it’s all worth it over one man. Scary.

When they're effectively the only game in town, that statement is incorrect.


Exactly. Free speech doesn't simply mean "benign" speech. That's the whole point, and I see that many of you are indeed opposed to speech you "don't like," the very antithesis of free speech.


That's not even speech. Images and videos are not WORDS. Don't be a weasel and lump horrible images in with "speech."


The horrible irony is that we actually agree. My concern is that when any dissent or objections are forcefully removed, the propagandists have free reign without any objection whatsoever. Whatever "information" they want (whether real, misinfo, or disinfo) is all that's allowed to be viewed.


There should be a free marketplace of ideas, period. That's true freedom. Silencing "ideas" that you personally find objectionable is exactly the problem.

Proof? Your opinion is just conjecture. I can equally argue that the more people that participate, the more data they have. Social media works best with the greatest number of participants with the greatest amount of activity. Polling is the same--the more information the better.



I see, so you think inciting violence and fraud is OK?



Speech is the ability to express ideas and opinions. The method of expression does not make a difference. Hitler famously attacked what he called "deviant art," which was an attack on free speech. Congress went after artist in the US, Andres Serrano. Look up his work Piss Christ. The speech does not need to be words or even talking. The other stunning thing is you don't think pornography can be written.

BTW, voting, protesting, and giving campaign donations are all examples of speech.



So you agree that speech is not benign. So your idea is that were are safer if anything can be said? Are you happy with the extremism that has been created in the US where speech have been unregulated. And some for that disinformation has come from foreign governmental actor trying (and succeeding) to disrupt our political system.

[/quote]

So we are back to child porn, which can be written or images.

But also missed my point. You are assuming people are rational. In order for a marketplace of ideas to exist, then market failures cannot happen--since you are using capitalist rhetoric. Irrationality of the consumer would be a failure. Or do you think people can incite violence? You think disinformation campaigns should be open and free? It is not just the information published, but the ability of the audience to evaluate it. Imperfection of information. Do you think fraud should be protected? Disinformation. Are you for holocaust denial? Did NASA fake the moon landings? Are white people superior to Black? We should attack the Capitol to overturn a fraudulent election? All of those "ideas" are false. Period. Some of them are more harmful than others.

But you keep evading my criticism. I agree that social media companies are creating a monopoly and should be broken up. But freedom of speech is not a monopoly issue, no matter how you want to frame it. Speech can be controlled with smaller organizations as well.

So what if any speech will you regulate? Fraud? Revenge porn? Inciting violence? Holocaust denial? And how are you going to do that? What happen when a president incites an insurrection? I know you don't like Facebook et al, but they are not the people that turn out for an insurrection. Those are not the people sending the death threats. They are not the plotters of violence.

It is nice to say freedom of speech is absolute, but is it still ok when you get SWATted? When you are a victim of fraud? When your church is burnt down. When you are run over by a car because you are protesting. I can argue those are all true freedoms.

@Jiheisho:

In order to make and distributed actual child pornography or snuff films, you have to break some very serious laws to begin with in order to make them. Likewise, if I spray paint graffiti on a building I don't own, I'm very much breaking the law.

So, in those instances, it's not about "speech," but rather the illegality of the acts required to do those things.

Please be more specific with fraud. Eventually, fraud requires some sort of action to take place before it constitutes actual fraud.

I don't believe in silencing opinions in the pretext of safety. "Inciting violence" is a broad term. Perpetrators of violence are guilty of illegal actions. "The devil told me to do it," doesn't work. If I told you to jump off a bridge, I'm not literally throwing you off.

You're argument is people are too stupid to think for themselves, so no one should be allowed to speak their mind because some might put it to action. And I suppose you get to decide what speech you don't like?

I think Holocaust denial is silly, but those are indeed WORDS, and I support people's right to discuss whatever weird nonsense they want. I don't think they should be forcefully silenced.

What do the violent and illegal actions of running people over and burning down churches have to do with this conversation?

That's not true. If I write a story involving sex acts with minors I might be charged with creating and distributing CP, same with if I draw a picture or a CGI rendering depicting those types of acts.

Most of your premises in this thread appear to be incorrect, which dooms your conclusions to being detached from reality.

Images and videos are in fact given 1 Amendment protection just as words:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._A ... ties_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_ ... ties_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_ ... _Coalition

@GGPViper
As I wrote above, making actual child pornography, snuff films, spray painting buildings that you don't own are all ACTIONS that break the law and violate someone else's rights.

@funeralxempire
GGPViper's links seems to contradict your premise. What country are you from?
And again, you keep retreating deeper into strange territory to promote the further expansion of silencing dissent.

You said producing those things would most certainly involve law breaking, I was pointing out that you were incorrect about that and gave examples. What exactly to CP and snuff films have to do with terrorist/extremist groups operating on social media? Speaking of retreating into strange territory to defend terrible things.

If you need to shift the goal posts that far in order to defend terrorist groups like QAnon or the various alt-right groups operating on social media you should just concede you're wrong.

This is actually a good analogy for why these social networking companies should be able to disallow people who write certain things that go against their TOS, if they consider them vandalism. on their property.

I could then push forward for arguments of unjust elements of society where it is unfair that certain corporations own property such as homes, when everyone needs a home, but some people are just thrown out on the street. It would seem a bit ridiculous to ignore that issue to focus on whether larger platforms should be forced to allow Nazis to spread their ideology on them.

It is not ideal that there are large corporations with sole control over many things, but there seems to be a level of hypocrisy in this support of capitalism up until these people think that it inconveniences them. If Google is using its power to unfairly control which things can succeed. But I need to see some actual evidence that it is happening. A bunch of people on the Right losing their accounts is not evidence of a conspiracy to stop competition. Especially when the people on the other side of the aisle that are supposedly not facing it are the kind that actually protest against things like capitalism that is allowing these things.

I have yet to hear what actually is wanted to be done that would actually stop these backlashes against the Right for what their rhetoric is. Just some idea of breaking them up does nothing. What, do you want to force Twitter to create like 10 versions of itself, randomly push different people onto these different platforms, and then force each version to compete against each other?

In order to spray paint a building you don't own to create "art," you must first open up the can of spray paint and start vandalizing before your artwork is ever completed. You're breaking the law by your action. In order to photograph/record the actual rape of a child or murder of a person, you must actually commit a very vile and illegal action first.

The examples you gave don't actually do those things, and the links provided by GGPViper contradict what you said. Again: What country are you from??

I went back to actual CP and actual snuff (and even graffiti of property you don't own) because Jiheisho keeps lumping those actions in with speech. He says since they're illegal, speech must be regulated. But those things aren't speech.

I have nothing to concede I'm wrong about. I remember how terrified you were to give a fictitious ISIS example. You've failed to properly define what a terrorist group could even be in the first place, and that's what worries me. As I've said, it's a broad-brush with you.

But again, I don't know what the laws are like in your country. I can't fault you entirely for not understanding these principles.