Big Tech Taking Advantage of a "Tragedy"

Page 2 of 11 [ 167 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,991
Location: New Jersey, USA

09 Jan 2021, 8:19 pm

funeralxempire wrote:

So ISIS recruiting is acceptable?

Define recruiting. Seriously, give me a hypothetical post written by a recruiter of ISIS or any other group. Be more specific.

funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder

09 Jan 2021, 8:25 pm

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:

funeralxempire wrote:

So ISIS recruiting is acceptable?

Define recruiting. Seriously, give me a hypothetical post written by a recruiter of ISIS or any other group. Be more specific.

Recruitment by any method. Do you think that criminal organizations should be able to openly go about their business on social media?

_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.

Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

09 Jan 2021, 8:30 pm

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:

A small conglomerate of major tech corporations which have cornered the market and whatever interest groups are in bed with them.

What interest groups specifically? What interest groups are big tech companies working with that are supposedly silencing certain political views? My guess based on a lot of the Right reaction is about pushback against racism against or otherwise anti-LGBT stuff. Are tech companies in bed with big gay?

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:

You're actually raising a good point. Study American history and look into Standard Oil and AT&T. Those monopolies that cornered the market didn't willingly break up their corporate trusts.

Then we should focus on things that look attempts to push monopolies. Like the attempts of the Right wing against net neutrality that would see more power to the service providers that hold monopolies, where they could influence what sites people could use.

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:

Forget about NOW. We're setting a precedent going forward. That's part of the problem when a handful of companies corner a market. They can pay off politicians who in turn agree not to break up their monopolies and these corporation then hold the power.

I think the Internet has gotten to the same point as long-distance telephone calls in the 1980s.

So, create more competition. I myself don't really use Twitter, and I only rarely use Facebook. Are these big tech companies doing something to prevent competition? How does what they are doing now set precedence against whatever agenda you think is being pushed?

Because I think you just saw the sort of silencing just recently where Trump pushed to ban things like critical race theory, because it does not fit the nationalist viewpoint that is a part of his politics. There are actual problems, such as many companies that are owned partially by something like Tencent that were censoring anti-Chinese government stuff I remember it happening with something like Blizzard, which I think was silencing things around the Free Hong Kong thing. That was something to focus on, rather than whatever it is that the American Right are complaining about not being allowed to do.

_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall

ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,991
Location: New Jersey, USA

09 Jan 2021, 8:31 pm

funeralxempire wrote:

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:

funeralxempire wrote:

So ISIS recruiting is acceptable?

Define recruiting. Seriously, give me a hypothetical post written by a recruiter of ISIS or any other group. Be more specific.

Recruitment by any method. Do you think that criminal organizations should be able to openly go about their business on social media?

So, you can't even define recruitment or give an example? Great. Any opinion that someone doesn't like can be deemed "recruitment."

More importantly, you're going in the opposite direction. Today, right now, we're banning American political rhetoric that the corporations don't approve of. Tomorrow, it's WHATEVER they don't approve of. Instead, you went and used a more extreme example, that being ISIS. They're moving in one direction, you're going BACK and UP on the extremist ladder to prove some point.

funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder

09 Jan 2021, 8:36 pm

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:

funeralxempire wrote:

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:

funeralxempire wrote:

So ISIS recruiting is acceptable?

Define recruiting. Seriously, give me a hypothetical post written by a recruiter of ISIS or any other group. Be more specific.

Recruitment by any method. Do you think that criminal organizations should be able to openly go about their business on social media?

You're making the argument that terrorist organizations like these far-right groups should be able to operate openly. I'm saying that's unreasonable and they should be treated the same way other criminal/terrorist organizations already are.

You're insisting there's a slippery slope, I'm insisting they should treat these criminals like they treat other criminals already.

ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,991
Location: New Jersey, USA

09 Jan 2021, 8:37 pm

Bradleigh wrote:

I'm going to ignore most of what you wrote, because it seems all over the board. Yes, more competition is good. Hence, monopoly busting, which is what you quoted me talking about, then seemingly ignored in your reply.

I don't use Twitter either, but what I've noticed over the past 10 years is that Twitter is often referenced in the media. Not just Trump, but lots of people in politics use it to send out a blurb, which is then broadcast in new reports. So, by extension, Twitter is a powerful tool.

Bradleigh wrote:

Because I think you just saw the sort of silencing just recently where Trump pushed to ban things like critical race theory, because it does not fit the nationalist viewpoint that is a part of his politics...

No, it was when I read that Google and Apple wanted to prevent users from accessing Twitter alternatives, such as Parler.

ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,991
Location: New Jersey, USA

09 Jan 2021, 8:42 pm

funeralxempire wrote:

I'm saying you better define what exactly constitutes terrorism, who is a terrorist group, who is simply sharing their political opinion (of any variety). You weasled out of actually giving me some sort of example to critique.

You're of the broad-brush approach, which is precisely what I find troubling. Now I know why peaceful Muslims were so concerned after September 11th.

EDIT: It's funny. I don't know where you're from. You probably self-identify as being on "the left," but this is reminding me very much of the far-right neo-con approach "Deem them all terrorists in the name of public safety!"

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

09 Jan 2021, 8:50 pm

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:

funeralxempire wrote:

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:

funeralxempire wrote:

So ISIS recruiting is acceptable?

Define recruiting. Seriously, give me a hypothetical post written by a recruiter of ISIS or any other group. Be more specific.

Recruitment by any method. Do you think that criminal organizations should be able to openly go about their business on social media?

No, today (or yesterday, actually) a user who repeatedly violated the terms of use for a private platform - terms he himself accepted when signing on to it - has been suspended from said platform for glorification of violence.

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-p ... f-violence
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/c ... nsion.html

Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

09 Jan 2021, 8:51 pm

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:

So, you can't even define recruitment or give an example? Great. Any opinion that someone doesn't like can be deemed "recruitment."

What, something like a Facebook account telling people how to join ISIS? Isn't that a simple idea for what type of recruitment. Perhaps a whole bunch of other things that feed into disillusioned Muslim people to position facts that talk about the degradation of the West and imply that joining ISIS can fix the world.

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:

More importantly, you're going in the opposite direction. Today, right now, we're banning American political rhetoric that the corporations don't approve of. Tomorrow, it's WHATEVER they don't approve of. Instead, you went and used a more extreme example, that being ISIS. They're moving in one direction, you're going BACK and UP on the extremist ladder to prove some point.

This is a slippery slope fallacy. Like saying that allowing interracial marriage will lead to rape and bestiality. they are stopping actual dangerous rhetoric along the lines of terrorism. Stopping the spreading blatant untruths that are going to get people hurt, that reasonable people would not want allowed.

True, what is considered to be part of reasonable people has changed a lot over time, any mention of a gay person was treated totally evil in the past. But it is probably better to discuss this properly intellectually rather than letting dangerous lies get out of hand.

_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall

funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder

09 Jan 2021, 8:52 pm

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:

funeralxempire wrote:

The Proud Boys are a terrorist group. QAnon is a terrorist group.

If your "political opinion" is we're going to show up and f**k s**t up because our guy didn't win the election you deserve to be banned from platforms.

Is that clear enough?

ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,991
Location: New Jersey, USA

09 Jan 2021, 8:56 pm

Bradleigh wrote:

True, what is considered to be part of reasonable people has changed a lot over time, any mention of a gay person was treated totally evil in the past. But it is probably better to discuss this properly intellectually rather than letting dangerous lies get out of hand.

Ideally, yes. But trying to control what others say and feel and, more importantly, limiting their access to alternative platforms seems highly problematic.

I don't support the God-Hates-Fags church, but they do have a right to their opinion and to exist. Saying that "the majority doesn't find it reasonable, so, we should silence them!" is as troubling to me as silencing a peacenik in a time of war.

ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,991
Location: New Jersey, USA

09 Jan 2021, 9:02 pm

funeralxempire wrote:

You were so scared to come up with an ISIS example. Ha.

Yeah, the problem is if someone says "I don't think ISIS is as bad as they say," or "The storming of the Capitol was bad, but I still think the elections are stolen," are these considered acts of terrorism or incitements of violence? We're gonna see a slippery slope where anyone who appears to have any sentiments that aren't en vogue will be silenced, which I find scary, but the broad-brushers are supporting.

I don't care about the proud boys or this cult crap. To hell with the cult of Trump and to hell with your cult of anti-Trump.

You went to the extreme of ISIS and then went back to the current Trump on/off stuff. I don't think you fully comprehend the ramifications going forward. I'm talking about complete control of the Internet by a handful of oligarchs.

Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

09 Jan 2021, 9:08 pm

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:

No, it was when I read that Google and Apple wanted to prevent users from accessing Twitter alternatives, such as Parler.

Parler is not just an alternative to something like Twitter, it is literally the place that people have been going to say the things they are not allowed to say on Twitter because they would get banned for doing things like inciting violence or harassing people. It is the sort of stuff that Twitter does not want to be held responsible for spreading, and I imagine has gotten so bad that Google and Apple don't want to be held responsible for being allowed to spread. Why would both Google and Apple (competitors to each other) decide they want to protect Twitter, because they think Parler would be a threat to their monopoly?

The most simple answer is not that there is a cabal trying to protect something like Twitter, it is that something like Parler is filled with the toxic things Twitter did not want, and these other two companies don't want either.

Maybe Twitter has become used so much as almost a public space, so perhaps the question should have been posed to someone like Donald Trump if he thought that he could send his messages through a different channel. I also think that you are forgetting that these spaces don't just exist within America, but are across the entire world, many places that have their own views on what can be considered acceptable.

_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall

ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,991
Location: New Jersey, USA

09 Jan 2021, 9:16 pm

Bradleigh wrote:

Maybe Twitter has become used so much as almost a public space, so perhaps the question should have been posed to someone like Donald Trump if he thought that he could send his messages through a different channel. I also think that you are forgetting that these spaces don't just exist within America, but are across the entire world, many places that have their own views on what can be considered acceptable.

Honestly, I don't care about politics outside of America. China heavily censors the Internet. If Australia wants to ban these American forums, that's up to them.

But if these are indeed American companies operating within the US, and if they have indeed cornered the market, I'm all for trustbusting.

It's not just limiting what we can say. It's controlling what information we have access to. Most of you seem happy with having a handful of companies control your content. Why should Google or Apple attempt to stop their users from accessing any alternative site and forcing everyone, by default, to only access the established mainstay that is Twitter?

See, this isn't even about politics and terrorism and hearing things you don't like. It's about the over-reaching control of a select number of companies.

Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

09 Jan 2021, 9:24 pm

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:

I don't support the God-Hates-Fags church, but they do have a right to their opinion and to exist. Saying that "the majority doesn't find it reasonable, so, we should silence them!" is as troubling to me as silencing a peacenik in a time of war.

Fine, not silencing them, but do you think that they should be allowed to send harassing messages to people in private spaces? As much as people do not like it, these spaces are private places. We are talking if a shopping mall should have to be allowed to let the God-Hates-Fags church yell at people who are walking through it.

If we are going to have these public online spaces, then we need something actually done for them to be publicly maintained, and in regards to many different nationalities with their own rules. As it stands, these big platforms are pretty much their own nations with their constitutions, with some rules with how they might be allowed to interact with other nations. As much as it looks like society would go down the corporate power hell world route.

But the best way to decide which of these platforms policies you want to see succeed is to vote with your attention, and I suspect that these companies know that people in the internet would rather not have terrorists empowered.

_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall

Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

09 Jan 2021, 9:33 pm

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:

Okay, what would you have done about it?

What "trustbusting" would happen that would allow for more free information?

Where does this idea go from preventing companies from stopping information they just don't like, and more serious things like the trading of child porn? That does seem like a bit of a big dark turn, but in your hypothetical, who is taking over for these companies to decide when something crosses the line?

_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall

Page 2 of 11 [ 167 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11 Next

Jump to:

Big Tech Taking Advantage of a "Tragedy" Post Reply New Topic

Big Tech Taking Advantage of a "Tragedy"