Jump to content

The Twitter Debate


Neonmoon

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

I disagree. 

But in this realm, I believe he fundamentally misunderstands free speech 

I haven't followed this super closely, but is this why he is all of a sudden a right wing hero?  Because they think he wants to buy Twitter and make it a free for all?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I haven't followed this super closely, but is this why he is all of a sudden a right wing hero?  Because they think he wants to buy Twitter and make it a free for all?

They think he will bring Trump back and remove the anti-right wing censorship on the platform. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I disagree. 

But in this realm, I believe he fundamentally misunderstands free speech 

I'm sure he does fundamentally misunderstand free speech, but I also think he's full of shit when he says he cares about free speech. He tries to silence or suppress criticism all the time.

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

 

He's been a right wing hero of sorts for awhile. Loves him some Trump.

I've got friends with different perspectives than me, and are all about "free speech" and dismissive of disinformation and the dangers it posed. But we generally agree on one thing, although not the implementation of it:

Social Media should be regulated. They should be regulated like a utility, or something similar. The world has changed, and these things should fall under some purview of the FCC. They're too big, they're too integrated into daily society, and they're too powerful of a tool to be left in the hands of companies with zero recourse by the government. These companies started as a business, but I'm sorry, theyre now integrated into the seam of our every day life and communication, even moreso than television or anything else.

I can see advantages and things Musk can do if he takes things private. But I can see the downside of one man having all that power. It's too much power, no different than the advantages of an authoritarian regime. 

They need to be regulated by the federal government. Period. 

Well, when they get regulated by the feds, that pesky ass First Amendment comes into play with full force, and content based regulation is going to be a no-go.

The "solution," such as it is, is for privately owned, to include publicly traded, corporations to start behaving as citizens with an obligation to society at large, not just shareholders or private interests.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

 

He's been a right wing hero of sorts for awhile. Loves him some Trump.

I've got friends with different perspectives than me, and are all about "free speech" and dismissive of disinformation and the dangers it posed. But we generally agree on one thing, although not the implementation of it:

Social Media should be regulated. They should be regulated like a utility, or something similar. The world has changed, and these things should fall under some purview of the FCC. They're too big, they're too integrated into daily society, and they're too powerful of a tool to be left in the hands of companies with zero recourse by the government. These companies started as a business, but I'm sorry, theyre now integrated into the seam of our every day life and communication, even moreso than television or anything else.

I can see advantages and things Musk can do if he takes things private. But I can see the downside of one man having all that power. It's too much power, no different than the advantages of an authoritarian regime. 

They need to be regulated by the federal government. Period. 

That’s the rub though, if the feds start dipping their toes into that water they are potentially creating 1st amendment/free speech issues.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, when they get regulated by the feds, that pesky ass Second Amendment comes into play with full force, and content based regulation is going to be a no-go.

The "solution," such as it is, is for privately owned, to include publicly traded, corporations to start behaving as citizens with an obligation to society at large, not just shareholders or private interests.

I'm sorry, I'm not making a connection with the right to bear arms and the FCC having power over Social Media websites. 

I'm laughing at your solution, and you fucking know it's a joke. Nothing we've seen in the past 40 years is showing a trend towards corporations growing a conscience. The opposite, actually, and you know that. Why didn't you just type "Well, we just need individual human beings to be better informed and educated, and just better people on the internet." Because there's countless forces working actively to move people in the opposite direction of that. Individual people don't even understand the concept of citizenry and a responsibility to society at large, but you expect an institution filled with people who's sole purpose is to turn a profit to figure it out? Ok. 

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, when they get regulated by the feds, that pesky ass Second Amendment comes into play with full force, and content based regulation is going to be a no-go.

The "solution," such as it is, is for privately owned, to include publicly traded, corporations to start behaving as citizens with an obligation to society at large, not just shareholders or private interests.

Ideally they would create a standards body with some kind of audit and enforcement mechanism, but I think that’s beyond wishful thinking. Ain’t nobody got time for corporate communism. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Social Media should be regulated. They should be regulated like a utility, or something similar. The world has changed, and these things should fall under some purview of the FCC. They're too big, they're too integrated into daily society, and they're too powerful of a tool to be left in the hands of companies with zero recourse by the government. These companies started as a business, but I'm sorry, theyre now integrated into the seam of our every day life and communication, even moreso than television or anything else.

I'm less hot on regulating social media, but I do think we need better regulations and control around how our individual data is collected, sold, and used against us via social media. The algorithms of social media are absolutely a problem in how they manipulate our worldview - BUT - they run on our data that's been skimmed, aggregated, and collated. Without that data, they can't do the micro-targeting and audience building that is one of their main profit centers.

We need a US GDPR - or at least some legal controls for how enterprises profit off of our data

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TXSG8R said:

That’s the rub though, if the feds start dipping their toes into that water they are potentially creating 1st amendment/free speech issues.  

I didn't say it was an easy thing to do properly. It's hard as fuck. It's also necessary as fuck. 
 

There are barriers to what people can put on Television, even if they have the money to pay for it.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm sorry, I'm not making a connection with the right to bear arms and the FCC having power over Social Media websites. 

I'm laughing at your solution, and you fucking know it's a joke. Nothing we've seen in the past 40 years is showing a trend towards corporations growing a conscience. The opposite, actually, and you know that. Why didn't you just type "Well, we just need individual human beings to be better informed and educated, and just better people on the internet." Because there's countless forces working actively to move people in the opposite direction of that. Individual people don't even understand the concept of citizenry and a responsibility to society at large, but you expect an institution filled with people who's sole purpose is to turn a profit to figure it out? Ok. 

That was a typo, now corrected, obvs.

And hence "such as it is."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m starting to think it should be regulated, but that’s a whole can of worms. Is Twitter like TV and the FCC should regulate it as such 

Or is it the same as standing on the corner and yelling insane shit, hoping someone joins your cult?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I’m starting to think it should be regulated, but that’s a whole can of worms. Is Twitter like TV and the FCC should regulate it as such 

Or is it the same as standing on the corner and yelling insane shit, hoping someone joins your cult?

 

 

I'm not even sure how much the FCC really regulates anymore as far as content.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

Loves him some Trump.

I don't know if that's accurate.  Loves him some de-regulation, sure, but I haven't seen anything to suggest he's in that cult of the dumbest people in our society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

I'm less hot on regulating social media, but I do think we need better regulations and control around how our individual data is collected, sold, and used against us via social media. The algorithms of social media are absolutely a problem in how they manipulate our worldview - BUT - they run on our data that's been skimmed, aggregated, and collated. Without that data, they can't do the micro-targeting and audience building that is one of their main profit centers.

We need a US GDPR - or at least some legal controls for how enterprises profit off of our data

I think this ship sailed long ago.  To be honest, if you're (the royal you) too stupid to understand how social media algorithms work and target people, you're their main mark.  It's very obvious how this shit works and it's not hard to not fall for it.  Stupid people gonna stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I think this ship sailed long ago.  To be honest, if you're (the royal you) too stupid to understand how social media algorithms work and target people, you're their main mark.  It's very obvious how this shit works and it's not hard to not fall for it.  Stupid people gonna stupid.

add in the fact that it's called social media and not "targeted advertising and data collection software" is just the icing on the cake. SM should absolutely be regulated just like any other company. They want to tell you their commodity is free thought and speech, but it's really just mining your data and selling it.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not even sure how much the FCC really regulates anymore as far as content.

As far as I know, “shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits”’ are still the seven words you can’t say on television. Although there’s been some evolution to where if the network accidentally catches someone saying those words during a broadcast like, say, during a sporting event, then they can’t themselves be held responsible. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

As far as I know, “shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits”’ are still the seven words you can’t say on television. Although there’s been some evolution to where if the network accidentally catches someone saying those words during a broadcast like, say, during a sporting event, then they can’t themselves be held responsible. 

 

And yet, what a controversy this was:

 

6181643cdcbb7.image.jpg?crop=650,650,175

 

 

  • Drool 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

can we regulate the algorithms that favor radical views and clicks for controversy?

i'm good with giving whoever the fuck wants to spew their bullshit have the ability to do that, as long as that bullshit isn't promoted for profit.

in an idealistic world, social media should reflect the viewpoints, opinions, and debates of the world at large. that would be fine.

the problem is, that idealistic world doesn't exist in the status quo.

i do think the censoring of content is dangerous and contrary to our shared values.. and that censoring breeds hate and disenfranchisement. 

and yes, it was entirely necessary to kick trump off and attempt to stop the misinformation, but i'm arguing that's not actually the best case scenario here - we shouldn't be aiming for twitter to police and fact check.

i think it's their own internal system that needs the policing, then the crazies would have less of an echo chamber but still able to spew their verbal vomit. free speech and all.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not even sure how much the FCC really regulates anymore as far as content.

I'm pretty sure the only rule left is no cock or pussy. 

But regardless of FCC decisions, there are obscenity exceptions to 1A, and I don't see why a lot of the crap that most reasonable people agree needs to be left off twitter can't be labeled obscene and treated the same way. The SCOTUS reasoning for the obscenity exception is that such material has "a tendency to exert a corrupting and debasing impact leading to antisocial behavior," and it's dumb as fuck that under the existing case law, only sexual ("prurient") material can do that. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

As far as I know, “shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits”’ are still the seven words you can’t say on television. Although there’s been some evolution to where if the network accidentally catches someone saying those words during a broadcast like, say, during a sporting event, then they can’t themselves be held responsible. 

I believe at least several of those can be said after 10 pm or something, just not a whole lot. Or something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

 

Tying  SM regulation to the concept of free speech and the first amendment is a joke. The political agitators behind this conversation dont give a fuck about free speech, they really  just want to ensure that their message gets out unfiltered in as many avenues as possible while limiting the viewpoints that counteract their worldview. I laugh at the GOP arguing for free speech on social media at the same time they are fighting to eliminate discussion of CRT, gender identity, and trying to ban books from schools and libraries. 

There may be some parallels I need to look into regarding how the government regulates content on broadcast TV, radio airwaves, etc...but that I'm under no illusions that the FCC guarantees free speech across all networks either. Fox News is under no obligation to host me on their airwaves if I plan on spending 15 minutes talking about what a steaming pile of shit DJT is. Its their airwaves, they can decide what content they send out. I'm sure there is content they would be explicitly prohibited from showing (Matt Gaetz rawdogging a teenager, etc...), but to my knowledge they aren't forced to broadcast content they don't want to distribute.

 

26 minutes ago, bangkok said:

i do think the censoring of content is dangerous and contrary to our shared values.. and that censoring breeds hate and disenfranchisement. 

and yes, it was entirely necessary to kick trump off and attempt to stop the misinformation, but i'm arguing that's not actually the best case scenario here - we shouldn't be aiming for twitter to police and fact check.

i think it's their own internal system that needs the policing, then the crazies would have less of an echo chamber but still able to spew their verbal vomit. free speech and all.

I dont understand how these sentences work together

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Blotto said:

Tying  SM regulation to the concept of free speech and the first amendment is a joke. The political agitators behind this conversation dont give a fuck about free speech, they really  just want to ensure that their message gets out unfiltered in as many avenues as possible while limiting the viewpoints that counteract their worldview. I laugh at the GOP arguing for free speech on social media at the same time they are fighting to eliminate discussion of CRT, gender identity, and trying to ban books from schools and libraries. 

There may be some parallels I need to look into regarding how the government regulates content on broadcast TV, radio airwaves, etc...but that I'm under no illusions that the FCC guarantees free speech across all networks either. Fox News is under no obligation to host me on their airwaves if I plan on spending 15 minutes talking about what a steaming pile of shit DJT is. Its their airwaves, they can decide what content they send out. I'm sure there is content they would be explicitly prohibited from showing (Matt Gaetz rawdogging a teenager, etc...), but to my knowledge they aren't forced to broadcast content they don't want to distribute.

 

I dont understand how these sentences work together

i think the unprecedented amount of misinformation, specifically in the last couple of election cycles was justifiably unexpected to twitter and most all of us.

so they we're kind of reactionary. oh shit! this is all fucked! stop the crazy bullshit!

and they've had some pushback from that, reasonably.

they were correct to do what had to be done, but it's not the ideal scenario for anyone moving forward as society adapts to a social media dominant world and the implications of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, bangkok said:

i think the unprecedented amount of misinformation, specifically in the last couple of election cycles was justifiably unexpected to twitter and most all of us.

so they we're kind of reactionary. oh shit! this is all fucked! stop the crazy bullshit!

and they've had some pushback from that, reasonably.

they were correct to do what had to be done, but it's not the ideal scenario for anyone moving forward as society adapts to a social media dominant world and the implications of that.

So are you just hoping that misinformation simply goes out of favor in a year or two? Because if not, social media will continue to be the primary avenue through which misinformation is published as its much cheaper than print/TV/radio, reaches a much larger audience, and is much harder to police.  Now we are right back at square one, which is  who owns the responsibility to police that misinformation.  

You can not rely on the government to determine what is and isn't misinformation when political parties and government willingly  create misinformation campaigns expressly to further their cause. As an example, many social media companies eventually booted Trump for his ridiculous claims that the election was stolen and Trump was the legitimate president. If the president of the United States is hell bent on disseminating that type of misinformation, you simply cant rely on his government to be the arbitrator of what constitutes misinformation. Christ, the last administration was so brazen about it that they proudly coined the phrase "alternative facts". Not that they were the first administration to traffic in misinformation. 

And I'm not naïve enough to believe that social media executives making these decisions are following a moral compass that drives them to protect the best interest of their user base over profitability and growth. Their policies and actions are geared to drive traffic and profits, and only when the negative blowback hints that their profits may decline do they adjust course.  Facebook, twitter, etc.... know more about  the data that flows across their network, where it comes from, and who consumes it than any external body. They hire data scientists by the thousands to parse that data and translate the results of their analysis into additional revenue. And for years they were perfectly content to allow misinformation to flow and revenue grow until it became so obvious what was happening that they were shamed into the content policing game. 

Accusations of political bias and censorship are not new phenomena that started with social media, its just the latest battleground. But the stakes are higher perhaps because the hooks that social media has on the majority of our populace is far stronger today than other forms of media in the past. Print media comes out once a day (at most), and we didnt use to carry around TV's. Today, everyone has a smartphone  and information is pushed realtime 24/7. People never leave the misinformation bubble, its with them whenever they want to breath it in. The results are people that believe JFK Jr is working in tandem with Donald J Trump, who is still actually the acting president and simply wearing a Biden mask.

 

 

 

Edited by Blotto
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Blotto said:

So are you just hoping that misinformation simply goes out of favor in a year or two? Because if not, social media will continue to be the primary avenue through which misinformation is published as its much cheaper than print/TV/radio, reaches a much larger audience, and is much harder to police.  Now we are right back at square one, which is  who owns the responsibility to police that misinformation.  

You can not rely on the government to determine what is and isn't misinformation when political parties and government willingly  create misinformation campaigns expressly to further their cause. As an example, many social media companies eventually booted Trump for his ridiculous claims that the election was stolen and Trump was the legitimate president. If the president of the United States is hell bent on disseminating that type of misinformation, you simply cant rely on his government to be the arbitrator of what constitutes misinformation. Christ, the last administration was so brazen about it that they proudly coined the phrase "alternative facts". Not that they were the first administration to traffic in misinformation. 

And I'm not naïve enough to believe that social media executives making these decisions are following a moral compass that drives them to protect the best interest of their user base over profitability and growth. Their policies and actions are geared to drive traffic and profits, and only when the negative blowback hints that their profits may decline do they adjust course.  Facebook, twitter, etc.... know more about  the data that flows across their network, where it comes from, and who consumes it than any external body. They hire data scientists by the thousands to parse that data and translate the results of their analysis into additional revenue. And for years they were perfectly content to allow misinformation to flow and revenue grow until it became so obvious what was happening that they were shamed into the content policing game. 

Accusations of political bias and censorship are not new phenomena that started with social media, its just the latest battleground. But the stakes are higher perhaps because the hooks that social media has on the majority of our populace is far stronger today than other forms of media in the past. Print media comes out once a day (at most), and we didnt use to carry around TV's. Today, everyone has a smartphone  and information is pushed realtime 24/7. People never leave the misinformation bubble, its with them whenever they want to breath it in. The results are people that believe JFK Jr is working in tandem with Donald J Trump, who is still actually the acting president and simply wearing a Biden mask.

 

 

 

right, you’re spot-on with this and we’re in almost full agreement.

status quo sucks.

i think the notion that we can’t rely on government to determine what constitutes misinformation and what doesn’t is correct.

along with that, we can’t rely on companies (especially those publicly traded), either. the regulations should be where neither the government nor the social media platform need to police content - outside of violence, i’d wager bots too.

there will always be misinformation and susceptible people looking for it and spreading it. in the status quo - that’s encouraged, because it brings more clicks and controversy.. and profit.

i’m suggesting that the companies are audited in a sense. we should be looking over their shoulders, no bans on outrageous bullshit as long as its non-violent.

but don’t elevate the crazy, outside of mainstream thoughts because you get more clicks due to the controversy those views attract. that’s the problem. and i’m arguing it’s more of an algorithmic problem that government can regulate without needing to police individual posts. and the goal should be having a space where views are adequately represented and dumbass shit is adequately disputed. make it fair.

idealistic? yea, maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't regulate the speech. Regulate the mechanisms that SM platforms abuse to micro target and push conspiracy only to those most vulnerable to it.

Protect our privacy, and all the rest will follow. We need a general data protection regulation.

  • Hook 'Em 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Don't regulate the speech. Regulate the mechanisms that SM platforms abuse to micro target and push conspiracy only to those most vulnerable to it.

Protect our privacy, and all the rest will follow. We need a general data protection regulation.

I definitely agree that the commerce in personal data needs to end. But our government long ago sold out the rights of the individual in favor of profits for corporations. 

what-acxiom-knows-data-brokers.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...