Jump to content

The Socials

Thetexashammer

By Thetexashammer
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Conservatives: "Sure, all the Nazis and racists are on my political side, but it's not because of the politics! It's a coincidence!"

 

40 minutes ago, slorch said:

Nazis are not conservative.

 

racists are everywhere, not just where the leftists deem it to be so.

giphy.gif

Nazis are conservative. They seek the preservation of "traditional" values and fear progress and diversity.

Sorry buds, but it's not a coincidence. They are you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cacti

Cacti 191

Posted
Posted
On ‎9‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 9:16 AM, slorch said:

Google?  There is little doubt they manipulate search results.  IDGAF.  If I don't like it, I can use another search engine/ browser.

 

On ‎9‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 9:44 AM, Bozo_Casanova said:

I have seen zero, ZERO credible evidence that there is a ideological bias in favor of the American political left built into the code or that human beings acting on a political bias are intervening to override the code.

 

If you believe search results are biased, read this article. If you don't believe search results are biased, read this article.  Whatever your belief is you can use this piece to support your position. 

Google News serves conservatives and liberals similar results, but favors mainstream media

 

Quote

We found, as have others, no evidence that major technology companies collude against conservatives or tweak their algorithms to return politically slanted search results.

...our research has found that Google News algorithms recommended virtually identical news sources to both liberals and conservatives. That’s an important point to keep in mind when evaluating accusations that Google News is biased.

There is, however, one aspect of this lack of personalization that may strike conservatives the wrong way: Established mainstream news outlets strongly dominate the results, regardless of what a user is searching for. Of all the Google News recommendations we collected, a full 49 percent – nearly half – were to just five national news organizations: The New York Times, CNN, Politico, The Washington Post and HuffPost. And those five, much like other mainstream news organizations, tend to be seen as center-left.

However, there is reason to understand – even if not to agree with – claims of bias. First, Google News search results do favor legacy news organizations, ones with a long history. In our study, of the 14 news sites that ranked highly on at least one search, only three were newer “digital-first” news organizations. The rest were legacy newspapers, national TV stations and magazines.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26279

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Cacti said:

 

If you believe search results are biased, read this article. If you don't believe search results are biased, read this article.  Whatever your belief is you can use this piece to support your position. 

Google News serves conservatives and liberals similar results, but favors mainstream media

 

 

The authors of that very silly piece seem to be saying that while the search algorithms don't present an operative ideological bias, the accusations of bias are supported by the fact that so-called "conservatives" don't see their own feelings and opinions reflected at the top of the  search rankings. 

Except that's not evidence of bias. It's evidence of objective reality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Celery Man

Celery Man 20885

Posted
Posted

can someone (not bad_teammate) post a list of the conservative voices who are being silenced by twitter/google/fb?  I'm hoping to read a good faith summation of what the actual instances of this are?  It seems like people are rumbling about Alex Jones, and if that's your Martin Niemoller moment I do not care about you.  I've seen some other instances of people throwing up "why this but not this?" that look clearly like an algorithm that cannot possibly be perfect at work.  Am I wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Celery Man said:

conservative voices

What is a conservative voice? 

Today that means liars that echo Kremlin narratives/conspiracy theories and demonize liberals, immigrants, and Muslims. 

 

What it should mean:

Voices like George Will, John McCain, David Frum, Steve Schmidt, Bill Kristol, Barry Goldwater, GW Bush.

 

What it now means:

Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, Ted Cruz, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Steve Bannon.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, Celery Man said:

can someone (not bad_teammate) post a list of the conservative voices who are being silenced by twitter/google/fb?  I'm hoping to read a good faith summation of what the actual instances of this are?  It seems like people are rumbling about Alex Jones, and if that's your Martin Niemoller moment I do not care about you.  I've seen some other instances of people throwing up "why this but not this?" that look clearly like an algorithm that cannot possibly be perfect at work.  Am I wrong?

Well I don't care about Alex Jones, but I do care about free speech.

Here's a Twitter page for the internationally designated terrorist organization, Hamas. https://twitter.com/hamasinfoen?lang=en

Here's a page for lover of Nazi's (actual ones), Louis Farrakhan. https://twitter.com/louisfarrakhan?lang=en

Milo was banned for saying Leslie Jones was "barely literate". Meaning, he didn't violate any rules at all, other than political correctness. Hate on Milo all you want, I don't care. Sarah Jeong calls for racial genocide and the tweets are never even taken down. 

I don't care about these people, but the bottom line is there hasn't been one prominent liberal banned. They are not neutrally policing the platform. The evidence is overwhelming but you have to go look for it (guess why?). Prager U gets demonetized and banned from Facebook while The Young Turks are constantly promoted in the YouTube "trending section". 

This guy's not a conservative, he's a liberal, but he looks at facts and does a good analysis of the bias. 

I googled "twitter shadow bans republicans". The first result is NYMAG "Twitter is not shadow banning republicans". Third link is "Twitter admits shadow banning is a bug". This is why you see what you see here, where a large group of people think they are entitled to their own facts. It's why you guys are widely regarded as a pack of deranged hyenas. You think you are entitled to your own set of facts.

Facebook admitted to bias in their news feed.

Celery Man, don't use Surly to get your opinions. Do your own research. Use facts to form opinions, don't just search for facts that support your (potentially insane) ideologic bias.

 

As a related aside, I have nothing in common with these banners. I want every American to watch videos of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Nancy Pelosi on a never ending loop. More exposure is what I want. The banners want to ban simply because they know they are wrong, and they are aspiring tyrants. I support freedom of speech and full engagement in the marketplace of ideas. But liberals want to put their thumb on the scale and end freedom of speech.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted

 

2 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

This guy's not a conservative, he's a liberal, but he looks at facts and does a good analysis of the bias. 

Nothing in that video is about conservatism, liberalism, or politics of any kind.

It's about how YouTube allows massive corporations to get away with shit individuals cannot.

You're bad at this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4044

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Well I don't care about Alex Jones, but I do care about free speech.

Again, what’s been happening with that feeble-minded piece of whacko has fuck all to do with free speech. Same goes with Milo, Coulter and that whole hee-haw gang of hoots, and the thing is that neither you nor anyone else will ever in your life be able to convince a learned person that free speech was/is in any way in play.

Edited by hpslugga
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Washpark

Washpark 176

Posted
Posted

Sarah Jeong is a well respected journalist that keeps being slandered by right wing fanatics like TexasHammer

No one is silencing “conservatives”. “Conservatives” are harassing and playing the victim card even though they are the perpetrators of abuse.

Actions have consequences and “conservatives” can’t hide behind their false narrative any longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaybeACoordinator

MaybeACoordinator 8349

Posted
Posted

Why the fuck is a Brit like Milo allowed to come over here and stir up shit? No matter what his opinions are? What if he was from Afghanistan and preaching Taliban rhetoric? Would he be a cause celebre at colleges that forbade him to speak there? I really just fail to understand why this poison little toad has become someone people give a shit about in America. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

 

giphy.gif

Nazis are conservative. They seek the preservation of "traditional" values and fear progress and diversity.

Sorry buds, but it's not a coincidence. They are you.

straight up trolling bullshit.

 

Progress is subjective.

' Diversity' in today's vernacular assumes whites are not diverse.  At work i am listed as a non-diverse employee.  Oh really?  I didn't realize so many folks had the exact same background as I did.  Oh, that's right, the "progressives" exclude me because of one measure...the color of my skin.  The inverse of the Nazis is no better.

Bullshit politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scottsins

scottsins 1953

Posted
Posted
straight up trolling bullshit.

 

Progress is subjective.

' Diversity' in today's vernacular assumes whites are not diverse.  At work i am listed as a non-diverse employee.  Oh really?  I didn't realize so many folks had the exact same background as I did.  Oh, that's right, the "progressives" exclude me because of one measure...the color of my skin.  The inverse of the Nazis is no better.

Bullshit politics.

 

You forgot “and Blacks can use the N word, but white people can’t”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foosters

Foosters 17730

Posted
Posted

There was a decently sized contingent of posters on the old site who believed that private businesses should be able to do whatever they wanted. Yes, this would include an establishment refusing to serve African-American customers. Their thinking was that the free market would settle it and eventually put those places out of business. I'd be willing to wager over half of those posters are upset with "the socials" and want the government to do something about it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45492

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Foosters said:

There was a decently sized contingent of posters on the old site who believed that private businesses should be able to do whatever they wanted. Yes, this would include an establishment refusing to serve African-American customers. Their thinking was that the free market would settle it and eventually put those places out of business. I'd be willing to wager over half of those posters are upset with "the socials" and want the government to do something about it.

Yeah, but this is different.  Because reasons.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4044

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Foosters said:

There was a decently sized contingent of posters on the old site who believed that private businesses should be able to do whatever they wanted. Yes, this would include an establishment refusing to serve African-American customers. Their thinking was that the free market would settle it and eventually put those places out of business. I'd be willing to wager over half of those posters are upset with "the socials" and want the government to do something about it.

Like someone else mentioned, it's classic victimizers-asserting-the-role-of-victim. In the case of the "market settling it," the only route to that is to create alternatives and let their own popularity speak for themselves. The problem is that the right wing is so embarrassingly retarded that it would look like the following:

Right-wing social: "We're hereforetheretohenceforth banning Elizabeth Warren because she's a fake Indian that peddles fake news."

Everybody else (on the remote possibility they even see it): "I'm washing my hair."

There is no market that would "settle" that reality for them. It's the same reason why Wikipedia doesn't give a fuck about Conservapedia.

Someone asked earlier why, since their ideas are so unpopular, is the GOP continuously able to win elections and control branches of government. The answer is simple: ideas and policy positions don't win elections in the United States. Money does. The one coherent rationalization the GOP has going for it is "well since roughly 90% of federal-level elections are won by the candidate that outspends his opponent, that means elections are bought, and that means we should be catering to the people who can buy them for us."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89416

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, hpslugga said:

Again, what’s been happening with that feeble-minded piece of whacko has fuck all to do with free speech. Same goes with Milo, Coulter and that whole hee-haw gang of hoots, and the thing is that neither you nor anyone else will ever in your life be able to convince a learned person that free speech was/is in any way in play.

This.  Most of these people were using these social media services for years.  Nobody was booting them for saying "GOD BLESS TRUMP HE'S PROTECTING US FROM COMMUNIST LIBROOL HILLARY".  They were booted because they couldn't help themselves and just had to keep trying to see where the line was with these services.

It's like some idiot with a hot stove, and they keep on moving their figures closer and closer to the burner, to see when they will get burned.

Especially Alex Jones.  That fucker not only knew he had been skating on thin ice for a long time, and he knew that if it wasn't for the CEO of twitter, he probably would have been gone much sooner.

Jones knew exactly where this was going.  Especially with the Sandy Hook bullshit.  I'm still amazed that he stayed online for as long as he did, even though he was harassing the parents of dead kids.  That's all on Jack Dorsey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89416

Posted
Posted

Not targeted at anybody here, but for those who are fucking whining about some kind of suppression bullshit, do the following:

  • Setup up accounts on various social media platforms.
  • Talk about 9/11 being an inside job/George W.
  • "Ask questions" about Sandy Hook (without calling the parents of dead kids liars).
  • Talk about The Deep State
  • Post QAnon stuff.
  • Post about how Trump is The Greatest President That Ever Lived
  • Post about Hillary being the devil.
  • Post about how Librools want to turn us into Somalia and confiscate all of our guns.
  • Post lots of conservative memes.

None of that is going to get you booted off those platforms.  It's well within the TOS to do that stuff.

It's when you start harassing people online and offline, where you're gonna get into trouble.  In fact, plenty of people are still posting about the above topics on a daily basis, and they aren't getting booted off.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/10/silent-donation-corporate-emails-reveal-google-executives-efforts-to-swing-election-to-hillary-clinton-with-latino-outreach-campaign/

Google does not deny the validity of the emails.

Quote

We worked very hard. Many people did. We pushed tp get out the Latino vote with our features, our partners, and our voices. We kept our Google efforts non-partisan and followed our company’s protocols for the elections strategy. We emphasized our mission to give Latinos access to information so that they can make an informed decision at the polls, and we feel very grateful for all the support to do this important work. Latinos voted in record-breaking numbers, particularly with early votes. A large percentage of Latino voters in Florida were new voters who had become citizens just in time to vote. We saw high traffic for the search queries ‘votar,’ ‘como votar,’ and ‘donde voter,’ in key states like Florida and Nevada. We will be pulling in more info in the coming hours/days but so far we definitely know there was high traffic on search in Spanish. 

Quote

We had our partners help spread the word about our features on social media, including YouTubers and influencers like Dulce Candy, Jorge Narvaez, Jessie y Joy, Barbara Bermudo, and Pamela Silva of Univision, Jackie Cruz aka La Flaca from Orange is the New Black, and more. We promoted our partner the Latino Community Foundation’s non-partisan #YoVoyaVotaryTu (I’m going to vote, are you?) campaign and leveraged our social media influencer friends’ reach to hit over 11M impressions with that hashtag. We hosted an event with over 200 people and a hangout with social media influencers about the power of the Latino vote and the new research Nielsen published about the Latino electorate.

Quote

We also supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to the polls in key states (silent donation). We even helped them create ad campaigns to promote the rides (with support from HOLA folks who rallied and volunteered their time to help). We supported Voto Latino to help them land an interview with Senator Meza of Arizona (key state for us) to talk about the election and how to use Google search to find information about how to vote. They were a strong partner, among many in this effort.

Explain why Google is using its influence, search, and YouTube to influence the election. Surely you would the OK with it if they were helping Trump, right?

Edited by Thetexashammer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Not targeted at anybody here, but for those who are fucking whining about some kind of suppression bullshit, do the following:

  • Setup up accounts on various social media platforms.
  • Talk about 9/11 being an inside job/George W.
  • "Ask questions" about Sandy Hook (without calling the parents of dead kids liars).
  • Talk about The Deep State
  • Post QAnon stuff.
  • Post about how Trump is The Greatest President That Ever Lived
  • Post about Hillary being the devil.
  • Post about how Librools want to turn us into Somalia and confiscate all of our guns.
  • Post lots of conservative memes.

None of that is going to get you booted off those platforms.  It's well within the TOS to do that stuff.

It's when you start harassing people online and offline, where you're gonna get into trouble.  In fact, plenty of people are still posting about the above topics on a daily basis, and they aren't getting booted off.

 

 

How posting on Facebook can send you to jail. More than 10 people per day are ARRESTED in teh UK for hate speech.

Creator was arrested and convicted for comedy gold.

The top leaders of the "alternative" parties in both Germany and France have been arrested for social media posts and are facing criminal charges.

 

You can post those things you describe. You will be demonetized. Your posts will be shadow banned. You will have your posts deleted. You will not show up in search results. You will not trend. Your videos will be placed in "restricted" mode (Just ask PragerU). You will be deplatformed. If you are successful, you will be banned.

Edited by Thetexashammer
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foosters

Foosters 17730

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Thetexashammer said:

 

How posting on Facebook can send you to jail. More than 10 people per day are ARRESTED in teh UK for hate speech.

Creator was arrested and convicted for comedy gold.

The top leaders of the "alternative" parties in both Germany and France have been arrested for social media posts and are facing criminal charges.

 

You can post those things you describe. You will be demonetized. Your posts will be shadow banned. You will have your posts deleted. If you are successful, you will be banned. You will not show up in search results. You will not trend. Your videos will be placed in "restricted" mode (Just ask PragerU). You will be deplatformed.

You are too stupid to insult. Those people in other countries are arrested because OF THE LAWS IN THOSE COUNTRIES CODIFIED YEARS BEFORE SOCIAL MEDIA. If I take a ladder to town square, climb atop it, and start spouting racist shit, is the ladder manufacturer to blame? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89416

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

You can post those things you describe. You will be demonetized. Your posts will be shadow banned. You will have your posts deleted. You will not show up in search results. You will not trend. Your videos will be placed in "restricted" mode (Just ask PragerU). You will be deplatformed. If you are successful, you will be banned.

Except that stuff is easy to find on those platforms here in September of 2018.   It’s not shadow banned by The Deep State. 

These chucklefucks are not signing up one day, spewing crazy shit that night, and getting banned the next day.  Hell, Alex Jones and his group was allowed to make the lives of those dead kids’ parents even more miserable for years.  Fucking years.

Even when they finally got him in court this summer, Twitter and a few others were still trying to keep him around. 

But ol’ Alex, once he started getting kicked off various platforms, did he change his behavior?  Did he stop trying to start shit online and offline?  Nope, there he was in D.C. harassing people. 

He made it too hard for Jack Dorsey to keep him on twitter.  Hell, he tried to start shit with Dorsey, the one CEO who publicly defended keeping him around on social media. 

How much of a fucking moron do you have to be to start shit with the one guy who has publicly had your back when nobody else would?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4044

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Continental Op said:

I think the fact TexasHammer thinks a guy getting his dog excited by saying "Do you want to gas the Jews" is "comedy gold" says pretty much everything we need to know about him.  

That and the more pertinent fact that he’s absolutely wrong about absolutely everything he says.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NotActuallyALonghorn

NotActuallyALonghorn 4968

Posted
Posted
On 9/8/2018 at 5:21 PM, atomheartbevo said:

I've been doing the web development game for almost 15 years both personally, and professionally at times, and the SEO (search engine optimization) for nearly that long, and still have a couple of my own sites that I keep updated (and I'm currently doing some book marketing).

I know it seems like Google, etc. manipulate the results as a whole.  It really does seem like it, but there's a lot more going on when people feel like search results have been manipulated.  

First, there are times where they actually do manipulate the results, but it has nothing to do with political bias.  Those times are when a human being says "this site must be removed from our index" and that human is usually a lawyer, and what happens is that the site in question has either done something illegal/criminal in nature (fraud such as credit card stuff, malware distribution, kiddie stuff), or has engaged in DMCA/copyright violations (torrenting/hosting the latest movies, etc.). You may even see a reference in the search results with a link to the body who filed the claim against said site.  What that means is that law enforcement or a copyright holder has contacted Google to have those results removed.  There are also websites that have active malware, and Google will throw up warning signs about those sites as well (in Chrome, etc.).

Beyond that, what a lot of the claims of political motivation/manipulation boil down to is this: "I wrote an awesome article explaining why Obama is a Kenyan and Hillary killed Vince Foster, but why isn't my article in the top of the search results when somebody searches on Obama born in Kenya or Hillary killed Vince?"  

When Google displays results, there is a lot going on for a website to be in the top of the results.  First, Google's search algorithms take into account certain technical things, such as following best practices for website structure and design.  Things like was your website created in the past 10 days or the past 10 years (newer sites rank lower because they aren't as established), website speed (have too many shitty ads slowing it down, you will rank lower), mobile awareness (if your site sucks on a phone or tablet, you'll get dinged), security (secure vs non-secure connections), etc..  

There are also practices that people try and use to game Google's algorithms - clickbait titles, stuffing "keywords" in various places, etc., and Google automatically penalizes that stuff.

From there, it's going to boil down to whether you and your site are considered "authorities" in the subject matter.  If you are putting out regular articles that are getting linked by other, more established/popular websites, then you are going to rank higher in Google's search results.  

If you are putting out sporadic articles that are being linked to by spammy websites and social media, you're simply not going to make it in the top Google results.  Even worse if you are aligning yourself with spammy websites or doing things like copying large chunks of the NY Times and throwing in a couple of sentences of commentary - you're going to get dinged and not make it high in Google's results.

I've seen a lot of alt-righters complaining about this lately, and the problem for them is they are new to the game and aren't following established and well-known practices.    Some of them also engage in practices they think will help, when in fact it will ding them in Google's eyes.

Most of the sites you see at the top of Google's results are there because Google's algorithms determined they have authority - that's why a search on Sean Hannity will return Hannity.com as one of the top results (occasionally Wikipedia entries might rank higher for some people), or it's why you'll see an official twitter account for some celebrity rank high or highest when searching on them.

Actually I'm convinced that Google is actively trying to make their search results less relevant. It's like they say, "oh, you just searched for something general, and then did the same search with a few specific key words added. Here are the results of your search without those specific key words."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
troph

troph 24562

Posted
Posted

Just agree the Ten Commandments can stay in every public building and keep in god we trust on the dollar and we’ll be good with the right. After all, we all could use a good reminder that lying, stealing and killing are bad. Yeah America!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45554

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/10/silent-donation-corporate-emails-reveal-google-executives-efforts-to-swing-election-to-hillary-clinton-with-latino-outreach-campaign/

Google does not deny the validity of the emails.

Explain why Google is using its influence, search, and YouTube to influence the election. Surely you would the OK with it if they were helping Trump, right?

Come on.  Try harder.  It's in the FIRST PARAGRAPH:

"We kept our Google efforts non-partisan".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11360

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

 

How posting on Facebook can send you to jail. More than 10 people per day are ARRESTED in teh UK for hate speech.

Creator was arrested and convicted for comedy gold.

The top leaders of the "alternative" parties in both Germany and France have been arrested for social media posts and are facing criminal charges.

 

You can post those things you describe. You will be demonetized. Your posts will be shadow banned. You will have your posts deleted. You will not show up in search results. You will not trend. Your videos will be placed in "restricted" mode (Just ask PragerU). You will be deplatformed. If you are successful, you will be banned.

you know that our constitutional republic guarantees certain freedoms that do not exist in other countries, right? you know that british law is different than that of the usa, right? that germany has different laws, and there are reasons for those differences, and that you don't have to agree with it, right?

moron.

hell, if hate speech becomes dangerous or threatening here in the usa, it becomes a crime. you know that as well, right?

you seem to want people purportedly on the right, on the fringe, to be able to harass and threaten people with some kind of "alternative truth" with impunity. that's not how shit works, dude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
troph

troph 24562

Posted
Posted
you know that our constitutional republic guarantees certain freedoms that do not exist in other countries, right? you know that british law is different than that of the usa, right? that germany has different laws, and there are reasons for those differences, and that you don't have to agree with it, right?
moron.
hell, if hate speech becomes dangerous or threatening here in the usa, it becomes a crime. you know that as well, right?
you seem to want people purportedly on the right, on the fringe, to be able to harass and threaten people with some kind of "alternative truth" with impunity. that's not how shit works, dude.


This guy gets it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4044

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

you know that our constitutional republic guarantees certain freedoms that do not exist in other countries, right? you know that british law is different than that of the usa, right? that germany has different laws, and there are reasons for those differences, and that you don't have to agree with it, right?

moron.

hell, if hate speech becomes dangerous or threatening here in the usa, it becomes a crime. you know that as well, right?

you seem to want people purportedly on the right, on the fringe, to be able to harass and threaten people with some kind of "alternative truth" with impunity. that's not how shit works, dude.

Come on, dude. You know perfectly well that he knows absolutely none of what you just said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
  • Author
Posted

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4205846-seriously-take-social-media-antitrust-concerns

Quote

Summary

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testified before Congress earlier this month over a variety of security, bias, data, and market power concerns over their companies.

There currently appears to be broad public support for some kind of increased social media regulation, with even antitrust now becoming a serious discussion from multiple sides.

I believe the likely policy result will be a moderate form of increased oversight, such as focusing on transparency and data protection.

The self regulation by the companies is taking a lot of energy out of demands for increased regulatory, and current policy ideas face immense division and lack of agreement.

Severe antitrust action is unlikely, with the probable policy outcomes not derailing current growth trajectories and expectations significantly.

https://reason.com/archives/2018/09/11/beware-the-presss-self-serving-calls-to

Quote

In the states and abroad, policymakers and commentators are salivating over the opportunity to regulate social media content. It is easy to understand why governments might want to have more influence on social media platforms. But the legacy media's consistent push for more controls on platforms like Facebook and Twitter has been less scrutinized. There is a reason for this consilience: these policies can ultimately serve as a government-granted privilege that favored media firms use to get an edge over their competition.

It may sound a little roundabout. It doesn't take a short-sighted partisan to have serious problems with a lot of social media practices. For instance, tech platforms have collaborated, willingly or not, with governments in surveillance and social conditioning campaigns. Then there's the spectral but speculated upon creation of "shadow profiles" that are only discernable through their algorithmic residue.

But don't be fooled: Some parties who trot out these more reasonable pretexts for enhanced tech scrutiny do so for opportunistic reasons.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The subject of market dominance is important. These companies are effectively monopolies. They are not price takers, they set their own price.

230258.png

Google is ten times larger than its nearest competitor, Microsoft. Facebook is a self contained advert platform, unless I am mistaken. I don't think you do Google Ads on Facebook, and vice versa. Facebook owns Facebook, so there's no competition there. 

Google has 91% of search. About 30 times larger than its nearest competitor. The opposite end of the spectrum from a commodity market. True, complete, market dominance.

 

Some people may not be bothered that large corporations believe they can determine who gets to be president. I find that to be extremely alarming. 

Freedom from government interference in speech is important, but not sufficient. Facebook et al have become the public square, the arena. It is where culture is grown. And culture drives politics. Specifically, these tech companies are trying to pick presidents and elected representatives of their own liking. They are incredibly powerful, and they can do it. This is bad.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...