Massive Big Tech conglomerates must be busted through antitrust enforcement and Section 230 must be updated to ban predatory algorithms which have inflamed 7 years of sectarian chaos.
It's not a free speech issue: It's about Too Big To Fail.
Make lying to the public a criminal offence. Without lies these channels are nothing.
America had problems before Social Media dialed it up to 11. Those problems aren’t going away.
It doesn't matter which way the wind blows, they make money, there's an audience and there's engagement and user-base.
To think these people ever thought about being guardians or Internet ambassadors is foolish and downright ignorant. They are profiteers.
Tom was so smart to take the Myspace Exit and live a excellent life.
The only reason Parler is getting banned and Facebook isn't is because Facebook is too big to fail.
Facebook and Twitter have the same amount of questionable content, just better PR and bigger clout.
It's Gab that has no moderation (with all the pros and cons of a pure "free speech" network).
I'm still not exactly sure how Section 230 relates to any of the issues in public discussion. Only that it's good for the platforms, and some folks want to hurt the platforms, so Section 230 must go. I've seen at least one draft of a proposed bill for adding additional conditions to Section 230, but they reminded me, more than anything, of hypothetical First Amendment questions from law school exams. It's by no means clear that platforms, especially new platforms, will simply do whatever you tell them to do in a condition to Section 230.
They make money when you’re mad and engaged
Source?
Edit: lol at the downvotes. Anytime someone talks about something obvious regarding society/wealth inequality, all the wannabe Elon Musks come out to demand sources. But infringe on their dear property rights or otherwise critique the current economic system, and oh boy, they have that downvote finger ready. Cheers.
No, everything must be organized, I get that.
> riots and massive property damage last summer?
I'm asking for a source regarding the accusation that they were used to "burn down parts of Minneapolis, Chicago, and LA"
And before you ask, yeah, I take issue with the idea of most of those events being called "riots" - they were almost entirely peaceful protests, with unarmed protesters, that were met by militarized police forces and unnamed federal agents. Furthermore, I take issue with the emphasis on "property damage" as property is fairly meaningless when you fear for your live or live paycheck-to-paycheck.
America has an unhealthy obsession with "property damage" as if it should be the driver for any sort of discussion on societal issues, when in fact, it should not be.
Ah right, so the ends justify the means. It is OK to vandalise and destroy a small business if you feel bad and frustrated, but only if you share the corporate-approved politically correct opinion. Do you not see where this road ends?
Most of the people at the capitol on the 6th were peaceful too. However, those "mostly peaceful" riots this past sumer resulted in billions of dollars in property damage, dozens of deaths, and a massive spike in crime (including violent crime). Many of these rioters were either bailed out by politicians (including the incoming VP) or simply refused to be prosecuted by local DAs.
Now, I have no doubt that there was police brutality against peaceful protesters, which is horrible and inexcusable. I also think there are many legitimate grievances against the police. I even understand (though do not condone) the attacks made against police precincts and federal buildings.
But the suffering inflicted upon innocent civilians by the rioters is completely monstrous and likewise inexcusable. There is no honest moral framework to justify it.
It was also incredibly counterproductive. With the excesses taken by police on behalf many governors during the lockdowns, this past year has possibly been the best time in decades to introduce bi-partisan police reform. The riots effectively killed that because many people would rather support the police (who are at least nominally there to protect them, even if they frequently stood down to the rioters) than they are to support the people threatening to loot and burn their homes and businesses.
> I take issue with the emphasis on "property damage" as property is fairly meaningless when you fear for your live or live paycheck-to-paycheck.
That's pretty obviously not true. If you are living paycheck-to-paycheck and your home (apartment, house, whatever) or the place where you work is destroyed you are going to care a great deal. Even if it is just your car - you might night be able to afford a new car, but without the car you might not be able to get to work and thus lose your job.
> America has an unhealthy obsession with "property damage" as if it should be the driver for any sort of discussion on societal issues, when in fact, it should not be.
"Property damage" isn't some abstract thing. It's the destruction of peoples homes and livelihoods. It is the very means by which we live. Even if we lived in a perfect socialist utopia with no private property, it should be fairly obvious that the destruction of the communal property that houses and supports the community would be a serious offense.