And YT deletes content mentioning election fraud, and twitter permanent bans the president, all under the historically totalitarian guise of "safety"
Nothing wrong here at all. As Eric Weinstein put it, something went terribly wrong at big tech.
Nothing wrong here at all. As Eric Weinstein put it, something went terribly wrong at big tech.
Now everyone is surprised to see when big tech says enough is enough.
Where else would these people draw the line if not here?
Platforms ban bad actors all the time. Anyone taking advantage of a service against its TOS or against the country it is bound to is not welcome.
you can’t shout fire in a crowded theatre and you also can’t use hate speech which can incite riots or cause violence.
i think people forget this too.
This is their platform and they said enough is enough post the attempted coup.
You can think just as much for yourself as you could before.
Serious truth bending for political capital, which has been the DC establishment playbook the entire trump admin.
No, it wasn't legally incitement. It was absolutely stoked by him.
Exactly in the same speech: he repeated his claims that the election was stolen.
Half the country is mad as hell, because there's 3k+ signed affidavits, 140 congressmen, at least two majority of state congresses, reports from data scientists, cctv footage, voting machine forensic reports in MI and AZ, and a lot of dismissal by courts based on standing not merits. It's unprecedented and it's straight up totalitarian to say "no mention of election fraud is allowed"
I don’t know whether you are intentionally repeating claims you know to be untrue or haven’t looked at the details but you should ask yourself what it tells us when the President’s own lawyers keep dropping these cases. They wouldn’t do that if there was any merit to the case – and they’re certainly not out of money. The claims just aren’t true and they know it - once the fundraising dries up they’ll move on to something else.
it is now clear we must all defend our democracy. we can’t take it for granted.
??
Unless folks are willing to have some kind of real ID verification to access these services.
Being an absolutist about this means being okay with violence based on those lies, just as we saw in Myanmar.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-...
after the capitol building riot where multiple people died, it’s clear that this falls into the “you can’t shout fire in a crowded theatre” bucket.
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
Not to mention that the decisions to ban Trump certainly wasn’t taken overnight and he was given a very long leash.
Regardless I’m sure the motives here are not philosophical but mostly profit motivated.
Also, really puts a dent into the anti-free speech argument that "you can go to another platform" argument.
I do love watching all these "tech/social media is evil" crowd here suddenly praising tech/social media and wanting them to have even more control over our lives.
Social media is so evil that we need them to control our lives even more. Wonderful logic that.
I certainly am not advocating that social media companies should have even more control over our lives. I would like them to have less, which presumably happens either because (a) we stop using social media (at least in the current sense) and/or (b) more options for "social media" platforms emerge.
Since (a) is unlikely in the near term, that probably means (b). I don't how Twitter banning anyone (including POTUS) from their platform does anything but encourage that.
I also don't see how "large corporations that have used psychological manipulation and network effects to become really popular must be consider public utilities, despite no law to that effect" really lines up with free speech. Do you believe that the NY Times should be required to print my op-ed's in their online version? How about my comments on their articles?
Actually I described you to the tee.
> I certainly am not advocating that social media companies should have even more control over our lives
So you are against censorship or for it?
> Since (a) is unlikely in the near term, that probably means (b). I don't how Twitter banning anyone (including POTUS) from their platform does anything but encourage that.
Except that if tech companies collude together to prevent that. Fine, you say go make your own twitter. They do and then it gets banned from google play/apple store/etc. And down the line it goes. That's my point.
> I also don't see how "large corporations that have used psychological manipulation and network effects to become really popular must be consider public utilities, despite no law to that effect" really lines up with free speech.
Who or what are you quoting? You just plucked a quote out of the ether. That's very dishonest and disingenuous. You almost write like a journalist.
> Do you believe that the NY Times should be required to print my op-ed's in their online version?
Of course not. But then again, they are not a platform, they are publishers. But you already knew that.
If you can show collusion, please do. Meanwhile, WTF is with the "app store" concept in the first place? You're complaining that it isn't fair that Apple and Google can block apps from their platforms, even though that's what they've actually done since the arrival of smartphones? Free software advocates (look me up) have been warning about this since day one of the app store. There's nothing new here, other than the dispute of the day involves people's ability to type whatever they want in messages to some platform rather than some other feature that Apple/Google think doesn't fit with their intended platform ecosystems.
I wasn't quoting anyone. The double-quotes were an alternative to using hyphens to create a run-on phrase that attempted to describe how I see some people talking about these corporations.
If I understand your last line correctly, you believe there is some category called "platform" which needs to be treated differently. Are you calling for new laws to define what a platform is? If I create my own "dwitter", will your new laws allow me to have to any say over what people can post to it?