They probably didn’t set out to do this. To become the Ministry of Truth, but this is where they are now.
They’ve become Pravda. They’ve become CCTV.
The irony is probably lost on them. This is so sad. Welcome home ‘Granma’.
They’ve become Pravda. They’ve become CCTV.
The irony is probably lost on them. This is so sad. Welcome home ‘Granma’.
I think this misses the point.
Twitter, Facebook, etc cover a majority of Americans. These social media platforms have a significant effect on the beliefs and values of their users. Divisive, outraging content drives engagement. This leads to the curation of echo chambers that work to continually galvanize and outrage users.
I have made the choice not to use social media, but a large majority of Americans do. Since we live in a democracy, this gives companies like Twitter and Facebook a non-trivial amount of control over elections and legislation.
I don't think this can be ignored with the quip "just don't use the platforms". These platforms have the ability to form public opinion, and that is a problem for democracy that we as a society need to solve.
I think this ascribes a lack of self-determinism that I see in a lot of these arguments. We (the people) give Twitter and Facebook that control. If they have violated the norms we (the people) have set in such a way that we want to take that power back, we can. This seems self-evident since you are a non-user.
I don't accept that argument. I think most people who are active on social media are not aware of the effects it has on them. Social media is designed to sink its claws into your brain in an addictive way.
Allowing Twitter free reign crosses the line between Democracy and Mob Rule. To protect our democracy, we need to protect the ability of people to think for themselves.
This is not true. Most are aware at this point that social media is not healthy and is addictive. Saying they don't is the equivalent of saying you didn't know smoking was bad in the 90s.
> To protect our democracy, we need to protect the ability of people to think for themselves.
I think your comment is weirdly contradictory because yes, I agree we should protect the ability for people to think and choose their media consumption for themselves. Don't like twitter's moderation decisions? Leave it.
I think there are fairer comparisons to be made, but Pravda is in my opinion not one of them.
Ultimately free speech means nothing if the legislature can be stormed with the intent of kidnapping/murdering members of the process.
They do not become the hero because they got ban happy after the fact.
However, this is a comment thread of OP comparing Pravda to Twitter. You are not at a higher risk of death by the government for trying to start a competitive platform to Twitter.
Now, I grant you that many people around the world for whatever reason, take their positions too far and outright sew deception, violent hate, fraud, etc. So it’s very complicated. But given the importance and breadth, I don’t think we should allow these companies to set agendas: “Thou shalt not have a conversation over this and that.”
Conspiracies may have negative impact, but people should be allowed to discuss them because as history has uncovered some conspiracies were in retrospect reality.