50656E6973

>This is whataboutism, and it detracts from issues instead of productively extending the conversation

This is a self contradictory statement. Calling someone's argument "whataboutism" is itself a logical fallacy designed to prevent extension of the conversation into a larger context

The Communications Chief of Time Warner and former EVP at News Corporation writes speeches pro bono for the Prime Minister of Israel.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Ginsberg

>If this very comment had been about some unrelated topic...it would be right for the comment to be censored from this discussion

By that same logic, we should censor your comment, because this article is not about filtering bot/adspam from small niche forums; It's about mass censorship and manipulation of organic political opinions on platforms with billions of users.

>The unique problem of the internet is that it allows bad ideas to infect, fester, and mutate in the minds of others at a speed never seen before, without the natural safeguards that we've always had: peer-review and social acceptance. That leads to a spill-over of bad ideas into the public discourse which, in turn, resets society's definition for what kind of ideas are acceptable. A few rapid cycles of this, and we got our Post Truth World

This is precisely the same logic held by the Church during the Inquisition as they were safeguarding Truth from the Scientific Revolution and the evil of the printing press.

Mass media in general has been profiting off rumors, gossip, and falsehoods for a long time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

The difference here is FB is doing it algorithmically on a much larger scale.

>Modern philosophies that disregard the special place in nature of Man, and deny Man's nature, are a mess and lead to some pretty horrible outcomes, such as the dehumanization of undesirable groups.

Which philosophies?

It seems you've got it backwards.

Abrahamic religions, for example, created an "I-It" relationship by declaring nature to be subordinate to mankind in Genesis.

The theory of evolution and the science of ecology defines the relationship as communal and interrelated, or "I-Thou".

Indeed. And yet life expectancy is still lower for men, and is getting worse. Can we not talk about that for a moment?

Your anecdotal dismissal supports the parent commenter's point.

Money can create popularity.

>Do you actually have something concrete in mind here

Ideals codified in law. For example, the 1rst and 2nd Amendments.

When generalizing with national boundaries, I of course do not mean to imply that literally everyone born within those imaginary lines thinks the same.

Are there more specific categories I could use for these ideological classifications?

Using large geographic/national boundaries to generalize ideological categories is of course inherently erroneous to a degree; it's like the Zen Buddhist teaching of "a finger pointing at the moon". You seem to be getting hung up on the finger.

>Why there are people who welcome the rise of Chinese/CCP hegemony when they are actively looking to crush [2] "Western values" is beyond me.

Perhaps it's because Big Tech is full of people who favor Chinese ideals over Western Enlightenment/American ideals, such as:

-Group identity over individuality

-Mass tracking/surveillance over privacy

-Cenorship over free speech

-State control/power over self defense

Social media algorithms of course influence the Overton Window. It doesn't matter if the developers are consciously conspiring to do it or not; algorithmic bias is naturally inherent.

>changed the justice department policy to go after smaller 'fines' as settlements instead of prosecuting crimes.. only because of the simple fact that fines are easy to win, and criminal cases can be lost.

This policy change could also perhaps be attributed to lobbyists seeking to maximize profits and minimize risks for corporate clients who are knowingly breaking the law.

The same thing?

>>[question] At what point does Twitter restricting world leader tweets become election interference and foreign policy interference

>[answer] Never.

While I agree with your logic, it doesn't seem like the person I was replying to does.

What about the Network Effect?

What does it matter if anyone can have a say if they don't get heard?

>all who maintained a modicum of quality.

Not exactly...

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day."

-Thomas Jefferson, 1807

Are you asserting Twitter can't influence elections?

Yep:

>tries to make it a new normal that entire people can have their "feelings hurt" (what?) by mere non-insulting opinions, and it tries to make it a new normal that all actors should censor any undesirable or potentially undesirable opinion.

I wonder if it occurred to the son how much more of his father's consciousness lives on in himself?

By that measure it would seem data is the new money

Just to clarify: by "material basis" I dont mean "intrinisic" but rather "representational" like how when money was first invented, 1 unit of money represented 1 unit of material wealth (i.e. one cow)

According to that logic, does money have any material basis in reality? Or is it purely authoritarian in nature?

Its inherent in the business model: profiting off making people think, do, and buy things they otherwise would not have. Ever since the news feed ceased to be chronological, FB has become increasingly forceful with their filtering and sorting of people's minds primarily in accordance with what increases FB's profits.

>hating on Facebook is an excellent excuse for people to feel superior to the general population. "I know better than those ignorant proles, I wish they'd do what I think is best for them instead of what they want to do."

Ironic; that's the same ethos being espoused and implemented by those who run Facebook.

Do you consider it a free market if the government bails out big price manipulators when their scheme implodes?

Seems like trying to take away or limit the first amendment rights of multi billion dollar corporations would be far more difficult than trying to implement a media literacy course in school curriculums.

>Once you start looking for such patterns, they become painfully apparent.

Wouldn't it be great if we could help train others to be able to do that too?