Kumbaya! Finally, Ds and Rs agree!

[Godboy]

B-b-but, platform! Public square! Covfefe!

Twitter called themsleves the "public square".

"CEO Jack Dorsey stands by the notion that Twitter is a “public square” for the world"

Twitterâs âPublic Squareâ Analogy Is Completely Delusional

The art of excusing toxic behavior and denying the impact In 2015, Twitter was on the verge of irrelevance. The company recorded its first quarterly dip in monthly active users and Facebook had emerged as the clear winner of social media.

www.linkedin.com

 

[Godboy]

Once we get the Ministry of Truth up and running, everything will be hunky dory.

Hopefully it will be up and running just about the time when Republicans take over.

 

[pknopp]

Thats what they are currently doing. They do shitloads of it, hence the extreme backlash.

Any single website can regulate whatever it wants. There is nothing wrong with that. The issue is when the government gets involved. When the government gets involved the goal of many will be to find a way around it until the courts overturn it.

 

[Godboy]

The issue is when the government gets involved. When the government gets involved the goal of many will be to find a way around it until the courts overturn it.

Which is exactly what the Biden administration did. Thats why tech companies are going to be fully regulated in the future.

 

[Penelope]

Hopefully it will be up and running just about the time when Republicans take over.

So the power of republicans wont ban free speech as long as it vindictive, the FBI goes after speech is vindictive, how do you think it prisons pedophiles, ect.

 

[Godboy]

So the power of republicans wont ban free speech as long as it vindictive, the FBI goes after speech is vindictive, how do you think it prisons pedophiles, ect.

After the long list of atrocious shit your party has been caught doing to us the past 2 years, do you honestly think we arent going to buttfuck you people the first chance we get? Sorry, but payback is a bitch.

 

[multivita-man]

It was super cool while you all did it to us though, right? The only problem is when WE have the ability to do it back. THATS your big fear.

Did what to you? You have the same capacity to use FB, Twitter, etc as I do. Most of the iconic MAGA supporters are allowed and very much active on social media.

The ones who were kicked off the platforms were people like Alex Jones - I mean if you are going to defend someone taunting the parents of dead children and suggest that social media companies have to carry that, I suppose you're entitled to your own ideas but most well-adjusted folk find that repulsive. Just sayin'.

If you're arguing that social media sometimes makes these kinds of decisions arbitrarily, I would actually...agree? And that is why I've suggested that if there's one change we could make - one that I think would satisfy most people on both sides of the political spectrum - it would be to do more to make social media companies adhere as strictly as possible to their terms of service.

That, IMO, is what gets social media companies into these kinds of debates, and needlessly so. They tolerate all kinds of shit from Alex Jones that would have gotten lesser known users suspended or banned sooner because they know that it attracts lots of followers and increases engagement. For all the pearl clutching from the right, that is the bottom line for social media companies: they have an incentive to get the extreme provocateurs because it increases engagement, and that increases ad revenue.

Progressives have been complaining for years to get Alex Jones and Trump off the platform. It was only when they were both so repulsive and so dangerous that Twitter and other platforms took action. Why? Because the harm done to their brand and their reputation outweighed the good that came from the engagement. We need to get social media to move beyond simple the line item business calculus and to focus on a more socially responsible product. Reddit, actually, has done this. It's not what people think of when they think of social media but it's in the same category of website in many ways, and it has had the same problems.

 

[pknopp]

Which is exactly what the Biden administration did. Thats why tech companies are going to be fully regulated in the future.

Which will do nothing to stop any individual website from regulating whatever it wants. You do understand they are not government entities right?

If this site decides it only wants to allow speech promoting one party or the other, they can do that. You post or you find somewhere else to post.

 

[Penelope]

Which is exactly what the Biden administration did. Thats why tech companies are going to be fully regulated in the future.

So there won't be another insurrection?

 

[Coyote]

It's time for government to sink its teeth into social media!

White House Releases Performatively Ridiculous ‘Principles’ For ‘Tech Platform Accountability’ That Include Removing Section 230

During the 2020 campaign, there were a few times when candidate Joe Biden insisted he wanted to get rid of Section 230 entirely, though he made it clear he had no idea what Section 230 actually did…

www.techdirt.com

Agree, way past time.



In his new book, The Chaos Machine, Fisher details how the polarizing effect of social media is speeding up. He joined All Things Considered to talk about why tech companies benefit from this outrage, and the danger it could pose to society.

"Remember that the number of seconds in your day never changes. The amount of social media content competing for those seconds, however, doubles every year or so, depending on how you measure it. Imagine, for instance, that your network produces 200 posts a day of which you have time to read about 100. Because of the platform's tilt, you will see the most outraged half of your feed. Next year, when 200 doubles to 400, you will see the most outraged quarter, the year after that the most outraged eighth. Over time, your impression of your own community becomes radically more moralizing, aggrandizing, and outraged, and so do you, at the same time, less innately engaging forms of content. Truth appeals to the greater good, appeals to tolerance, become more and more outmatched, like stars over Times Square."

 

[dblack]

Hopefully it will be up and running just about the time when Republicans take over.

Maybe. But eventually Dems will have control. Enjoy.

 

[Godboy]

Did what to you? You have the same capacity to use FB, Twitter, etc as I do. Most of the iconic MAGA supporters are allowed and very much active on social media.

The ones who were kicked off the platforms were people like Alex Jones - I mean if you are going to defend someone taunting the parents of dead children and suggest that social media companies have to carry that, I suppose you're entitled to your own ideas but most well-adjusted folk find that repulsive. Just sayin'.

If you're arguing that social media sometimes makes these kinds of decisions arbitrarily, I would actually...agree? And that is why I've suggested that if there's one change we could make - one that I think would satisfy most people on both sides of the political spectrum - it would be to do more to make social media companies adhere as strictly as possible to their terms of service.

That, IMO, is what gets social media companies into these kinds of debates, and needlessly so. They tolerate all kinds of shit from Alex Jones that would have gotten lesser known users suspended or banned sooner because they know that it attracts lots of followers and increases engagement. For all the pearl clutching from the right, that is the bottom line for social media companies: they have an incentive to get the extreme provocateurs because it increases engagement, and that increases ad revenue.

Progressives have been complaining for years to get Alex Jones and Trump off the platform. It was only when they were both so repulsive and so dangerous that Twitter and other platforms took action. Why? Because the harm done to their brand and their reputation outweighed the good that came from the engagement. We need to get social media to move beyond simple the line item business calculus and to focus on a more socially responsible product. Reddit, actually, has done this. It's not what people think of when they think of social media but it's in the same category of website in many ways, and it has had the same problems.

"The only people kicked off were people like Alex Jones"? If you wont even recognize the obvious, why should i even bother responding to your posts?

 

[dblack]

Agree, way past time.

Naturally, I disagree. But I'm looking forward to all the whiplash as Republicans flounder around for excuses to oppose it.

 

[Godboy]

Which will do nothing to stop any individual website from regulating whatever it wants. You do understand they are not government entities right?

If this site decides it only wants to allow speech promoting one party or the other, they can do that. You post or you find somewhere else to post.

Sure, right up until we put it into law, then they wont pull that shit anymore.

 

[Godboy]

So there won't be another insurrection?

I have no doubt that we will see many left wing insurrections once again rioting in the streets, but i fail to see what that has to do with the current discussion.

 

[Godboy]

Maybe. But eventually Dems will have control. Enjoy.

Nah, we will just burn it to the ground before we leave office.

 

[dblack]

Nah, we will just burn it to the ground before we leave office.

Do go on. Can you outline your plans in more detail?

 

[Coyote]

Naturally, I disagree. But I'm looking forward to all the whiplash as Republicans flounder around for excuses to oppose it.

I think it depends on how it is regulated. What Republicans really want is no TOS rules so they spout and spread what ever they want, but that is a fake issue. Social media is too embedded in our culture now to continue to exert it’s social manipulations for profit unchecked. There needs to be a balance.

 

[pknopp]

Sure, right up until we put it into law, then they wont pull that shit anymore.

Pull what? You want the government to dictate what private websites can accept or not accept?

If so, wow, that is sad.

 

[pknopp]

I think it depends on how it is regulated. What Republicans really want is no TOS rules so they spout and spread what ever they want, but that is a fake issue. Social media is too embedded in our culture now to continue to exert it’s social manipulations for profit unchecked. There needs to be a balance.

How have you been manipulated?