|
If we look at Facebook, there should be a huge market for competitors because of the privacy issues, but none of the competitors can really gain any traction because of the monopolistic position of Facebook.
The privacy issue is not big enough and rather intellectual in nature for people to switch.
The same is true for censorship. Sites do censor, but the problem is not big enough for people to switch to a different place.
This creates an environment where people are OK with being censored because millions of other people are in the same boat.
If you go to a different place where you have no censorship, you can do that, but then you find that you have only a handful of people with whom you can discuss and your discussions won't have any kind of reach.
This provides the playground for all kinds of shit to happen. Whoever controls the big site, controls the global discussion and global sentiment. Then it won't take long and lobbyists and politicians will discover the value of a place where you can have complete control over moderation and feed algorithms.
|
On June 11 2015 13:11 helpman176 wrote:
What are your thoughts on the ban of the subreddit r/fatpeoplehate?
Should private websites be allowed to restrict the freedom of speech?
Are sites like reddit or Facebook with hundreds of millions of users still considered private?
There was a debate a few years back to define wether an opinion posted by a user on any platform is or isn't implicitly endorsed by the platform itself. You write some hainous fallacy and send it to reddit, reddit broadcasts your message to the world.
In France, the initial position was that the responsibility was the same as that of a newspaper regarding the articles it publishes: they were legally bound to verify the information was sound. A specific law was published in 2004 to limit the responsibility of the hosting platform, providing it can in good faith claim it had no knowledge of the content. In turn, that means any content known to the hosting platform (email to them to point out the content for example) is considered approved if they keep it posted.
So they must remove content if it's illegal, and they should remove if they disapprove.
|
On June 11 2015 17:55 helpman176 wrote:
If we look at Facebook, there should be a huge market for competitors because of the privacy issues, but none of the competitors can really gain any traction because of the monopolistic position of Facebook.
The privacy issue is not big enough and rather intellectual in nature for people to switch.
The same is true for censorship. Sites do censor, but the problem is not big enough for people to switch to a different place.
This creates an environment where people are OK with being censored because millions of other people are in the same boat.
If you go to a different place where you have no censorship, you can do that, but then you find that you have only a handful of people with whom you can discuss and your discussions won't have any kind of reach.
This provides the playground for all kinds of shit to happen. Whoever controls the big site, controls the global discussion and global sentiment. Then it won't take long and lobbyists and politicians will discover the value of a place where you can have complete control over moderation and feed algorithms.
So that means that the vast majority of people don't care that much about the "privacy issues", as there are "only a handful of people" on the other sites. I take it that you do care a lot, but maybe you should consider the possibility that others don't care as much as you do about this. Not because they are sheep misled by big brother, but because it just isn't a big deal for them, as it doesn't affect them in their everyday life.
|
On June 11 2015 18:07 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2015 17:55 helpman176 wrote:
If we look at Facebook, there should be a huge market for competitors because of the privacy issues, but none of the competitors can really gain any traction because of the monopolistic position of Facebook.
The privacy issue is not big enough and rather intellectual in nature for people to switch.
The same is true for censorship. Sites do censor, but the problem is not big enough for people to switch to a different place.
This creates an environment where people are OK with being censored because millions of other people are in the same boat.
If you go to a different place where you have no censorship, you can do that, but then you find that you have only a handful of people with whom you can discuss and your discussions won't have any kind of reach.
This provides the playground for all kinds of shit to happen. Whoever controls the big site, controls the global discussion and global sentiment. Then it won't take long and lobbyists and politicians will discover the value of a place where you can have complete control over moderation and feed algorithms. So that means that the vast majority of people don't care that much about the "privacy issues", as there are "only a handful of people" on the other sites. I take it that you do care a lot, but maybe you should consider the possibility that others don't care as much as you do about this. Not because they are sheep misled by big brother, but because it just isn't a big deal for them, as it doesn't affect them in their everyday life.
I think what you're saying is completely wrong.
People do care, it's just facebook is a product that you invest into, and thus it's difficult to switch to a different product.
Just like how if you completed two years of university, and you realized you'd probably like to do something else, you might stick out your original program, because it's less amount of time. In the same way, making a complete switch to another website where there is fewer members, the need to re-upload photos, and all the history that is gone, is a deterrent to do so.
It's the mean way that companies get you to stick with them, make all their products compatible with each other, while not with competitors products, and as such, the cost of switching is high, even though the product might not be up to par.
I think it's a very difficult issue, and don't think it's something that a democratic nation is able to effectively address.
|
If you don't care enough to switch to another site, you don't care very much. I realise that you get invested in a site like that, but I feel the difficulty of switching to another site is very much a first world problem... It's not like they will send people and torture you if you dont log on to facebook every day. I think we are talking about different levels of caring. Maybe people care on a "I can take 20 seconds to sign that online petition"-level, or "I'll rant about it on some forum because I need to discharge" but nowhere near "go out and demonstrate and fuck things up", or even "bother to change to another website".
So ok, yes, many people probably care, but veeeery little in the grand scale of things. There are actions people can take if they care, but very few do. So in light of that, I don't see a problem with things as they are. There is no slippery slope to some big brother world, as people will start caring enough to switch site well before that.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 11 2015 18:55 Cascade wrote:
If you don't care enough to switch to another site, you don't care very much. I realise that you get invested in a site like that, but I feel the difficulty of switching to another site is very much a first world problem... It's not like they will send people and torture you if you dont log on to facebook every day. I think we are talking about different levels of caring. Maybe people care on a "I can take 20 seconds to sign that online petition"-level, or "I'll rant about it on some forum because I need to discharge" but nowhere near "go out and demonstrate and fuck things up", or even "bother to change to another website".
So ok, yes, many people probably care, but veeeery little in the grand scale of things. There are actions people can take if they care, but very few do. So in light of that, I don't see a problem with things as they are. There is no slippery slope to some big brother world, as people will start caring enough to switch site well before that.
interesting point of view, i like it
|
There is no slippery slope to some big brother world, as people will start caring enough to switch site well before that.
because this worked so well in the past?
|
well, at least people are pissed now, as can be seen on /r/all.
|
On June 11 2015 19:54 helpman176 wrote:
well, at least people are pissed now, as can be seen on /r/all.
Pissed enough to leave reddit for another site though?  If not else, there is always 4chan.
|
Of course this incident will be forgotten in a few days and back to business as usual.
Btw, voat.co has been advertised as a reddit alternative.
As expected, their servers are currently down because of the onslaught.
Ain't nobody got server farms.
|
Does college make men more like women?
|
On June 11 2015 19:39 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +There is no slippery slope to some big brother world, as people will start caring enough to switch site well before that. because this worked so well in the past?
I am unsure what you are referring to. What past event mirrors the horror of Reddit and Facebook having guidelines on how to post things?
|
On June 11 2015 23:30 whatisthisasheep wrote:
Does college make men more like women?
they are all sheep so, can a sheep be more like a sheep? ... ; you should know.
|
Dunno, noone in college has tried to attach boobs to me or cut off my penis so far. I very dearly hope that it stays that way.
|
On June 11 2015 23:48 Simberto wrote:
Dunno, noone in college has tried to attach boobs to me or cut off my penis so far. I very dearly hope that it stays that way.
We're not going to the right parties it seems.
|
On June 11 2015 23:30 whatisthisasheep wrote:
Does college make men more like women?
What does this mean? I'm trying to see this from like a sexist point of view, buf it sfill doesn't make sense.
|
On June 12 2015 02:22 Dark_Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2015 23:30 whatisthisasheep wrote:
Does college make men more like women? What does this mean? I'm trying to see this from like a sexist point of view, buf it sfill doesn't make sense.
From a sexist point of view it makes sense because in college you do weak activities like studying instead of strong and testosterone-filled activities like fighting or hunting I guess?
|
On June 12 2015 04:49 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2015 02:22 Dark_Chill wrote:On June 11 2015 23:30 whatisthisasheep wrote:
Does college make men more like women? What does this mean? I'm trying to see this from like a sexist point of view, buf it sfill doesn't make sense. From a sexist point of view it makes sense because in college you do weak activities like studying instead of strong and testosterone-filled activities like fighting or hunting I guess?
Historically, studying is a male activity...
|
Why is orzo more expensive than other kinds of pasta? It's often priced a bit higher, or it won't be on sale while all the others are. I just don't see why that should be.
|
On June 12 2015 04:54 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2015 04:49 OtherWorld wrote:On June 12 2015 02:22 Dark_Chill wrote:On June 11 2015 23:30 whatisthisasheep wrote:
Does college make men more like women? What does this mean? I'm trying to see this from like a sexist point of view, buf it sfill doesn't make sense. From a sexist point of view it makes sense because in college you do weak activities like studying instead of strong and testosterone-filled activities like fighting or hunting I guess? Historically, studying is a male activity...
Fair enough, but I'm trying to understand it from a sexist POV d:
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
