EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2830
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
schaf
Germany1326 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22646 Posts
On November 16 2020 03:47 KlaCkoN wrote: When the right moves heaven and earth to defend something like a baker denying to bake a cake for a gay couple I won't blame the left for pointing out the hypocrisy when the right complains about being denied a platform.It truly bothers me how much the left has internalized the fundamentally rightwing/capitalist idea that money should give you the power to control other peoples expression. "Twitter/google/FB/TheCircle is a private company so them blocking your speech based on what makes them more money is not censorship, it's business" is such a fundamentally corporatist view of the world. In my view large scale communication networks should be treated as public goods, and what can and cannot be communicated to large audiences in a democracy should be under democratic control. And with democratic I mean "1 person 1 vote", and definitely not "1 share 1 vote". I see these cases not like the left being in favour of the idea that money gives control over others peoples expression but about trying to get the point across that discrimination goes both ways. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28906 Posts
On November 16 2020 05:31 schaf wrote: It kind of is. Social media income comes from ads. Younger demographics are all over it and they are more progressive (don't think that's a hot take?). So SM companies cater to progressive values. It's "vote with your wallet!" in action. Conservatives simply don't have the SM wallets to change that. Whatever censorship happens due to a 'vote with your wallet' type of mechanism is fundamentally capitalist in nature, even if some people in favor of it are progressives, and even if some people who identify as progressives are socialists. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On November 16 2020 03:23 KwarK wrote: And it certainly isn’t state censorship. A private company denying service to individuals is exactly the future Wegandi hopes for, he just never thought he’d be one of those individuals. Indeed. It's the libertarian ideal! Youtube can do what it wants with its platform that it created, owns and operates. Including censoring whomever it wants for whatever reasons it likes. Wegandi's dream right there. Heck, they barely even pay any taxes. | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On November 16 2020 04:13 NewSunshine wrote: I don't think it's internalizing. One can point out the fantastic irony of someone who believes money is speech complaining about a private company using money to control speech they like, without necessarily endorsing the fact that that's how it works. That's 100% fair. (And I personally am certainly not above feeling schadenfreude when conservatives or libertarians complain about private companies making business decisions that limit their personal freedom) But after a moment of glee the actual way forward should be to tell those conservatives "see, every individual working in their own commercial interest doesn't actual maximize freedom at all, lets fix that." In practice social media regulation seems like an absurdly hard problem. I am not sure I know what my preferred solution would be, I just know that in my opinion letting corporate overlords decide what is said, and what is not said in public based on what makes them money is horrible. If I would sketch a solution it would look something like 1) break up giant social media companies in smaller pieces. (Start by reverting the decisions to let FB acquire Instagram and whats-app) 2) National regulation for what is, and isn't ban worthy forms of communication - tired both based on total number of users on the platform, and the reach of any given post. On November 16 2020 05:35 Liquid`Drone wrote: Whatever censorship happens due to a 'vote with your wallet' type of mechanism is fundamentally capitalist in nature, even if some people in favor of it are progressives, and even if some people who identify as progressives are socialists. This is a different and perhaps better way of saying what I am trying to say. With the clarification that I think capitalist censorship is fundamentally bad and should be prevented. Even if it happens to be directed at people I disagree with. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54947661 Second issue is the folks who primarily are for this type of thing are your progressive folks (not all as evidenced here) while the right wing folks are more likely to ban stuff like flag burning and there is certainly a bit of hypocrisy concerning places like Parler. Its why I brought up the people OK with silencing anti-socialist voices on these platforms would also push this type of stuff nationally. Of course many responding were snide while purposely misleading what I wrote by reading it entirely literally without addressing what I wrote re: Mohdoo and Zambrah (intentionally ignored by all of you). Its a disturbing pattern of behavior. I never thought that the issues with social media sites silencing anti-socialist voices were going to lead to gulags (the people OK with this and pushing eat the rich, and using insane victim blaming to attack one of their political opponents while rationalizing violence is.) Its whatever though. Take whatever I write entirely out of context and replace it with what you want to see. There's a reason why this thread and TL self selects a certain ideologue type. User was warned for this post: repeatedly not following the thread rules with regards to sources | ||
KwarK
United States44361 Posts
| ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On November 16 2020 06:34 KwarK wrote: You specifically brought up YouTube as an example of the point you were making, despite YouTube being a private entity. Then, when called out on that, you're now referencing the opposition party in the UK advocating for a law against distributing dangerous and irresponsible misinformation in a public health crisis. These are two completely separate issues. Do you have a problem with YouTube running their own platform as they see fit or do you have a problem with the opposition party in the UK (not the government) advocating for controlling misinformation that endangers the public health? Youre doing exactly what I said folks do. The party is calling for financial and criminal penalties for social media firms that do not remove false scare stories about vaccines. It follows news of progress on the first effective coronavirus vaccine. The government said it took the issue "extremely seriously" with "a major commitment" from Facebook, Twitter and Google to tackle anti-vaccine content. Many social media platforms label false content as misleading or disputed - and all remove posts that contravene terms of service. But Labour said a commitment by platforms to remove content flagged by the government was not enough. Not the first time and not only in the UK (like I said with just one example...and I guess mods have issues with posting supporting evidence). | ||
|
KwarK
United States44361 Posts
On November 16 2020 06:41 Wegandi wrote: Youre doing exactly what I said folks do. Not the first time and not only in the UK (like I said with just one example...and I guess mods have issues with posting supporting evidence). Your point is extremely unclear, if it exists at all. Are you talking about social media companies or UK opposition parties? | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On November 16 2020 06:42 KwarK wrote: Your point is extremely unclear, if it exists at all. Are you talking about social media companies or UK opposition parties? Government dictating censorship and threatening criminal and civil penalties flies in your oh its unregulated private entity. This isnt something thats entirely a UK thing, its just the most recent one (which is why I posted it). To act like Governments aren't putting pressure on SM entities to censor is ridiculous as is the idea that folks cheering for or are fine silencing opposition voices won't also pursue similar policies if they ever get political power is also likewise foolish. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On topic: I don’t really like moderation decisions of ubiquitous platforms being decided by private corporations motivated primarily by shareholders’ interests, but framing it as a First Amendment or “free speech” issue consistently confuses things. I’m not convinced the bans and chyrons are a good answer to stopping the internet from becoming a misconception factory, but that’s clearly a good goal and it’s probably better that platform-holders have stopped arguing that’s not their problem. The internet has clearly made it a lot easier to spread compelling-but-false narratives, and it’s increasingly clear the negative consequences of that will damage us all, potentially catastrophically. The solution is non-obvious - debunkers never have the circulation of idiots and charlatans - but JSM-like assumptions about a “marketplace of ideas” solving everything are pretty clearly inadequate. I think any solution to “how should social media be moderated” needs to contend with that fact. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 16 2020 07:09 Wegandi wrote: No context? Did everyone just miss the first sentence before I posted the link? What did you think it was going to be? (Do I need to define example?) They’re really fastidious about summarizing the article or the part of it you’re drawing on prior to linking the article. The forum has had issues with mass linkage. The readership didn’t like the mega long articles with questionable quality where you had to read to the end to discover if there was anything good to read in it. See the website feedback thread (probably in the last 50 pages of it) for some of the protestations against the policy and defense of the policy. | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43270 Posts
On November 16 2020 02:06 KwarK wrote: Once Trump fades from public view a bit Fox News viewers will forget they ever liked him. Remember Dubya and McCain and Romney all stopped being conservatives according to Fox. The viewers are fickle. Today’s truth doesn’t have to be the same as yesterday’s. Do you really think this? I mean, USA is a very hmm... i dont even have a word for it... let's call it a "place" if many people think like this. Edit: let me clarify. "Today’s truth doesn’t have to be the same as yesterday’s." I am thinking this as my sig from now on. As a mafia player it also fits regardless of my views of the world.  | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14211 Posts
On November 16 2020 08:10 raynpelikoneet wrote: Do you really think this? I mean, USA is a very hmm... i dont even have a word for it... let's call it a "place" if many people think like this. I think we can all agree that the USA is a place. Thank you for solving US politics. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On November 16 2020 08:10 raynpelikoneet wrote: Do you really think this? I mean, USA is a very hmm... i dont even have a word for it... let's call it a "place" if many people think like this. Conservatives have extreme admiration for authority. Once Trump loses his authority, a lot of his power will fade. A lot of it will depend on the extent of legal trouble Trump gets in. All indications are that he's essentially completely screwed as soon as he leaves office. The republican party will be forced to keep him kinda distanced, but a ton of die hard will support him until the day he passes on. | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43270 Posts
Edit: fine i agree he didnt say "all" but still, i think it's a really twisted way of thinking things and i didnt know people in US decided who to vote because of news (in any numbers lol)... | ||
| ||
