Big Tech Authoritarianism

[solado]

Private corporations have always enjoyed the right to decide who uses their service. This is nothing new, and it is certainly not authoritarianism.

Everyone can post these strawman comics.

 

[Sankari]

First two panels are correct, and that's fine with me because this is how the free market works. Third panel should be 'Vote out the government and vote in the one you prefer.' Because that is literally what we do. So that's a pretty big fail by the comic artist right there.

Everyone can post these strawman comics.

But mine isn't a straw man. It reflects reality. You can go on YouTube right now and see videos of conservatives whining that they've been 'silenced.' Some of these videos have millions of views. It's hilarious.

 

[Dolph]

It's amazing how many people don't understand what freedom of speech means.

Even in the USA, freedom of speech is not a unqualified right.

Freedom of speech does not guarantee a platform, nor does it protect people from the consequences of their actions in the eyes of other people. Freedom of speech laws provide qualified protection against the state monopoly of force being used to silence an individual.

 

[solado]

But mine isn't a straw man. It reflects reality. You can go on YouTube right now and see videos of conservatives whining that they've been 'silenced.' Some of these videos have millions of views. It's hilarious.

It reflects reality in your own opinion because it's your own reality. Many people would disagree with you.

BLM should be removed when it encourages looting and burining down buildings, but it isn't.
When you're side of the team is winning the censorship war I imagine it's very blissful.

 

[Raikiri]

BLM should be removed when it encourages looting and burining down buildings, but it isn't.

Specific people promoting and/or carrying those things out should be banned, yes.

 

[solado]

Specific people promoting and/or carrying those things out should be banned, yes.

And yet, here they are still at it, Openly calling for the hanging of people with it trending on Twitter only a few hours ago.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

"Censorship and authoritarianism is my bag baby, yeah"

So you would argue that these bigoted views should maybe be broadcast everyday on TV? Published in newspapers daily? (well there is the Daily Mail) Breakfast TV should have a 15 minute section where racist bigots get to say whatever they want to the nation before people head out to work (in normal times) Because that is what was happening before. I didn't follow any of those groups but something from their feeds would far too often pop up on my feed due to someone else's feed. Those groups where in everyone face everyday spreading hate and like it or not it percolates through society. They aren't banned from the internet or made illegal, they can make their own website or go to more extreme social media like Parler. Lets not forget that children use Facebook, do you want children having that poison rammed down their throats everyday? If that's the case why not show them religious extremist feeds as well? ISIS feed to their Facebook page, that couldn't possibly do any harm right? I'm not a fan of censorship but you have to be naive to think that if you make these groups and their speech the norm its going to have a major impact on society, especially if some politician then exploits that for their own benefit. Just a few short years ago EDL and Britain First were at least weekly news. When was the last time you heard from them other than Yaxley-Lennon maybe getting in to a fight with someone again? They have gone back to what they were before they exploited social media, a fringe group of a tiny hardcore membership.

 

[Maccapacca]

So you would argue that these bigoted views should maybe be broadcast everyday on TV? Published in newspapers daily? (well there is the Daily Mail) Breakfast TV should have a 15 minute section where racist bigots get to say whatever they want to the nation before people head out to work (in normal times) Because that is what was happening before. I didn't follow any of those groups but something from their feeds would far too often pop up on my feed due to someone else's feed. Those groups where in everyone face everyday spreading hate and like it or not it percolates through society. They aren't banned from the internet or made illegal, they can make their own website or go to more extreme social media like Parler. Lets not forget that children use Facebook, do you want children having that poison rammed down their throats everyday? If that's the case why not show them religious extremist feeds as well? ISIS feed to their Facebook page, that couldn't possibly do any harm right? I'm not a fan of censorship but you have to be naive to think that if you make these groups and their speech the norm its going to have a major impact on society, especially if some politician then exploits that for their own benefit. Just a few short years ago EDL and Britain First were at least weekly news. When was the last time you heard from them other than Yaxley-Lennon maybe getting in to a fight with someone again?

They were happy to have Farage on daily at one point, running the narrative then spend the next five years reporting against the result.

24hr news doesn’t fill itself.

 

[GGizmo]

As opposed to the normal world where self identified illiberals are all in favour of . . . . say . . . . BigTech you mean?

As a matter of interest, what do you think that Trump would "selfidentify" as?

He would probably self identify as the greatest leader ever. I think it was Pompeo likened him to Queen Esther.

I think he a psychopathic narcissist. But in this issue he was used as an easy carrot for them to enforce against while they also took many others down from the left and right.

Crikey. Get a reality check, man. Its twitter and followers you are talking about here. Changing of the accounts is not to be likened with changing of the guard, deeply embedded in tradition or whatever else you are hilariously implying.

In this instance it is hilarious. But there is a trend that these big tech companies that all work together and can end someone for a view they don't agree with.

I know at least 3 people who have had their bank accounts closed because of their political legal opinions. They still have a social media presense so they aren't that offensive for them to be banned from those platforms. But see how easy it is to get a job or pay your bills if you don't have a bank account, especially in these covid days were cash transactions have been reduced. No bank account, no debit card, no direct debit.

I don't think most people realise how much we rely on tech and banking companies these days. Your life could be stopped or severely hampered if your views suddenly become unacceptable. We already know people are being sacked from their jobs for stating the obvious.

 

[Raikiri]

And yet, here they are still at it, Openly calling for the hanging of people with it trending on Twitter only a few hours ago.

Twitter removed it from trending and it seemed to be largely referring to the Trump rioters who were chanting it. So what's your point?

In a statement received by Newsweek, a Twitter spokesperson said the company has rules about trending subjects. "We blocked the phrase and other variations of it from trending. We want trends to promote healthy discussions on Twitter. This means that at times, we may prevent certain content from trending. As per our Help Center, there are Rules for trends — if we identify accounts that violate these rules, we'll take enforcement action," the spokesperson said.

According to Twitter's Help Center, rules include preventing trends that break Twitter's rules, include profanity or adult/graphic content, or "Targets the privacy of victims of serious crimes and of minors, who are private figures." Twitter's rules prevent violent threats against individuals as well as the glorification of violence.

Journalist Yashar Ali tweeted a screenshot of the topic trending, indicating that the phrase had been tweeted over 14,000 times. Ali noted that most people were "quot[ing] some of the insurrectionists" at the Capitol, rather than making direct threats against Pence. He wrote that the phrase "shouldn't be allowed to trend."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW718KRYDtU&feature=emb_logo

 

[Hotwired]

And yet, here they are still at it, Openly calling for the hanging of people with it trending on Twitter only a few hours ago.

Get on and report what you want banned off twitter. That's how twitter works. There isn't a twitter employee looking over your shoulder.

The community is giving feedback to Twitter and Twitter will get round to it.

Oh and apparently it's gone so wish granted and point undermined?

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

I notice some in here outraged at Trump's twitter ban and the right feeling their speech is being attacked. Funny the same people were calling for Colin Kaepernick to be kicked out of the NFL or defending that action for him simply taking a knee during the national anthem. Trump calling him a "son of a bitch" among other names, continuing to stir up hatred for his own political gain. Cancel culture at its best but that was fine. Hypocrisy is fun huh. Trump should have been banned long ago. He isn't special, he should have to follow the same rules as everyone else. Unless you want Twitter and Facebook to allow any and all speech now, no matter how heinous, which would result in those companies losing money hand over fist as advertisers leave the platform and go to social media that doesn't. They aren't a public service, they are companies making money for their shareholders. People seem to forget that.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

They were happy to have Farage on daily at one point, running the narrative then spend the next five years reporting against the result.

24hr news doesn’t fill itself.

I think Farage got so much airtime purely because of Brexit. However there was a big cross over for groups like EDL and Britain First getting so popular on Facebook around the time of Brexit, they exploited that moment extremely well. Fortunately Farage is old news and as desperately as he tries to make himself still be relevant with his Dover Cliffs stunts in lockdown or sharing the stage with Trump, he's not a popular figure. As shown in his abject failure to get elected an MP on numerous occasions.

Fortunately the majority doesn't have extreme views. However as has been shown time and time again if they are exposed to extreme views and it becomes the norm, lots will adopt those views. People have exploited that throughout history.

 

[Maccapacca]

I think Farage got so much airtime purely because of Brexit. However there was a big cross over for groups like EDL and Britain First getting so popular on Facebook around the time of Brexit, they exploited that moment extremely well. Fortunately Farage is old news and as desperately as he tries to make himself still be relevant with his Dover Cliffs stunts in lockdown or sharing the stage with Trump, he's not a popular figure. As shown in his abject failure to get elected an MP on numerous occasions.

Fortunately the majority doesn't have extreme views. However as has been shown time and time again if they are exposed to extreme views and it becomes the norm, lots will adopt those views. People have exploited that throughout history.

Delusional really, without picking the minutiae of the numbers, 17 million people voted in favour of Brexit and 74 million Americans voted for Trump. That’s not extreme that sounds perfectly normal.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

He would probably self identify as the greatest leader ever. I think it was Pompeo likened him to Queen Esther.

I think he a psychopathic narcissist. But in this issue he was used as an easy carrot for them to enforce against while they also took many others down from the left and right.



In this instance it is hilarious. But there is a trend that these big tech companies that all work together and can end someone for a view they don't agree with.

I know at least 3 people who have had their bank accounts closed because of their political legal opinions. They still have a social media presense so they aren't that offensive for them to be banned from those platforms. But see how easy it is to get a job or pay your bills if you don't have a bank account, especially in these covid days were cash transactions have been reduced. No bank account, no debit card, no direct debit.

I don't think most people realise how much we rely on tech and banking companies these days. Your life could be stopped or severely hampered if your views suddenly become unacceptable. We already know people are being sacked from their jobs for stating the obvious.

Any evidence?

I agree about the witch hunts, in fact one member in this thread tried to do it to me. But that isn't big tech, that's the individuals leveraging the platform. Remember what happened on Reddit with the Boston bomber? Poor chap killed himself. And not wanting to affiliate with individuals who have transcended themselves and become 'brands', the EDL chap whose name escapes me, then that's the unfortunate consequence of gaining traction in whatever political sphere they are in. It's not like they're ending up off grid as you state, they just go to fringe providers who turn a blind eye. Remember the famous ISIS videos where they all had brand new Toyota's? Toyota were fuming but it was because an AD did the deal by turning a blind eye. Try and buy a Rolex from a shop wearing jeans. It's a private corporations right to not want to be affiliated as they chose. Get with the programme.

 

[GGizmo]

I notice some in here outraged at Trump's twitter ban and the right feeling their speech is being attacked. Funny the same people were calling for Colin Kaepernick to be kicked out of the NFL or defending that action for him simply taking a knee during the national anthem. Trump calling him a "son of a bitch" among other names, continuing to stir up hatred for his own political gain. Cancel culture at its best but that was fine. Hypocrisy is fun huh. Trump should have been banned long ago. He isn't special, he should have to follow the same rules as everyone else. Unless you want Twitter and Facebook to allow any and all speech now matter how heinous, which would result in those companies losing money hand over fist as advertisers leave the platform and go to social media that doesn't. They aren't a public service, they are companies making money for their shareholders. People seem to forget that.

I personally think there is a lack of self awareness generally in people today. When they get in to powerful positions they still act like they are an average user of the system. So they slowly tailor the system around their own preferences. They end up recruiting others like them which eventually forms an echo chamber and any view outside of that is seen as bad.

I think the other mistake big tech as made is deplatforming Parler. They have just been in hearings saying how they don't stifle competition but here blatantly both Apple and Google have. So they will ban you off their platforms and stop you going anywhere else. It's a cartel.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

I noticed someone else posted this on the other thread and someone replied "but you don't like socialists". That is the point. The person writing it was none of those things. The first people to be removed are the ones you dislike/hate.

 

[GGizmo]

Any evidence?

I agree about the witch hunts, in fact one member in this thread tried to do it to me. But that isn't big tech, that's the individuals leveraging the platform. Remember what happened on Reddit with the Boston bomber? Poor chap killed himself. And not wanting to affiliate with individuals who have transcended themselves and become 'brands', the EDL chap whose name escapes me, then that's the unfortunate consequence of gaining traction in whatever political sphere they are in. It's not like they're ending up off grid as you state, they just go to fringe providers who turn a blind eye. Remember the famous ISIS videos where they all had brand new Toyota's? Toyota were fuming but it was because an AD did the deal by turning a blind eye. Try and buy a Rolex from a shop wearing jeans. It's a private corporations right to not want to be affiliated as they chose. Get with the programme.

I'm not going to divulge other peoples private information. I'm writing it in good faith, which of course you are free to disagree with.

Why do you jump to an extreme position? You've gone from the Boston bomber, to EDL, to ISIS videos. All those subjects have real government laws against anyone posting inflammatory content that are all covered in your examples. We're talking about speech that is legal.

Let us put this private corporations argument to bed. Private corporations can't do what they want as you, and others imply. They still have to follow the law. If the government brought in a law that added political views as a protected class then these private corporations would have to stop throwing people off their platform if someone was expressing a view they didn't like.

But at the moment that law change hasn't been done. But it is entirely legitimate to argue it should be. Both Facebook and Twitter have gone on record that they want some form of government regulation. Because it doesn't make their business look good when they are acting as judge, jury and executioner of decisions that are in the grey area. If regulations come in to protect political views then the decision making would be out of their hands and they wouldn't end up in some bad PR situations. I think unless something dramatically changes in the near future these regulations will be brought in.

The Technology 202: Lawmakers unveil bipartisan proposal to make social media moderation more transparent
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...on-more-transparent/5ef3c84f602ff1080718e3a1/

An oasis of bipartisanship: Republicans and Democrats distrust social media sites for political and election news
https://www.journalism.org/2020/01/...-media-sites-for-political-and-election-news/

 

[Deleted User 298457]

I'm not going to divulge other peoples private information. I'm writing it in good faith, which of course you are free to disagree with.

Why do you jump to an extreme position? You've gone from the Boston bomber, to EDL, to ISIS videos. All those subjects have real government laws against anyone posting inflammatory content that are all covered in your examples. We're talking about speech that is legal.

Let us put this private corporations argument to bed. Private corporations can't do what they want as you, and others imply. They still have to follow the law. If the government brought in a law that added political views as a protected class then these private corporations would have to stop throwing people off their platform if someone was expressing a view they didn't like.

But at the moment that law change hasn't been done. But it is entirely legitimate to argue it should be. Both Facebook and Twitter have gone on record that they want some form of government regulation. Because it doesn't make their business look good when they are acting as judge, jury and executioner of decisions that are in the grey area. If regulations come in to protect political views then the decision making would be out of their hands and they wouldn't end up in some bad PR situations. I think unless something dramatically changes in the near future these regulations will be brought in.

The Technology 202: Lawmakers unveil bipartisan proposal to make social media moderation more transparent
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...on-more-transparent/5ef3c84f602ff1080718e3a1/

An oasis of bipartisanship: Republicans and Democrats distrust social media sites for political and election news
https://www.journalism.org/2020/01/...-media-sites-for-political-and-election-news/

Your first sentence is ridiculous. You make a point and then have no evidence to back it up. You may as well have copied the in vogue statement and said "do your research", implying the level of wokeness you posses.

It wasn't an extreme position, it was an analogous position to affiliation with individuals or movements which put the platform or the organisation turning a blind eye, bad press with its core business (or followers in the platform instance). Please don't tar me with the same brush as the individuals invoking Godwin's law.

Your final point makes sense, its just how you and others in this thread are arguing it. No doubt platforms with the reach and targeting that Facebook and Twitter enable need better, more appropriate regulation. Banning Trump is not the event that has given prominence to that thought leadership though, it has been around for a long time. Zuck even testified about it, so it isn't a new point bought upon by this. Infact, linking Trump being banned, the odd point about handover of the presidential account being inappropriately handled, all just make a mockery of what is a serious topic that a knee-jerk reaction to would likely cause an even bigger problem. And typical westerners, we are ignoring all of the other global platforms out there that are MUCH bigger and have MUCH more influence.

 

[Concrete]

So you would argue that these bigoted views should maybe be broadcast everyday on TV? Published in newspapers daily? (well there is the Daily Mail) Breakfast TV should have a 15 minute section where racist bigots get to say whatever they want to the nation before people head out to work (in normal times) Because that is what was happening before. I didn't follow any of those groups but something from their feeds would far too often pop up on my feed due to someone else's feed. Those groups where in everyone face everyday spreading hate and like it or not it percolates through society. They aren't banned from the internet or made illegal, they can make their own website or go to more extreme social media like Parler. Lets not forget that children use Facebook, do you want children having that poison rammed down their throats everyday? If that's the case why not show them religious extremist feeds as well? ISIS feed to their Facebook page, that couldn't possibly do any harm right? I'm not a fan of censorship but you have to be naive to think that if you make these groups and their speech the norm its going to have a major impact on society, especially if some politician then exploits that for their own benefit. Just a few short years ago EDL and Britain First were at least weekly news. When was the last time you heard from them other than Yaxley-Lennon maybe getting in to a fight with someone again? They have gone back to what they were before they exploited social media, a fringe group of a tiny hardcore membership.

My issue lies with who chooses what bigoted is?
Because currently its leftist Big Tech and they change their opinion based on whichever increasingly extreme viewpoint is in vouge that day. There is no written standard, because that would mean that they can't do whatever they want.
You are fine with this at the moment, because the people in control of the power you are granting them have the same viewpoint as you. I can guarantee that won't last forever and the people who take up the reigns in future will have a level of extremity directly proportional the the effort it took them to seize control and get their message across.
The Jonathan Pie video on the topic is spot on imo, you are encouraging extremism rather than unity, and its both short sighted and foolish.

 

[Jono8]

Everyone can post these strawman comics.

The third/fourth panel makes no sense. If you don't like the government/what they are doing/the laws they are introducing you vote it out.

America had the chance to keep Trump elected so he can implement authoritarian government rules on what private businesses can/cannot host, but the American people rejected him.