Big Tech Authoritarianism

[Jono8]

I

If I was the boss of the electricity company that happened to supply the Apple and Google servers and I didn't like what they did, would you support me if I decided to pull their electricity? I'd be a private company too. Do you see where this silliness is going to end up?

This is about as stupid an analogy as you can get.

 

[stockhausen]

. . . we've got companies trying to virtue one up each other

What on Earth does "virtue one up each other" even mean? Does it appear in the Kama Sutra?

. . . If I was the boss of the electricity company that happened to supply the Apple and Google servers and I didn't like what they did, would you support me if I decided to pull their electricity? I'd be a private company too. . . .

I imagine that any electricity supplier to Apple and Google is legally entitled to withdraw their service and that Apple and Google would moderate their behaviour or organise alternative suppliers. Seems entirely reasonable in a free society. Of course in a totalitarian state things might be different.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

I think they ended up going to a smaller bank. But they shouldn't need to do that for having a legal political opinion. They aren't my pals. They are people I know.

If you don't want to have a balanced view of the situation then continue to disregard other peoples experiences and opinions.

Dorsey himself knows there is a problem with moderation on Twitter with conservative views. There is bipartisan support to bring in new more transparent moderation rules. The posts aren't brand damaging. The posts aren't against the rules. The posts aren't against the law. It is someone who as taken a dislike to an opinion and removed removed the person from the platform.

If you can't see that a global communication platform getting involved in debate manipulation then I respect your right to that opinion. But my position is that it is something to be concerned about.

Three of your mates going to a small bank (not sure what this means) does not make a balanced view, lol.

Your points make sense but your focus is all over the place. You also seem to keep trying to put words in my mouth. Debate manipulation doesn't make sense.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

I've never signed up to Parler or visited it. I just know about it through other media. So you frequent these heinous comment places more than me.

The problem is instead of respecting there are different legal opinions we've got companies trying to virtue one up each other, and sadly people thinking that censorship is great. The principle is being set.

If I was the boss of the electricity company that happened to supply the Apple and Google servers and I didn't like what they did, would you support me if I decided to pull their electricity? I'd be a private company too. Do you see where this silliness is going to end up?

You clearly have no idea what censorship is if you think the POTUS private account being banned is a form of censorship.

 

[shifty_uk]

Private enterprise should have responsibility, it's very simple. Not to control the views or agendas of its platform but to sense check extremist plots that could ultimately cause physical harm to society. If this was a platform rammed full of pedo's saying touching children was fair game and planning a mass abduction of children, would you be thinking differently?

I think what people are failing to recognise is how narrow and extremist the views of Parler's demographic were.

Parler senior management were actively attempting to pay people with a broader political view(along with a decent social following) to join the platform to recruit a more diverse range of opinions. It failed miserably.

Parler failed to admit that their user base planning deadly sieges was wrong and gave two fingers to Apple's request to implement better data checks.

What is required however is a reform of how the algorithms on the major platforms stack content; By that I'm referring to the way it only shows users publications or content they'd be more likely to engage in. For example, if I engage with an extremist thread or publication on Facebook, the system will recognise this and serve me content broadly similar to this rather than a varying degree of opinions. This is what causes harm and manipulates the simpletons of society.

 

[GGizmo]

Three of your mates going to a small bank (not sure what this means) does not make a balanced view, lol.

I'm not saying one source is a balanced view. A balanced view is taking opinions from many sources, and anecdotal experiences that people have forms part of a balanced view, in my opinion.

You clearly have no idea what censorship is if you think the POTUS private account being banned is a form of censorship.

We've both made points in our previous posts how this isn't about Trump. Yet you've brought him back in to the conversation. The official white house account was also temporarily suspended.

What on Earth does "virtue one up each other" even mean? Does it appear in the Kama Sutra?

When one company bans someone, Trump in this instance, other companies follow suit. In this situation Trump and any group supporting him have been removed from 10+ platforms, which have nothing directly to do with Trump other than people being his supporters and talking.

I imagine that any electricity supplier to Apple and Google is legally entitled to withdraw their service and that Apple and Google would moderate their behaviour or organise alternative suppliers. Seems entirely reasonable in a free society. Of course in a totalitarian state things might be different.

I'm sure it would be an interesting situation if it did happen. I doubt it would because a lot of these companies work close together.

Anyways I've made the points I wanted to make.

 

[mattyg]

User get banned for Violating terms of service

 

[Hotwired]

User get banned for Violating terms of service

Don't forget the long awkward pause as they give the president special ban immunity for years.

 

[Angilion]

[..] If people don't like the existing options, they're free to create their own. [..]

That's no longer true. A handful of companies have such dominance that the only "competition" is what they allow. They'll either buy or ban any other options. Due to the degree of control those few companies have, all it takes is removing the app from Apple and Google app stores and removing payment processing by Visa and Mastercard.

Technically, competition is allowed. In practice, it isn't. Your view is based on a world before widespread use of the internet, smartphones and social media. A world that no longer exists. Even extremely authoritarian regimes have some trouble maintaining their authority against the authority of the few companies controlling communications and payments and do so by controlling those companies (e.g. China).

People created an alternative to Twitter - Parler. Once it gained enough users to be even a potential alternative option, it was shut down by the handful of companies that have almost total control. Your argument no longer applies to reality. Things have changed.

 

[Werewolf]

User get banned for Violating terms of service

This, so many times, this.

 

[chroniclard]

That's no longer true. A handful of companies have such dominance that the only "competition" is what they allow. They'll either buy or ban any other options. Due to the degree of control those few companies have, all it takes is removing the app from Apple and Google app stores and removing payment processing by Visa and Mastercard.

Technically, competition is allowed. In practice, it isn't. Your view is based on a world before widespread use of the internet, smartphones and social media. A world that no longer exists. Even extremely authoritarian regimes have some trouble maintaining their authority against the authority of the few companies controlling communications and payments and do so by controlling those companies (e.g. China).

People created an alternative to Twitter - Parler. Once it gained enough users to be even a potential alternative option, it was shut down by the handful of companies that have almost total control. Your argument no longer applies to reality. Things have changed.

Parler can just move elsewhere or fund their own servers. The alt-tech sites content is pretty horrendous, why would anyone normal want to be associated with them......

 

[Angilion]

Which of Trumps policies are you the biggest fan of?

I agree with the post by mmj_uk that you are posting that non-sequitor in "reply" to.

I think Trump is an incompetent arsebrain.

Reality isn't as simple as only two options for everything.

 

[Angilion]

Parler can just move elsewhere or fund their own servers. The alt-tech sites content is pretty horrendous, why would anyone normal want to be associated with them......

Move where?

Fund their own servers how?

And how could they tell people they exist? The only public voice about Parler is the voice of people villifying it. The same goes for any alternative to the dominant companies.

You're effectively suggesting that anyone who wants an alternative to comms apps should make their own global comms infrastructure and their own payment processing companies. But even if they tried, they wouldn't be allowed to do so as those alternatives would be shut down.

 

[chroniclard]

Move where?

Fund their own servers how?

And how could they tell people they exist? The only public voice about Parler is the voice of people villifying it. The same goes for any alternative to the dominant companies.

You're effectively suggesting that anyone who wants an alternative to comms apps should make their own global comms infrastructure and their own payment processing companies. But even if they tried, they wouldn't be allowed to do so as those alternatives would be shut down.

Absolutely no reason they cant run their own servers, millions of companies do so. They have no need to create their own global comms infrastructure or payment processing.....whats that relevant to....

Unless they built it all completely using Amazon tech of course, would have to rebuild it all.

These are not people with different "views" they are extremist nut jobs.

 

[stockhausen]

. . . The only public voice about Parler is the voice of people villifying it. . . .

In which case it would not be missed by many if it disappeared then - except by those vilifying it of course.

 

[Hotwired]

Move where?

Fund their own servers how?

And how could they tell people they exist? The only public voice about Parler is the voice of people villifying it. The same goes for any alternative to the dominant companies.

You're effectively suggesting that anyone who wants an alternative to comms apps should make their own global comms infrastructure and their own payment processing companies. But even if they tried, they wouldn't be allowed to do so as those alternatives would be shut down.

Obviously the same way the big sites are funded. Advertisi... oh wait... negative effect on advertisement money is why they're not welcome.

That's awkward. These modern places for talking online cost loads of money to run.

So what needs to happen is these private companies paying advertisement money need to be forced to be more tolerant about the content they let their products be advertised next to. They shouldn't be allowed to say they don't want their insurance banners next to highly thoughtful discussion on jews controlling the world or the value of black people.

 

[stockhausen]

. . . . [Companies] shouldn't be allowed to say they don't want their insurance banners next to highly thoughtful discussion on jews controlling the world or the value of black people.

Do you think that Insurance Companies should be compelled to throw advertising money away?
I guess increased taxation is the solution

"Highly thoughtful discussion" - yeah, right, on overturning democracy and curtailing human rights I guess

 

[Deleted User 298457]

Obviously the same way the big sites are funded. Advertisi... oh wait... negative effect on advertisement money is why they're not welcome.

That's awkward. These modern places for talking online cost loads of money to run.

So what needs to happen is these private companies paying advertisement money need to be forced to be more tolerant about the content they let their products be advertised next to. They shouldn't be allowed to say they don't want their insurance banners next to highly thoughtful discussion on jews controlling the world or the value of black people.

Highly thoughtful discussion? You can generally count the IQ on one hand.

Move where?

Fund their own servers how?

And how could they tell people they exist? The only public voice about Parler is the voice of people villifying it. The same goes for any alternative to the dominant companies.

You're effectively suggesting that anyone who wants an alternative to comms apps should make their own global comms infrastructure and their own payment processing companies. But even if they tried, they wouldn't be allowed to do so as those alternatives would be shut down.

You are confusing "the internet" with services provided over the top of it. Time to take a look at the OSI 7 layer model, perhaps?

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

I've never signed up to Parler or visited it. I just know about it through other media. So you frequent these heinous comment places more than me.

The problem is instead of respecting there are different legal opinions we've got companies trying to virtue one up each other, and sadly people thinking that censorship is great. The principle is being set.

If I was the boss of the electricity company that happened to supply the Apple and Google servers and I didn't like what they did, would you support me if I decided to pull their electricity? I'd be a private company too. Do you see where this silliness is going to end up?

I look in there because its good to know what is happening. It is a cesspool of hatred and conspiracy theorists. The worst of right wing twitter has moved there and become a huge echo chamber where they just increase the tempo by feeding off each other. Its hardly a bastion of free speech either, very easy to get banned for even just mocking Trump.

You would be perfectly within your rights to do so if there wasn't a contract saying otherwise. Companies do this all the time. Fox News sacked a presenter not long ago because her speech, which I guess they approved of until it went too far and advertisers pulled their money. These are businesses, they are out to make money for their shareholders. If that revenue is in anyway threatened they have every right to take action.

Parler will be back up in a matter of days and on servers where their users threatening and encouraging each other to kill politicians won't bother the company. There is always some company that will take their money.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

Hilarious how Parler makes such claims yet it is hosted on AWS. You can't make this up.