Big Tech Authoritarianism

[Colonel_Klinck]

@FirebarUK is right, who watches the watchers? Who fact checks the fact checkers?

In a time when professionalism as gone out of the window, were everyone and his/her dog or cat is pushing some kind of agenda, what makes these fact checking companies any different to the news media companies that we once trusted?

I find it difficult to understand how people, whatever their political views are, think its great when multiple private companies all act as one to stop a legal point of view. I think its human nature that we're not all going to agree on every issue. There will always be debate. There will always be the extremists on both sides trying to cause trouble and friction. We don't win an argument by default that there is nobody on the other side to debate it. Also not everyone on the 'other side' is beyond the reach of reason. As some have said on this and the other thread, banning whole platforms because of a legal view will make some people think it looks like bullying. Its going to end up with people in the middle, the ones who don't usually get involved in debates, to have sympathy for who they perceive as the underdog. So there will be non-extremists that will join the other platforms.

I think we also have to remember, this isn't just a right wing thing. Many left wing people are getting banned too. I've posted before in previous threads were people called for censorship of right wing content creators only to find themselves censored too. It is the unintended consequence. This is why both the Democrats and Republicans elected in the US are both annoyed with big tech, particularly social media.

Facebook and Google are run by today's robber barons. Break them up
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...are-run-by-todays-robber-barons-break-them-up

Tech giants are the robber barons of our time
https://nypost.com/2018/02/03/big-techs-monopolistic-rule-is-hiding-in-plain-sight/

You really are making way too much of this. Fact checkers are now being used in political debates. So if a politician says "I said so and so" or "I said I'd do so and so" it can be checked in real time and the moderator can say, no you didn't say that you said this. We aren't talking about "facts "that are open to interpretation depending on your point of view. Just simply calling out lies when they tell them on things that are easily proven to be so. Or would you rather they just be allowed to spout lies unchecked? In this era of "fake news" we really need to move back to making people accountable for what they say.

You won't get any argument from 99% of the population that these companies need to be hit with anti trust and broken up. Section 230 also needs adjusting, when it was introduced it was to protect small startups, that clearly doesn't apply to today. Facebook, Twitter and the other big social media companies can afford to properly moderate their platforms. They should be forced by legislation to do so. That won't be good news for far right or far left views or those who want absolute freedom of speech to say anything they want on these platforms but those days are over now. Money talks and those views are bad for business.

 

[chroniclard]

People need to stop calling lies "points of view", its laughable.

 

[FirebarUK]

Why is a terribly naive view? Some lies or untruths are easily proven. Fact checkers are exactly that. You don't think major newspapers use fact checkers or serious news programs use fact checkers before they publish or broadcast their pieces? Making politicians be more truthful because they know if they lie or are untruthful that it will be called out there and then has to be a good thing.

Because it ignores basic human nature for one thing. Also no, I don't think the editorial teams necessarily do and this is because they don't want to, they'd rather present a fiery piece which reads more like an opinion to get their readers all worked up. Even the fact checkers themselves have come under scrutiny (e.g. what happens if all the fact checkers hired are Bernie Sanders fans, do you expect them to give fair treatment to conservative news stories?). Forbes did an interesting article a few years ago musing on this [1].

Anyhow, let's take a very simple recent example [2]. In this case they call the events an "attempted coup". If we look in the oxford dictionary a coup is defined as "A sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.". Let alone the mostly peaceful protests (wink wink), if we then consider that in the US firearm ownership is fairly commonplace and many would say particularly among Trump supporters, do you think that if a group wanted to make a coup attempted they would maybe come better armed perhaps? Maybe they would try to take some congress hostages for leverage? Maybe they would just be a little more, well, violent? Thus logically, it's pretty misleading to call it a coup. I'd say insurrection is even a stretch given what that word also means and our practical experience of it. So, here is a good example of a reputable big media outlet writing something inflammatory rather than "fact checking".

Also, holding politicians accountable has almost nothing to do with "using fact checkers", what's important is that we have investigative journalism. Ironically I think the latter is pretty poor nowadays in most cases, which consequently has fueled the rise of fact checkers. D'oh!

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevl...t-checking-the-fact-checkers/?sh=3acd5416227f
[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/pho...lding-insurrection-riot-coup-2021-1?r=US&IR=T

 

[FirebarUK]

Oh btw, forgot to add, why do the media like to create such sensationalist articles? Because it drives clicks[1]. These clicks then result in ad revenue from guess whooooooooo?

[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/clickbait

 

[chroniclard]

The rise of fact checkers is due to Trumps policy of lying constantly.

 

[Johno please?]

Wow black people using the n word bothers you does it? Is that because you can't?

If people are advocating for others to break the law then yes they should be banned. Report the posts. I've always found Twitter to respond fairly quickly to reports.

Who says you cant use the word ******? You never use it? ever? in any context?

Il post this because I know this thread will be full of people that either don't understand what freedom of speech means, or just flat out dont like it and prefer the idea that someone gets to decide what they can and cant say.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Because it ignores basic human nature for one thing. Also no, I don't think the editorial teams necessarily do and this is because they don't want to, they'd rather present a fiery piece which reads more like an opinion to get their readers all worked up. Even the fact checkers themselves have come under scrutiny (e.g. what happens if all the fact checkers hired are Bernie Sanders fans, do you expect them to give fair treatment to conservative news stories?). Forbes did an interesting article a few years ago musing on this [1].

Anyhow, let's take a very simple recent example [2]. In this case they call the events an "attempted coup". If we look in the oxford dictionary a coup is defined as "A sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.". Let alone the mostly peaceful protests (wink wink), if we then consider that in the US firearm ownership is fairly commonplace and many would say particularly among Trump supporters, do you think that if a group wanted to make a coup attempted they would maybe come better armed perhaps? Maybe they would try to take some congress hostages for leverage? Maybe they would just be a little more, well, violent? Thus logically, it's pretty misleading to call it a coup. I'd say insurrection is even a stretch given what that word also means and our practical experience of it. So, here is a good example of a reputable big media outlet writing something inflammatory rather than "fact checking".

Also, holding politicians accountable has almost nothing to do with "using fact checkers", what's important is that we have investigative journalism. Ironically I think the latter is pretty poor nowadays in most cases, which consequently has fueled the rise of fact checkers. D'oh!

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevl...t-checking-the-fact-checkers/?sh=3acd5416227f
[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/pho...lding-insurrection-riot-coup-2021-1?r=US&IR=T

What do you think a moderator does? They will call out something they know to be false, they act as a fact checker but having a team of them back stage and able to speak to the moderator allows for lies to be called.

And if newspapers knowingly print lies they are liable for that. Which is precisely why they use fact checkers. Also so they don't have to print a retraction or correction at a later date.

Ah I see like dowie you are sticking to the dictionary definition. Fiona Hill begs to differ

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/01/11/capitol-riot-self-coup-trump-fiona-hill-457549


Yes the US has massive gun ownership and this particular group probably has a very high percentage of owners of guns. One small problem is that DC has some of the strictest gun laws. It's illegal to open carry, you need a DC licence to conceal carry, out of State licences aren't valid in DC. So anyone seen with a weapon would have immediately drawn the attention of the police and no way they get anywhere remotely near POTUS or the Capitol with a weapon.

I would say that they there was defiantly a plan to take hostages inside, those flexi-cuffs aren't jewellery after all. Thankfully they never manged to find the politicians they needed. Quick thinking by some of the officers to lead them away from the chamber where the politicians were and them them being locked away in areas the invaders weren't able to locate.

Have you seen all the videos of them fighting police in the building? I don't think there is any debate that they weren't extremely violent. And if they had managed to get their hand's on Pelosi, AOC or even Pence we would be looking at dead politicians.

The idea as is shown in many threads on sites like thedonald win in the runup to the 6th was if Congress didn't come through for them they had to take the Capitol and then Trump was to declare martial law, cancel the election result and either declare himself winner or have new elections. They truly believe this and there are millions of them. It will all come out of the coming weeks. Yes they are deluded, no it was never going to work how they wanted it to but when you even have retired Army Colonels in their ranks that believe in Q it shows you have a serious problem.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Who says you cant use the word ******? You never use it? ever? in any context?

Il post this because I know this thread will be full of people that either don't understand what freedom of speech means, or just flat out dont like it and prefer the idea that someone gets to decide what they can and cant say.

You clearly have no knowledge of Hitchens if you think he'd use that word in the way some people would like to be able to use it. Yes he was an advocate for free speech but private companies aren't the government. Hitch would deplore Trump, he'd defend his right to say what he wants in public or at his rallies, then he would rip him to shreds for that speech but he wouldn't say a private company has to publish that speech. Sam Harris is also an advocate for free speech and he's defended Twitter's decision to kick Trump off.

Yes I've said it, singing along to lyrics. I would never use it out in public and certainly never use it to describe a black person or directly to a black person. But then I said there were circumstances like hip hop that are clearly exceptions.

I'm not arguing that it should be illegal to say these things, far from it. Society however has rules we chose to follow. That is why as an atheist I would never walk into a church during a service, say a funeral and shout "Jesus is a ****!" An argument could be made that he was but no one in their right mind would do that. This isn't about speech being illegal though. This is about private companies being forced to publish others speech they don't want to publish and that breaks their term of use, especially now that that speech is bad for business. Companies like Google, Twitter and Facebook don't care about Red or Blue in politics. They give money to both, their only concern with politics is how the politicians might treat them in law. What they really care about is Green, as in money. Money is everything, the market is what decides these things. If there is a market for "hate" speech then a rich businessman will pour their money into it and make more money. I can see anti-trust breaking up these companies soon and section 230 being updated. That won't be good for those that want extreme speech from either end of the spectrum on social media though. That speech is bad for business. And government won't be able to force companies to carry speech either.

 

[StriderX]

Who says you cant use the word ******? You never use it? ever? in any context?

Il post this because I know this thread will be full of people that either don't understand what freedom of speech means, or just flat out dont like it and prefer the idea that someone gets to decide what they can and cant say.

What context would you use said word?

 

[Johno please?]

What context would you use said word?

Dick Gregory wrote a book called ******, or a private joke perhaps or maybe quoting a movie or song.

Its not like I'd run down the street shouting racial epithets, although I don't think that should be illegal if you were so inclined.

 

[Johno please?]

That is why as an atheist I would never walk into a church during a service, say a funeral and shout "Jesus is a ****!"

xD

Indeed, its a real shame Hitchens isn't around to comment on Trumps presidency, it would have been epic.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

xD

Indeed, its a real shame Hitchens isn't around to comment on Trumps presidency, it would have been epic.

Hitch and Bill Hicks are the two men I'd most like to be alive to comment on these times.

 

[stockhausen]

Who says you cant use the word ******? You never use it? ever? in any context? . . .

I am sure that there are occasions when it would be justified - context as you suggest seems kinda relevant here.

I imagine however that it would be a fairly typical way for an insensitive, attention seeking narcissist to draw attention to him or her self; a bit like that deranged person staggering down the street muttering to himself and shouting at complete strangers - but usually less excusable.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

But who fact checks your fact checkers? This is a terribly naive view.

Just to add to this, it is possible for a fact checker to "game" the system.

e.g.
Person 1: The sun is white.
Fact checker: When viewed from earth the sun can vary from yellow to orange depending on the time of day. Therefore this is false.

Anyone who doesn't know better would therefore believe that person 1 is lying.

 

[chroniclard]

So we cant trust any media. We cant trust fact checkers. We cant trust social media providers.

In this era of Trump style fake news and lies who is left to trust.

 

[Fubsy]

You've also got the CRT/post-modernist crew that don't actually believe in "facts" as objective truths as (it's their argument) they maintain the power of the privileged.

It's almost as if there is an agenda to cause chaos and confusion, undermining and deconstructing what exists at the moment.

 

[chroniclard]

Fake news invented by Trump so the right can get away with being ********* and deny reality.

 

[Tom1138]

The rise of fact checkers is due to Trumps policy of lying constantly.

Because obviously only Trump is the one lying.

 

[SPG]

Just lol

The UK newspapers have been doing this since WW1, The only difference now is more people are butthurt and think their opinion matters original thinkers are few and far between and in general they do not bother with crap and bile that is social media....

 

[chroniclard]

Because obviously only Trump is the one lying.

Well he has consistently lied the most over the past 4 years. Multiple times more than everyone else combined.

Couple that with those white house press secretaries that also lie constantly its basically an administration built on lies that his given rise to fact checkers.