Big Tech Authoritarianism

Somnambulist said:
You can read the docs here

Have you actually ever looked around Twitter? It's a cesspit and up till about 2 months ago Twitter's ToS encouraged it.


Open the Tweet and read the thread. Michael isn't a rando either (child protection/safety expert).
Click to expand...
Hold up, I don't get it.

Most of the people moaning about Trump being banned are doing it in the name of free speech.

The strawman argument is then that Trump supporters will radicalise and go "under ground".

An article is now posted about a very difficult topic for most to even contemplate, and the chap is proposing to totally remove them from Twitter. If we follow the same logic as the MAGA-lovers, this would just push them underground and make it worse, no?

Is this kind of censorship OK? Or is this the line for the people offended by Trump being banned?

Unclear what is being argued now. If it is more general regulatory powers on Big Tech, then I think everyone totally agrees. Nobody can agree on who enforces that or how though, as putting the power back into the Governments hands is also not desirable.
 
It's certainly a complete mess that evidently cannot be solved by OcUK GD contributers ;)

Mess because the net is worldwide and crosses jurisdiction lines so leaving it to local enforcement is tricky, there are millions of nasty people that are into all sorts of damaging behaviour and ideas, any enforcement has to be consistent or it drives mistrust and cynical views pertained from whatever "side" of opinion you are on driving further division politically and socially, etc, etc, etc. Social Media is horrid, and was unleashed on the world before we were ready, if we ever could be.

To build the strawman further, yes getting people off these systems will push them elsewhere where it will fester and grow unchallenged. While they are in full view, get them removed from society (via the existing laws, or create new ones to address it) as most countries rightly look down on grown people being sexually interested in children. Simply banning their accounts will not stop them doing harm totally, it's token effort that social media companies believe washes their hands of the problem.

dLockers said:
*snipped* for brevity. My opinion on that is above.

Unclear what is being argued now. If it is more general regulatory powers on Big Tech, then I think everyone totally agrees. Nobody can agree on who enforces that or how though, as putting the power back into the Governments hands is also not desirable.
Click to expand...

We won't agree with a lot on this I can see, but your line above I absolutely do agree with :)
 
Fubsy said:
It's certainly a complete mess that evidently cannot be solved by OcUK GD contributers ;)

Mess because the net is worldwide and crosses jurisdiction lines so leaving it to local enforcement is tricky, there are millions of nasty people that are into all sorts of damaging behaviour and ideas, any enforcement has to be consistent or it drives mistrust and cynical views pertained from whatever "side" of opinion you are on driving further division politically and socially, etc, etc, etc. Social Media is horrid, and was unleashed on the world before we were ready, if we ever could be.
<snip>
Click to expand...
Completely impossible then. Unless you centralise moderation and then you end up creating another psuedo-power. Even Wikipedia is arguably biased based on the power of the "super-editors".

In the financial sector, when regulation came in, the new governing power made clear for banks to follow the "spirit" of the regulation as opposed to the black and white to try and combat the opposite of what you are proposing (a consistent view).

AI is a great example of where this is a big problem for adoption. It can only learn what has gone before it, and it can only enact based on black and white decision making principles.

The side effect is as basic as Twitter's issue now where you say "COVID" and your post gets flagged. This is the only "consistent" and fair way to moderate it, I guess.
 
Greebo said:
Indeed, thankfully a lot of states and companies totally ignored Trumps continual hatred for renewables and his passing legislation which didnt help them and just got on with it anyway as they can see where the future lies even if the POTUS cant.

But Trumps actions may well have slowed that growth down over the last 4 years.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianm...s-energy-sector-doubles-down/?sh=3c1205343e13
Click to expand...

Lol, that was the whole point of the ACE rule. Funny how the author doesn't mention that, its almost like he has an agenda eh?

.. it doesn't mention anything about NEPA overhaul as well which is a very significant change in implementing renewables. I'm not sure how that person can write that article and not talk about it and its impact on renewables installation.

Watch how renewables skyrocket over the next couple of years. It won't be because of what Biden has done within a year, i can assure you
 
Trusty said:
Lol, that was the whole point of the ACE rule. Funny how the author doesn't mention that, its almost like he has an agenda eh?

.. it doesn't mention anything about NEPA overhaul as well which is a very significant change in implementing renewables. I'm not sure how that person can write that article and not talk about it and its impact on renewables installation.

Watch how renewables skyrocket over the next couple of years. It won't be because of what Biden has done within a year, i can assure you
Click to expand...

But Trump has set a precedent there again. If it happens on your watch, its yours to claim so I will look forward to Biden taken all the praise for how renewables skyrocket under his leadership :D

Not sure NEPA is that good overall. Yes it needed updating as was written in 1970 but Trumps revision which means pipelines can be built through national parks and removing the authority of the Clean Air act to review and punish companies, renewable energy wasnt mention once in the overhaul (a major omission surely?)

There were some very good things in the NEPA overall like the badly needed funding for the National Parks and a new fund to clean up polluted waterways.

The purpose of these proposed changes is to ensure that large government will not be a roadblock to any industrial projects which will support or empower progress and prosperity for the American people. These proposed changes pertain to federal building projects only and that is the extent of their breadth.

So I am a bit puzzled why you are criticizing the author of my link for not mentioning the NEPA overhaul when it seems it has nothing to do with renewables?

ANd as for ACE? The act which which established no meaningful limits on carbon pollution and would have actually increased pollution at nearly one in five of the nation’s coal-fired power plants? How is that helping renewable energies thrive?

Lucky the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2nd highest court in the land) on the last day threw out Trumps mis named anti environmental and renewable energies act - ACE.

https://www.edf.org/media/dc-circui...ation-repeal-and-replacement-clean-power-plan

So As I said, renewable energy industry grew during Trump's term despite his best efforts to curtail the industry and legistatrate against them. Now the brakes are off we will really see them make massive progress.
 
In contrast to the last 4 years US corporate mainstream media is North Korea'esque in the way they're all competing to lavish the most love and praise for Biden, they might as well just call him Our Dear Leader.
 
Greebo said:
But Trump has set a precedent there again. If it happens on your watch, its yours to claim so I will look forward to Biden taken all the praise for how renewables skyrocket under his leadership :D

Not sure NEPA is that good overall. Yes it needed updating as was written in 1970 but Trumps revision which means pipelines can be built through national parks and removing the authority of the Clean Air act to review and punish companies, renewable energy wasnt mention once in the overhaul (a major omission surely?)

There were some very good things in the NEPA overall like the badly needed funding for the National Parks and a new fund to clean up polluted waterways.

The purpose of these proposed changes is to ensure that large government will not be a roadblock to any industrial projects which will support or empower progress and prosperity for the American people. These proposed changes pertain to federal building projects only and that is the extent of their breadth.

So I am a bit puzzled why you are criticizing the author of my link for not mentioning the NEPA overhaul when it seems it has nothing to do with renewables?

ANd as for ACE? The act which which established no meaningful limits on carbon pollution and would have actually increased pollution at nearly one in five of the nation’s coal-fired power plants? How is that helping renewable energies thrive?

Lucky the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2nd highest court in the land) on the last day threw out Trumps mis named anti environmental and renewable energies act - ACE.

https://www.edf.org/media/dc-circui...ation-repeal-and-replacement-clean-power-plan

So As I said, renewable energy industry grew during Trump's term despite his best efforts to curtail the industry and legistatrate against them. Now the brakes are off we will really see them make massive progress.
Click to expand...

lol..you've just googled all that, haven't you? C'mon, admit it, you didn't know about ACE & the NEPA overhaul previously?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom