Big Tech Authoritarianism

Nerusy said:
Discriminaton laws would disagree with you here.

The government regulates companise, they are not completely free to do what they want.

The government (which means technicallg mean we the people) can tell private companise what they can or cannot do.
Click to expand...

They are allowed to refuse business. They can decide who can and can't use their online services.

Trump can challenge it but if he broke the terms of use then he can't do anything.
 
It's OK though, because you can still use the Twitter platform to call for violence, rape, murder and other nefarious actions if you add BLM, AntiFa or other such left leaning groups to your tags.
 
dLockers said:
The type of newspaper you read is classically linked to your confirmation bias and there are lots of peer reviewed studies that explain this.

Thanks for the offer of searching your post history, but I have better things to do with my time than single individuals out to search their past, as much as that is in vogue at the moment. You got my point though. It's why things like flat earth, 5G and anti-vax movements are gaining traction in certain factions.
Click to expand...

lmao those intellectually superior Telegraph articles won't read themselves, am I right? :rolleyes:

taB said:
Your loss, it's superb.
Click to expand...

That's far kinder than the reality. :D
 
Theophany said:
Think of Twitter as a Christian bakery and Trump as a gay wedding cake. :)
Click to expand...

Or think of Twitter as a private company who’s t&c’s you agreed to. Then you have Trump, the soon to be exPresident, using it as a private platform to spread lies and misinformation. If he wasn’t the President he would have been banned a long time ago.
 
=XDC=FluphyBunny said:
Or think of Twitter as a private company who’s t&c’s you agreed to. Then you have Trump, the soon to be exPresident, using it as a private platform to spread lies and misinformation. If he wasn’t the President he would have been banned a long time ago.
Click to expand...

I was aiming for cheap yucks by making a joke that conservatives were up in arms about a baker that refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple and the high court upheld the baker's right to do so, but of course when it doesn't go in their favour, the same people who were concerned for the baker don't want to play by that same ruleset any more because it doesn't fit with their issue du jour.

Like they say, explaining a joke is a bit like dissecting a frog; you understand it better but the frog is still dead. ;)
 
dLockers said:
I think your giving Twitter a lot more credit than due, by quite a significant amount. It's reach and representation of the electorate is fractional.

The word control is not correct either - no more so do they control the public sector than news outlets that get significantly more reach and a wider demographic. People chose which channel they subscribe to and will be 'at the mercy' of that channels political bias. This has always been the way, with print media famously leaning one way or the other. Consolidation of these platforms becomes tricky as the influence gets much broader reach, hence the Murdoch family case studies being so interesting.

Twitter as a standalone platform has no where near the political reach or meaningful consolidation of the world of communications to be as egregiously controlling as you make out.

Agreed on your final paragraph excluding your final sentence. Twitter may be very relevent to you, but it is certainly not a monopoly. Facebook on the other hand and its ability to deliver precise messages to segments of its user base should absolutely be explored as it's influence could be 'too strong' for the limited reach it has. Hence, radical pockets of the population in their own echo chamber. Much like your Reddit remark (or someone else's).
Click to expand...

Yes traditional broadcast television still holds the greatest sway of the public by a large margin.

Control not being the right word, sure. Influence / interferemce. There is a degree to it. And yes press and television have far greater control and established bias. But just because things are already bad in one media channel does not mean we dont have to strive for it to get better or for other channels such as social media to fall into the same comfortable place of having influence on the public sector.

All social media, very much including and primarely Facebook (also google) has aboslutely terrifying access to personal information and ability to manipulate the public opinion. I think as times move on, the dominating power to influence politics will flip fliop from television to social media and this even should kickstart debate, which would ideially in the end result in some sort of government reform/regulation of social media. Right now they shut up somebody who is mostly hated but the government needs to act now such that in the future private companise could not silence other people (say those who would try to get elected on huge taxes on social media platfom).
 
Nasher said:
They are allowed to refuse business. They can decide who can and can't use their online services.

Trump can challenge it but if he broke the terms of use then he can't do anything.
Click to expand...

They way things are structured right now yes. I feel reguatlion needs to be introduce, such as antri descriminaton laws, into social media platforms to ensure the platforms do not become eco chambers.
 
Nerusy said:
They way things are structured right now yes. I feel reguatlion needs to be introduce, such as antri descriminaton laws, into social media platforms to ensure the platforms do not become eco chambers.
Click to expand...

They are already echo chambers. Not sure there were ever anything else really.
 
Nerusy said:
Yes traditional broadcast television still holds the greatest sway of the public by a large margin.

Control not being the right word, sure. Influence / interferemce. There is a degree to it. And yes press and television have far greater control and established bias. But just because things are already bad in one media channel does not mean we dont have to strive for it to get better or for other channels such as social media to fall into the same comfortable place of having influence on the public sector.

All social media, very much including and primarely Facebook (also google) has aboslutely terrifying access to personal information and ability to manipulate the public opinion. I think as times move on, the dominating power to influence politics will flip fliop from television to social media and this even should kickstart debate, which would ideially in the end result in some sort of government reform/regulation of social media. Right now they shut up somebody who is mostly hated but the government needs to act now such that in the future private companise could not silence other people (say those who would try to get elected on huge taxes on social media platfom).
Click to expand...
Mostly agree with everything you've said. Final sentence is tricky again though, as you imply Trump only has Twitter as a platform and he has been removed. This isn't true. He's just been removed from his favourite/most used platform. And only on his personal account. He still has more reach than any human alive today, given he is the leader of the free world and knows how to write a headline.
 
Raikiri said:
A government forcing privately run entities to publish material, especially lies coming from the leader of that very government is far more authoritarian than allowing them to enforce their agreed upon terms.
Click to expand...

Im not sure that it is (in general) especially when there is already some legal separation for user driven content.

While I don’t think they will be forced to host all legal speech I don’t think the issue of tech censorship will go away. Things like greater transparency and/or oversight might be required by legislators ultimately.

End result could be that someone like Trump would be banned even sooner but then again so potentially would various others. Conversely on platforms that wish to allow for broader speech he might not be. I suspect perceived bias would be an issue of concern.

Having some consistent and transparent policies and processes could be required.
 
Like I said in my other thread regarding Rowan Atkinson's comments about cancel culture and social media's role in polarising people through algorithm manipulation and market targeting, a large portion of people seem to have been propagandised to hate/fear Trump so much that they seem willing to support anything (even turning into what they claim to be fighting against) in order to destroy him and his supporters. They are literally cheering on corporate billionaires behaving like authoritarians and are doing it in the name of fighting authoritarianism, they're calling for people who don't conform to the liberal ideology to be cancelled (banned/sacked from jobs etc).

It might seem like a good idea now to destroy Trump and his supporters if you're in that group but what about when there are none left?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom