Politics 2020 - the gift that keeps giving

[Gorth]

8 hours ago, Malcador said:

First amendment applies to social media bans, now ?

Obsidian moderators, your time has finally come, you fascists!

I'm an anarchist, not a fascist. Now go over in your corner and self-moderate!

 

[213374U]

46 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

I dare  you to try and get a high profile well paid job or run a successful and profitable business without accessing or being on social media in any capacity... 

LinkedIn, Facebook, Amazon tools, Google tools, various messangers., Video call tools, etc.

Pretty sure that Amazon IaaS doesn't fall under what most people would consider "social media", and for the most part, VoIP and IM apps, and Google's cloud services aren't either. Zoraptor mentioned that it's hard to completely avoid anything owned by the megacorps and he has a point. However WhatsApp on your phone is not the same as having Facebook profile, and you can have one without the other.

And hey, maybe not everyone needs or wants a "high profile well paid job" that entails bull**** such as fake social media posturing in addition to the fake office posturing that is standard fare for 95% of jobs. Shocking, to be sure, but I have no interest in being a S&P 500 CEO.

As for "living in bubbles", welcome to, uh... pre-2004 Earth, I guess? I don't know, I may be getting old, but it wasn't so bad. Hell, the world seems closer to imploding now than it did back then.

[ComradeYellow]

9 minutes ago, 213374U said:

As for "living in bubbles", welcome to, uh... pre-2004 Earth, I guess? I don't know, I may be getting old, but it wasn't so bad. Hell, the world seems closer to imploding now than it did back then.

https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/strauss-howe-generational-cycle-theory/

[Zoraptor]

I'd bet pretty much anything that they link your WhatsApp to a facebook account when they can though, or those obnoxious ghost accounts they set up to monitor people who aren't on FB. Same as Google no doubt links everything they get from doubleclick to google search to youtube etc; MS links xbxox/ windows/ linkedin info etc. It's just in their nature, and for free services it's always you/ your information ultimately being sold for profit.

2 hours ago, majestic said:

That doesn't mean I disagree. Doesn't happen very often but I think Skarpen's got a point here, apart from calling it an Orwellian nightmare, those were very much of an authoritarian government  nature. The large tech players have undue influence and too much power. And yes, the government(s) should do something about it. They probably won't because money, but they should.

Skarpen most definitely has a point. (Nearly the) last thing anyone should want is being told what you can say by Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey, or one of their underlings who can asterisk around with your account with impunity.

I'd disagree with the governmental aspect though, and that's why it's nearly the last thing. The government(s) won't do anything because by and large it suits their purposes not to. In many cases western governments are already influencing SM content including suppression of views they don't like, mostly by threatening to legislate but sometimes by more direct methods. You also have governments weaponising SM content: you don't get Facebook etc banning governmental influence networks from US government entities after all, only from selected 'enemy' countries. That's not because US influence peddling is honest, but because of governmental influence over the companies themselves.

It's like wondering why the US doesn't reinstate the requirement for honesty/ fairness in news reporting given the state of their media, and apply that to SM. Doesn't suit either political side to because both sides love shouting at the other, and don't really want fair and balanced.

(meta: I'm on a bit of an ignoring facetiousness/ sarcasm bender at the moment)

Edited September 3, 2020 by Zoraptor

[Malcador]

2 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

Functioning in a modern society without social media or having them filtered is like working in tech and having to skip Python, Java and JavaScript

Python,  Java and Java/TypeScript aren't the be all and end all, y'know.  One could say real men don't work with those.

Sure would be somewhat funny to have to go to a court and have due process in order to be banned from Twitter or Facebook or Reddit (that last one would be the most so), as I'd imagine any hypothetical government involvement in making sure rights are observed on a platform would work out with.

[Orogun01]

Just now, Malcador said:

Python,  Java and Java/TypeScript aren't the be all and end all, y'know.  One could say real men don't work with those.

 

That's right...real men program in C and machine code.

[ComradeYellow]

1 hour ago, Zoraptor said:

The government(s) won't do anything because by and large it suits their purposes not to.

They are working hand in hand.  Massive Oil and Tech firms (to name the big two) have been working closely with the government and government agencies for quite some time.  Mussolini would be proud of it because that's what fascists did, merge big corporations with the state and directed policy based off of corporate and state interests.

[Gromnir]

am gonna stay away from making observations 'bout law 'cause admitted am fascinated by how citizens o' other western nations, and US edgelords, view free speech.

however, two quick observations:

1) the tinfoil hat brigade is a curious bunch

on the one hand, the social media platforms is devious enough to create means by which their efforts to control The Message is unprovable and undetectable to a degree professor moriarty would be jealous while simultaneous their efforts to muzzle individuals such as rittenhouse lawyer backfires so spectacular and instead o' marginalized the guy is effective provided sympathy and the national spotlight.

is curious how so often for the conspiracy to thrive we must accept simultaneous portrayal o' the bad guys as criminal masterminds and bumbling incompetents when is so much more plausible to pick the one supported by evidence. 

2) there is no going back

again, am not gonna discuss the law, but the history o' US government intervention in mass media makes apparent that once you decide a private enterprise is in fact a public utility, you will never be able to return to pre government regulation. better be certain you are willing to embrace what it means to be a public utility. good and bad.

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

double but...

Trump suggests people in N.C. vote twice to test mail-in system

encouraging what is a felony in north carolina and a federal crime punishable by up to five years. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Skarpen]

5 hours ago, 213374U said:

WEA et al. You don't really need Twatter for that. And yes, boycott is a perfectly reasonable reaction because you do not need social media to survive. For instance, I've been boycotting certain airlines, banks and ISPs for years and am still quite alive and well. You can too.

I've got one message from this type of system in my life. About a hurricane a day after said hurricane hit my town. I did get warnings from my townhall Facebook page before so YMMV.

I think in your examples of boycott the word "certain" is essential. You don't boycott "banks" but one of the hundreds of them. Imagine however there is only one bank and you get your account terminated because you donated to party X. Yet you need an account to get your sallary, make payments, taxes and so on. Sure, you might get by with cash only, but I encourage you to try summarize how many bank operations you do monthly and if all of them could be changed to cash transactions. The same with airlines etc. Would that be worthy of government intervention in those private entities?

It's not like I invented anti-monopoly laws here guys. Not sure about USA per se, maybe someone could post about the anti-monopoly laws there, but many of you are from EU so you know that stuff. Plenty of EU anti-monopoly resolutions applied to the biggest corporations like Microsoft.

Edited September 3, 2020 by Skarpen

[ComradeYellow]

7 hours ago, Volourn said:

Then how do you deal with crimes that cross state lines? Isn't that where the FBI comes in? To deal with crimes that occur in multiple states?

The FBI was founded by a megalomanic.  I'd soon get rid of it and focus more on regional solutions rather than top-down national ones.  Perhaps the U.S. could use a bit more decentralization, not ashamed to admit it.

[213374U]

21 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

I think in your examples of boycott the word "certain" is essential. You don't boycott "banks" but one of the hundreds of them. Imagine however there is only one bank and you get your account terminated because you donated to party X. Yet you need an account to get your sallary, make payments, taxes and so on. Sure, you might get by with cash only, but I encourage you to try summarize how many bank operations you do monthly and if all of them could be changed to cash transactions. The same with airlines etc. Would that be worthy of government intervention in those private entities?

It's not like I invented anti-monopoly laws here guys. Not sure about USA per se, maybe someone could post about the anti-monopoly laws there, but many of you are from EU so you know that stuff. Plenty of EU anti-monopoly resolutions applied to the biggest corporations like Microsoft.

That's fair. I only boycott companies that have ****ed me over personally, and those that from research I've found have skeletons in the closet, so to speak. It is not possible to boycott all companies ever unless you're willing to go full Kaczynski. That'd be pretty pointless as a means to put consumer pressure on them as well because you're not giving your business to the competition either. Likewise, I wouldn't expect you to avoid all social media ever, only those whose corporate guidelines you disagree with. Ubiquitous as Twitter is, it's hardly a monopoly though. Facebook is a different animal, and there have been calls to break it up.

I think it's needlessly complicated that you'd ask the government to regulate alleged social media monopolies so you don't have to rely on state-run systems like WEA when you could simply push for local authorities to get their ducks in a row and make electronic PSA systems work, when the people appointed to make sure that kind of thing runs in the first place are directly accountable to their constituency, i.e. you. And in any case, whether one company or other holds a monopoly is a digression from the original question -- whether the state has any business getting involved every time someone in some corner of the internet claims they are being oppressed.

Yes, monopolies are often bad, and unchecked monopolists are almost invariably bad.

[Skarpen]

51 minutes ago, 213374U said:

And in any case, whether one company or other holds a monopoly is a digression from the original question -- whether the state has any business getting involved every time someone in some corner of the internet claims they are being oppressed.

I think it's a basic function of government to get involved when someone is being oppressed.

[Darkpriest]

@Gromnir

I'd happily read, why you have doubts in regards of marking social media as a public utility. 

How would that be different to lets say phone services? 

[Gromnir]

22 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

@Gromnir

I'd happily read, why you have doubts in regards of marking social media as a public utility. 

How would that be different to lets say phone services? 

...

first, am gonna suggest common sense should be your guide. is internet more analogous to phone or tv and radio? is why we mentioned "media." do a search for how the content o' messaging may be regulated with tv and radio.

phone service does experience considerable regulation including cold calls and robo calls and even phone sex lines. can regulate phone message content with (time place manner) limits to a greater degree than would be the case on streets or public parks. however, the biggest issue is privacy. we said we weren't gonna get into law, so take effort to self educate is your best option. however, we will point you in the right direction: katz v united states (1967)

is a one-way trip. we criticize @Guard Dog for his tendency to indulge in slippery slope arguments, but based on history o' US handling o' media as public utilities, he would be justified in expressing reservations. 

serious this time.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 3, 2020 by Gromnir

[MedicineDan]

Much as it pains me to voice support for the narcissistic voice of Demosthenes, I don't want social media treated like a public utility.  For one thing, look at how well severe state regulation of electricity has worked in California.  I know I know!  Deregulation was a disaster!  Not really.  When you deregulate the retail but not the wholesale end, you're courting disaster.  Even more immediate is this:  Letting the state regulate the internet gives the state the power to decide what or what is not allowed.  A prime example is this:  Facebook currently censors (within its own purview) certain posts about Covid-19.  However, there is almost no doubt that some of those posts will ultimately end up being supported by research.  After all, saying statements about masks would have been alternatingly been pro or con at different times right?  Facebook has the right to do what it wants, but if we suggest that the government has plenary power over content, that is to say, can kill unwanted content, then isn't there the prospect of the government mandating only the 'right' thing should be allowed?  Only, we all have experienced where the consensus has been wrong.  We must allow for dissent.  It can be ugly, and it is often wrong, but the alternative is far worse.  That's it for now, as I suspect the ETOH is starting to diminish my already limited capacities, but that's my take.  No matter what, will fight to the death your right to say what I believe to manifestly wrong.  For most people, that's a throw away statement.  For me, I simply hope I don't want to have to prove myself right.

EDIT:  clarification.

Edited September 3, 2020 by MedicineDan

[ComradeYellow]

42 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

I think it's a basic function of government to get involved when someone is being oppressed.

The problem here being that's a double edged sword.  

Take the Bolsheviks for instance, a good portion of Russians saw them as saviors and liberators from oppression whilst the reactionary Whites saw the Bolsheviks as their oppressors.  

[Darkpriest]

Apparently some evil hair saloon owner lured top politician to have her hair done and asked her to not use any safety measures, so they could set her up... 

I've seen some circus logic by many politicians, but stuff like that, laws for thee but not for me, is something that will grant sure footing to your political adversary... 

 

[Gfted1]

RHIP.

[Malcador]

Can't wait to see the criteria his hatchetman Barr comes up with to label cities "anarchist" - https://www.axios.com/trump-memo-cut-funding-anarchist-democratic-cities-ac658965-a427-4149-87f4-58c1f9a8506a.html

 

Edited September 3, 2020 by Malcador

[Guard Dog]

16 hours ago, Skarpen said:

How? The basic function of government is to uphold the law. Small government doesn't mean "your on your own" in interaction with bigger entity. Should "small government" skip also fighting with mafia because it supposed to be small? What is your definition of small government?

There is no "crime" being committed here. Social Media can cut anyone off for any reason or none. It's not "free speech". It's a server they own and everyone uses at their pleasure. In this case you care asking the govt sto step in and tell them they must let Mr. X use their server no matter what. That is REALLY intrusive don't you think? 

[Guard Dog]

7 hours ago, Skarpen said:

I think it's a basic function of government to get involved when someone is being oppressed.

That would be an extremely arbitrary and subjective process. You don't want government activity that could be called either of those terms. Government should (must) have clear lines within which it acts. This far and no farther. Like Gromnir said about the courts, it's not there to right wrongs and free the oppressed. It's there to apply laws and mediate contracts. Government agencies also have a job to do and that is not to right wrongs nor free the oppressed. And it certainly is not to force private entities to allow Mr. X to access their private servers. 

You generally favor the "conservative" position that government intrusion should be limited. But you undermine your own argument when you take a position like this.

Edited September 3, 2020 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

In Act of Heresy, N.R.A.’s Former No. 2 Calls for Gun Control

What a hot mess the NRA is now. Oh well. Trust no one, believe in no one, expect nothing.

[Skarpen]

1 hour ago, Darkpriest said:

Apparently some evil hair saloon owner lured top politician to have her hair done and asked her to not use any safety measures, so they could set her up... 

I've seen some circus logic by many politicians, but stuff like that, laws for thee but not for me, is something that will grant sure footing to your political adversary... 

 

Marrion Barry: B**** set me up.

Pelosi: Same.

42 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

There is no "crime" being committed here. Social Media can cut anyone off for any reason or none. It's not "free speech". It's a server they own and everyone uses at their pleasure. In this case you care asking the govt sto step in and tell them they must let Mr. X use their server no matter what. That is REALLY intrusive don't you think? 

I will point you to a couple of posts above about anti-monopoly laws. Yes regulating monopolies is intrusive but I think necessary. 

[Guard Dog]

9 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Marrion Barry: B**** set me up.

Pelosi: Same.

I will point you to a couple of posts above about anti-monopoly laws. Yes regulating monopolies is intrusive but I think necessary. 

Anti trust laws do NOT apply to Social Media. Not even close.