It’s all Connected Folks

#26
#26
C-south said:
Government has been in cahoots with these liberal information monopolies for quite some time. Just like the White House working with Facebook to identify and squash “Covid misinformation”. All of them adding “fact checkers” when truth started coming out. All of them running cover for a candidate’s crackhead son and all of their other shady dealings. Imagine a platform that actually supported free speech and accuracy instead of political agendas. I suppose my feelings aren’t hurt as easily as some.
Click to expand...

You’re not looking for accuracy. And you somehow view this as a partisan issue. You’ve forgotten trump’s habit of catching and killing stories.

The problem with an unmoderated forum of free speech is that it becomes a cesspool of porn and misinformation. There has to be some happy medium.
 
#27
#27
ClearwaterVol said:
You’re not looking for accuracy. And you somehow view this as a partisan issue. You’ve forgotten trump’s habit of catching and killing stories.

The problem with an unmoderated forum of free speech is that it becomes a cesspool of porn and misinformation. There has to be some happy medium.
Click to expand...

So have a happy ending that shutdown the alternative opinion if it threatens the progressive world view?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#28
#28
BreatheUT said:
So have a happy ending that shutdown the alternative opinion if it threatens the progressive world view?
Click to expand...

I didn't suggest anything of the sort. Honestly, I don't know what the solution is. I don't mind the fact checking crap on Facebook as long as that would be accurate, but I am not sure it will ever satisfy everyone. And this is not a free speech issue. It is a managing a business issue.
 
#29
#29
ClearwaterVol said:
I didn't suggest anything of the sort. Honestly, I don't know what the solution is. I don't mind the fact checking crap on Facebook as long as that would be accurate, but I am not sure it will ever satisfy everyone. And this is not a free speech issue. It is a managing a business issue.
Click to expand...

I agree what you said except imo the last sentence is opposite. Twitter gave the appearance upon creation that it was an open platform for a different type of social media. Now that they have reeled people in they seem to have changed on the fly and aren't transparent. They just label some "misformation" or "threats". What does that even mean? Taliban leadership is ok but Trump isn't? This is the reason it's growing hated by many. A hated business can't succeed long term unless it's propped up by the government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and AM64
#30
#30
No chance I'm reading all that just to go, "that's nuts."

Anyone have a Cliffs note version?
 
#31
#31
BreatheUT said:
I agree what you said except imo the last sentence is opposite. Twitter gave the appearance upon creation that it was an open platform for a different type of social media. Now that they have reeled people in they seem to have changed on the fly and aren't transparent. They just label some "misformation" or "threats". What does that even mean? Taliban leadership is ok but Trump isn't? This is the reason it's growing hated by many. A hated business can't succeed long term unless it's propped up by the government.
Click to expand...

I agree with much of what you said, but the last sentence is complete nonsense. A hated business can survive if there is enough of a customer base that likes it. In this case, roughly 50% of the population is fine with Twitter. Out of those that claim to hate it... many still use it.
 
#33
#33
ClearwaterVol said:
I agree with much of what you said, but the last sentence is complete nonsense. A hated business can survive if there is enough of a customer base that likes it. In this case, roughly 50% of the population is fine with Twitter. Out of those that claim to hate it... many still use it.
Click to expand...
It's not 50. Only 10% produce 80% of all tweets
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Rickyvol77
#34
#34
BreatheUT said:
I agree what you said except imo the last sentence is opposite. Twitter gave the appearance upon creation that it was an open platform for a different type of social media. Now that they have reeled people in they seem to have changed on the fly and aren't transparent. They just label some "misformation" or "threats". What does that even mean? Taliban leadership is ok but Trump isn't? This is the reason it's growing hated by many. A hated business can't succeed long term unless it's propped up by the government.
Click to expand...

The government has literally nothing to do with Twitter's market power. Social media sites only have power because users are there. The government has nothing to do with users being on Twitter.

How do you mean that they aren't transparent? Compared to other Fortune 500 companies they're not transparent? What are you asking for? Board meeting notes? Access to the CTO's email account?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeMojo and Rickyvol77
#37
#37
utvolpj said:
Still the number who actually care about Twitter is very small. I don't think many understand how few active users there really are
Click to expand...

I am rarely on Twitter. I took it off my phone. You can count me as someone who doesn't really care, but I still end up seeing tweets all the time shared in other places and every once in a while I visit on my desktop to see what conversations are around an event (usually sporting). 95%+ of what I see from Twitter has nothing to do with politics.

I hear more about how unfair Twitter is than anything else. I think this has done more to rally the right than it has to shape information.
 
#39
#39
n_huffhines said:
The government has literally nothing to do with Twitter's market power. Social media sites only have power because users are there. The government has nothing to do with users being on Twitter.

How do you mean that they aren't transparent? Compared to other Fortune 500 companies they're not transparent? What are you asking for? Board meeting notes? Access to the CTO's email account?
Click to expand...

The questions you have to ask are. Would Twitter exist without the internet, and who/what is the internet? Before you answer the second part you have to consider how the internet originated - DARPA and ARPANET, and the government role in internet access and infrastructure ... rural expansion and effectively subsidization, for example - and not forgetting what amounts to censorship and snooping.
 
#40
#40
AM64 said:
The questions you have to ask are. Would Twitter exist without the internet, and who/what is the internet? Before you answer the second part you have to consider how the internet originated - DARPA and ARPANET, and the government role in internet access and infrastructure ... rural expansion and effectively subsidization, for example - and not forgetting what amounts to censorship and snooping.
Click to expand...

So you think people in the government in the 1960's had the foresight, vision, know-how, and follow-thru to help create the internet so that someday after they died, the American government could spy on people on social media?

If that's what you're alluding to, that's a level of aptitude I don't find in many organizations, let alone the government. I pretty much dismiss any conspiracy theory that requires a government that isn't full of bumbling idiots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeMojo and Rickyvol77
#41
#41
n_huffhines said:
So you think people in the government in the 1960's had the foresight, vision, know-how, and follow-thru to help create the internet so that someday after they died, the American government could spy on people on social media?

If that's what you're alluding to, that's a level of aptitude I don't find in many organizations, let alone the government. I pretty much dismiss any conspiracy theory that requires a government that isn't full of bumbling idiots.
Click to expand...

Not at all the point. It's not really chicken and egg, but ARPANET showed the way. You can argue that the internet would have happened without it (and it probably would); but like nuclear power, the commercial aspect was an outgrowth of government and military leading the way. The other part is that government subsidization and arm twisting caused the internet to spread (at least more rapidly) into areas where population density wouldn't have supported the expense. Your comment that I in anyway suggested that the government was competent enough or forward thinking enough to see it as a scheme to expand into our homes and spy on us is absurd.

The real shame is that we turned the internet into a social media and entertainment platform rather than using it as a real information data highway like DARPA was doing. The amount of knowledge at our fingertips if we choose to make advantage of it is astounding.
 
#42
#42
AM64 said:
Not at all the point. It's not really chicken and egg, but ARPANET showed the way. You can argue that the internet would have happened without it (and it probably would); but like nuclear power, the commercial aspect was an outgrowth of government and military leading the way. The other part is that government subsidization and arm twisting caused the internet to spread (at least more rapidly) into areas where population density wouldn't have supported the expense. Your comment that I in anyway suggested that the government was competent enough or forward thinking enough to see it as a scheme to expand into our homes and spy on us is absurd.

The real shame is that we turned the internet into a social media and entertainment platform rather than using it as a real information data highway like DARPA was doing. The amount of knowledge at our fingertips if we choose to make advantage of it is astounding.
Click to expand...

I mean, people use the internet for both.

IDK what your point is. I said the government has nothing to do with Twitter's market power in reference to OP alluding to the government propping up Twitter. You seemed to be contradicting that and I was guessing something conspiratorial. Turns out, you are saying it has something to do with it because they laid the foundation for the internet? That's irrelevant to the point. Might as well say the government has something to do with Red Robin's market power because you have to drive on a road to get there.
 
Last edited:
#43
#43
utvolpj said:
Still the number who actually care about Twitter is very small. I don't think many understand how few active users there really are
Click to expand...
It does have an outsized influence in what's discussed in the broader media, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#44
#44
NEO said:
The posters idea that the tech is government created and operated as a data mining arm is intriguing though.
Click to expand...

In my experience, gov rarely has the foresight to create widely useful, truly novel things (the internet itself being an exception). They usually work to co-opt something that is already there. In this case, I doubt Twitter was set up by gov for the purpose of data mining but I would be surprised if there is not now a commercial relationship of some type where twitter gives the US gov data and receives some very significant commercial benefit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO and AM64
#45
#45
ClearwaterVol said:
You’re not looking for accuracy. And you somehow view this as a partisan issue. You’ve forgotten trump’s habit of catching and killing stories.

The problem with an unmoderated forum of free speech is that it becomes a cesspool of porn and misinformation. There has to be some happy medium.
Click to expand...
Unlike the Clintons, catching and killing stories isn't the same as "killing". Insert Foster and Rich here.
 
#46
#46
BreatheUT said:
I agree what you said except imo the last sentence is opposite. Twitter gave the appearance upon creation that it was an open platform for a different type of social media. Now that they have reeled people in they seem to have changed on the fly and aren't transparent. They just label some "misformation" or "threats". What does that even mean? Taliban leadership is ok but Trump isn't? This is the reason it's growing hated by many. A hated business can't succeed long term unless it's propped up by the government.
Click to expand...
Twitter was created to connect instantly as you said open platform. In the end it created instant news and the end of journalism. Like anything, something that was created one way found a way to be used outside the original idea. Twitter reported the Bin Laden raid but also censored information in the election in regards to swaying voters against Biden. So which is it, report the news as it happens or pick and choose to influence?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and BreatheUT
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top