Techno-fascism

#126
#126
n_huffhines said:
Cause you want it to be a certain way. If you're being fair, there is nothing eyebrow-raising about someone saying "Russian meddling needs to be stopped.........to prevent another Trump situation."

Publish the full video. It's that simple. None of it is meaningful without context. What did she say that would be impossible to reconcile with context?
Click to expand...
Aj posted it a few posts up. Why don't you go look for it yourself you lazy bastage.
 
#127
#127
Orange_Vol1321 said:
Aj posted it a few posts up. Why don't you go look for it yourself you lazy bastage.
Click to expand...

That's an edited video. That's not the full, uncut, unspliced, unedited video of Jen Gennai. I watched that nonsense already. We've got doctored video and an anonymous insider. Great journalism, guys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85
#128
#128
n_huffhines said:
That's an edited video. That's not the full, uncut, unspliced, unedited video of Jen Gennai. I watched that nonsense already. We've got doctored video and an anonymous insider. Great journalism, guys.
Click to expand...
Here's you one I posted in another thread.

One sentence says, "I don't think identifying far-right material is beyond our capabilities.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed and ajvol01
#129
#129
Orange_Vol1321 said:
Start here. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Click to expand...

What provision of this act gives you the right to say whatever you want with no recourse by FB? The intent of this act seems to be to limit the liability of entities like FB from what users of their site do.
 
#131
#131
Orange_Vol1321 said:
Here's you one I posted in another thread.

One sentence says, "I don't think identifying far-right material is beyond our capabilities.

Click to expand...


This is not from the Jen Gennai hack job. Sam and I are specifically talking about the context of her comments.

If that email is authentic, it has the context right there...Hopkins is talking about the sake of "user trust". It's stupid that they would call Shapiro a nazi, but they're not saying "we want a social utopia" they are trying to pursue their (flawed) idea of user trust.

I am wary of Google. I think there are some major problems with their company. I think there are some major concerns with where tech is heading. But that doesn't mean every bad thing that people claim about them is true. It doesn't mean Jen Gennai was talking about rigging the next election. It doesn't mean PV isn't lying. It doesn't mean we should turn to the corrupt, lying-ass government to save us from tech.
 
#134
#134
Wafflestomper said:
What provision of this act gives you the right to say whatever you want with no recourse by FB? The intent of this act seems to be to limit the liability of entities like FB from what users of their site do.
Click to expand...
They get protection if they are operating as a platform.

The have no protection if they operate as a publisher.

When they censor conservative content, but liberal content is uncensored they are essentially acting as a publisher and are subject to lose the protection provided to platforms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321
#135
#135
ajvol01 said:
They get protection if they are operating as a platform.

The have no protection if they operate as a publisher.

When they censor conservative content, but liberal content is uncensored they are essentially acting as a publisher and are subject to lose the protection provided to platforms.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that have the effect of further censorship rather than less? I'm not following the argument. How does this result in the right to say what you want to without the potential for censorship on a social media site?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#136
#136
Wafflestomper said:
Wouldn't that have the effect of further censorship rather than less? I'm not following the argument. How does this result in the right to say what you want to without the potential for censorship on a social media site?
Click to expand...
If they are a publisher, they can then be sued for libel because they would be responsible for the content on their site.

These companies can’t have it both ways.

For example, there is a big difference between a company censoring conservatives due to “hate speech” (aka speech the company doesn’t like) and censoring content that contains threats to the safety of individuals or groups.

Just because a liberal company owns a platform doesn’t give them the right to limit the content of the platform to match their own ideology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321
#137
#137
ajvol01 said:
If they are a publisher, they can then be sued for libel because they would be responsible for the content on their site.

These companies can’t have it both ways.

For example, there is a big difference between a company censoring conservatives due to “hate speech” (aka speech the company doesn’t like) and censoring content that contains threats to the safety of individuals or groups.

Just because a liberal company owns a platform doesn’t give them the right to limit the content of the platform to match their own ideology.
Click to expand...

The first part of your response is just saying that they may be subject to a re-categorization (with potential adverse implications) based on political activity. The second part says they don't have the right to engage in political activity with their own property. I'm saying the second point doesn't follow from the first. Why does a company not have the right to control what others do with their property?
 
#138
#138
Wafflestomper said:
The first part of your response is just saying that they may be subject to a re-categorization (with potential adverse implications) based on political activity. The second part says they don't have the right to engage in political activity with their own property. I'm saying the second point doesn't follow from the first. Why does a company not have the right to control what others do with their property?
Click to expand...

A company/site/service can’t be both a platform and a publisher.

It’s an either/or distinction.

The content on a platform doesn’t belong to the company.

The content in a publication does belong to the company.

This is my understanding anyway - I’m sure I could be missing some of the finer details.
 
#139
#139
ajvol01 said:
A company/site/service can’t be both a platform and a publisher.

It’s an either/or distinction.

The content on a platform doesn’t belong to the company.

The content in a publication does belong to the company.

This is my understanding anyway - I’m sure I could be missing some of the finer details.
Click to expand...

But the company presumably still owns the means for displaying it on their site. It certainly seems counterintuitive that a user of FB has some ownership or say in the means for displaying their speech simply because they were initially able to post it on the site.

There are rules for using this website. If Freak decides to censor my post would you say he is violating some protected free speech? Do I have the right to post whatever I want to here?
 
#146
#146
I don't know, Huff. This looks to me like Coordinated censorship among tech platforms. They are of one mind and they seem to work together often. I'm not saying government intervention is the way to fix it, but one way to make sure it never gets fixed is to fail to acknowledge that it is a problem. To me, this seems like a monopoly. Not in the traditional sense, but it seems like all these tech companies have the same bent for censorship of political ideas they don't like, and they work together to make sure the censorship comes to fruition.

 
#147
#147
SamRebel35 said:
I don't know, Huff. This looks to me like Coordinated censorship among tech platforms. They are of one mind and they seem to work together often. I'm not saying government intervention is the way to fix it, but one way to make sure it never gets fixed is to fail to acknowledge that it is a problem. To me, this seems like a monopoly. Not in the traditional sense, but it seems like all these tech companies have the same bent for censorship of political ideas they don't like, and they work together to make sure the censorship comes to fruition.

Click to expand...


So they weren’t actually calling for violence? Reddit just quarantined them for no reason?

What’s a quarantine anyways?
 
#149
#149
RockyTop85 said:
So they weren’t actually calling for violence? Reddit just quarantined them for no reason?

What’s a quarantine anyways?
Click to expand...

I don't know if they were calling for violence. I have my doubts. But I guarantee if any prominent twitter Trumpers posted the following, they would get outright banned. Why hasn't Carlos been banned?

 
#150
#150
IE had 65% of market share 10 years ago, now just 3%. This is what happens when tech companies don't continue to offer the best solutions.

 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top