Short term stock, and that term ended ten years ago. Initial demand, then the recession of 08... but as people started to have money again the flaw was identified; clean-up. Manufacturers were riding their success and didn't bother with a patch.
Alex Jones and Social Media Censorship
- Thread starter Saint Cy of JFC
- Start date
Short term stock, and that term ended ten years ago. Initial demand, then the recession of 08... but as people started to have money again the flaw was identified; clean-up. Manufacturers were riding their success and didn't bother with a patch.
i have no problem with social media companies excluding people like Jones from their platforms. They, post Christchurch are facing a raft of new laws that make them responsible for the content people post on their sites and I believe some have criminal consequences for directors. I've got no problem with this. Censorship through exclusion has been going on forever and will continue.
Journalism as a profession is dying, further as it contracts I think it has become less relevant and diverse, it consists of middle class types with University degrees in Media or Communication, who are fabulously ignorant and easily duped. They are careerists scumbags who move between media organisations and political parties (one and the same thing) or end up as PR boffins or spin doctors for corporations. Most of them are not a real journalists areshole.
Not to say their aren't decent journalists doing decent work, but they are fewer today than ever. As the pie gets smaller, the hacks who are willing to churn out politicians press releases as facts without checking them, who either never had the integrity to check or sold out their integrity for a pay check will take over. Real journalism costs money, which is increasingly harder to find. Unless some mining company is prepared to pay a fortune for favorable coverage, that becomes the future, paid advertising as comment and coverage.
Journalism as a profession is dying, further as it contracts I think it has become less relevant and diverse, it consists of middle class types with University degrees in Media or Communication, who are fabulously ignorant and easily duped. They are careerists scumbags who move between media organisations and political parties (one and the same thing) or end up as PR boffins or spin doctors for corporations. Most of them are not a real journalists areshole.
Not to say their aren't decent journalists doing decent work, but they are fewer today than ever. As the pie gets smaller, the hacks who are willing to churn out politicians press releases as facts without checking them, who either never had the integrity to check or sold out their integrity for a pay check will take over. Real journalism costs money, which is increasingly harder to find. Unless some mining company is prepared to pay a fortune for favorable coverage, that becomes the future, paid advertising as comment and coverage.
Is it more slippery for the owner(insert 'free market' for libertarians) to decide, or the government? Are we actually advocating for social justice?
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Answer my question first
i don't think the amazon analogy is completely correct. Say i'm youtube and i sell advertising on my site to lets say Smith and Wesson and i charge them extra to advertise on some right wing gun loving nut jobs channel because i know that his consumers want that advertising and advertisers want to have their product in front of their market. When these right wing nut jobs incite others to violence I don't think I can really walk away with my hands up and say not my table when I profit from it.
Its the wrong question. Amazon does not sell content, it sells products. Youtube, facebook, et al sell content. And content in most parts of the world has in some way always been subject to some form of editorial limits and legal oversight.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Trust me, YouTube, Twitter, etc is a product and it's being sold.
yeah but their product is content, you know the **** that is on it. Amazon sells stuff, actual stuff, bought for a dollar sold for two. Social media is still media and is bought like any other media product, either via subscription or through advertising space, the significant difference between social and MSM is the absence of paid staff and editorial control.
Sure. Skin color and sexuality aren't a choice. This discrimination is always wrong.
Religion and political affiliation are a choice, but are constitutionally protected. Not wholly socially protected. Where you shouldn't discriminate because someone is Christian, maybe you should apply pressure when someone decides theocricide is their daddy in the sky given right. (Exodus 22:18)
In context of Reddit quarantining /r/the_donald/, I would agree that your analogy is more similar than my Amazon.
But it feels like Archie's coming at it from a different topographical level, a few floors above. In a binary world, he's a great point. Where do we draw the line? Who's to say where that line is? The consequences for crossing it? Is our silence from afar a fight we're not subjected to fighting?
I'm just a guy on the internet. What the hell do I know?
I thought you were a gorilla?
gandalfe
Well-Known Member
Negative. I am a meat popsicle.
Red
Well-Known Member
Might get a Trump tweetstorm over this....
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/27/tech/twitter-trump-rules/index.html
New York (CNN Business)Twitter plans to place a disclaimer on future tweets from world leaders that break its rules but which Twitter decides are in the "public interest," the company said in a blog post Thursday.
This policy change could face its most prominent test in President Trump. Trump has repeatedly tested Twitter's community standards with his regular tirades on the platform and some of the president's tweets have run afoul of Twitter's rules.
Twitter (TWTR) has in the past allowed tweets from Trump and other world leaders to remain online, even though they broke the company's rules, a Twitter spokesperson confirmed to CNN Business, because it believes the tweets are in the public interest.
But putting a disclaimer on one of Trump's tweets would almost certainly bring a firestorm of criticism down on Twitter's head. Republicans in Washington, including Trump, often claim without real evidence that technology companies are biased against conservatives. Such a disclaimer on a Trump tweet, even if he had clearly violated Twitter's rules, would provoke a new cycle of such complaints at a time when Washington is increasingly investigating Big Tech over concerns over antitrust and privacy.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/27/tech/twitter-trump-rules/index.html
New York (CNN Business)Twitter plans to place a disclaimer on future tweets from world leaders that break its rules but which Twitter decides are in the "public interest," the company said in a blog post Thursday.
This policy change could face its most prominent test in President Trump. Trump has repeatedly tested Twitter's community standards with his regular tirades on the platform and some of the president's tweets have run afoul of Twitter's rules.
Twitter (TWTR) has in the past allowed tweets from Trump and other world leaders to remain online, even though they broke the company's rules, a Twitter spokesperson confirmed to CNN Business, because it believes the tweets are in the public interest.
But putting a disclaimer on one of Trump's tweets would almost certainly bring a firestorm of criticism down on Twitter's head. Republicans in Washington, including Trump, often claim without real evidence that technology companies are biased against conservatives. Such a disclaimer on a Trump tweet, even if he had clearly violated Twitter's rules, would provoke a new cycle of such complaints at a time when Washington is increasingly investigating Big Tech over concerns over antitrust and privacy.
So, you are assuming guilt and bad intentions based on no evidence.
I listened to the first 6 minutes. What do you think this is evidence of? The Twitter executive specifically, explicitly said Shapiro, et. al., are free to express their opinions on the meaning of biological sex, as long as they don't use that as a tool to harass people by repeatedly singling them out with this opinion. Why do you think that is wrong? Do you support the right to harass people on on social media? If not, what are you arguing for?
If there is some actual evidence of some other position after the first 6 minutes, what's the time marker?
De-platforming is not censorship.
Enter 'YouTube is a money-making enterprise, not a public platform'.
While I don't agree with lumping Shapiro in there, if Peterson doesn't want to be thought of as pro-Nazi, perhaps he should be less chummy with white supremacists. In any case, again, we are talking about one employee.
Censorship punishes people for talking. Not subsidizing talk is different from punishing talk.
Several of those are illegal.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
1) I said who knows.
2) Project Veritas
3) So in other words, I'm trying to form a conclusion with what information is available.
It's very one-sided. I don't support harrassment. I don't support enforcement of one-sided, politically motivated, perceived harrassment either.
See pic below.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...exposing-googles-anti-conservative-censorship
If it's politically motivated, to me, it is.
YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter, all have a huge influence. Yes, they make money too. They're public media platforms too, or no? (Honest question.)
I don't know much about Peterson or him chumming with white supremacists. I did a simple Google search and saw this though (along with articles about him being called a Nazi lol)
https://yellowhammernews.com/fact-check-is-jordan-peterson-alt-right/
Lemme tell ya somethin mean Gene, you two are working yourselves into a shoot, brothers. Just like Joe'n'co did over bias. Is there a bias? sure. Will we disagree on how much and why? It seems as such. Keep down your tunnel... Where's the outrage from Joe over donnie being above the rules? That the leader of the free world isn't censored when using modern technology(which is going to be naturally biased towards young people who are increasingly liberal) to threaten genocide, but you're still bitching about an instance of a conservative being censored for repeatedly breaking the rules of a social media site?
No one really wants to go by the rules here. They just want upvotes and sweet sweet karma.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
This is pretty funny, actually. I can present as much evidence, post articles of why it's a concern, and since you're liberal it just automatically translates to you as blah blah blah. Then you bring up Trump, where there's a whole thread where I bitch about him getting the hell off of Twitter because the leader of the free world, or people like OC need to stop tweeting their political ******** and lies. (That said, I don't think they should really be banned.)
And just so you know, Crowder didn't break the rules. If you'd actually read the articles, you'd might learn something.
But for simpletons, it's just blah blah blah.
Gtfoh.