-
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
Splitting the left and the right into separate platforms is not a good idea IMO.
which is pretty much what the Facebook algorithms do anyway, showing you what you want to see etc
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
Splitting the left and the right into separate platforms is not a good idea IMO.
which is pretty much what the Facebook algorithms do anyway, showing you what you want to see etc
That makes them a big part of the problem
-
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
The big tech companies have a monopoly on the market and are actively trying to shut the door on any competitors. They shouldn't be allowed to do that, and they shouldn't have the power to be able to do it so effectively. It's a problem that is much wider than just Trump being banned from Twitter, it's something that has been a big concern for a long time, with calls for the monopoly to be broken up over the years,
And nothing done for years - this is an issue for Trump because he benefits hugely from platforms and wouldn't want them altered to his detriment, yet has at times accused them of colluding with the Democrats.
Interfering with them also goes against the free market ideals for success: they simply did it better than everyone and have a position of power. Now they have the ability to buy startups who threaten their model without even breaking sweat.
Hegemony is very hard to break, and only happens with a radical change in thinking e.g. Tesla. Remember MySpace?
While certain measures can be introduced e.g. Apple can run the App Store but not sell its own apps, how do you break up Facebook effectively without creating the tribes you're trying to avoid? Can you remove some of the targeted advertising and still have them remain viable?
This isn't necessarily a tech problem. A stick is just a stick until you stab someone with it.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
Trump got in a whack of political rhetoric over the years, and more recently about election results.
So did a lot of MP's in the UK. Many wanted the Brexit referendum result annulled and re-run. A lot spewed out fake news while others blamed Israel and "Zios". Politicians have been caught making racists & anti-Semitic tweets while other have advocated law-breaking during last summer's BLM unrest. One MP posted private addresses of her opponents and encouraged protesters to "make their feelings known"
None were banned from Twitter. But when Trump does essentially the same thing, uniquely, he gets banned. Why the double standards?
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@NTA said in US Politics:
Trump got in a whack of political rhetoric over the years, and more recently about election results.
So did a lot of MP's in the UK. Many wanted the Brexit referendum result annulled and re-run. A lot spewed out fake news while others blamed Israel and "Zios". Politicians have been caught making racists & anti-Semitic tweets while other have advocated law-breaking during last summer's BLM unrest. One MP posted private addresses of her opponents and encouraged protesters to "make their feelings known"
None were banned from Twitter. But when Trump does essentially the same thing, uniquely, he gets banned. Why the double standards?
Because he is the American President, and his supporters stormed the Capitol, and Twitter and FB are american companies? Hypocritical, and maybe unfair. But who says the world is fair
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
They just banned the President of the US, but can't ban the President of Iran for even worse posts? Come on.
Of course they can. They just choose not to - for whatever reason. Maybe they've got a sweet advertising niche in Iran.
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
Lets say your strange line in the sand
You're missing the point: I'm not saying there is a line. You and a few others are, using the leader of Iran (bizarrely) as your stalking horse for why Trump shouldn't be banned and how there should be the same treatment applied to everyone.
I'm saying Twitter don't have a line, and they'll take certain political issues differently depending on the factors around them.
If people want some semblance of fairness, I don't think Social Media is where you start looking, particularly given their growing ability to generate confirmation bias to users programmatically.
If you're worried about privacy, then I'd consider not being on the internet at all.
The point is that as things stand there is a reasonable argument to be made that Facebook and Twitter don't care about violence at all. They pretend to care about violence as a pretext for giving Trump a kicking.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
The big tech companies have a monopoly on the market and are actively trying to shut the door on any competitors. They shouldn't be allowed to do that, and they shouldn't have the power to be able to do it so effectively. It's a problem that is much wider than just Trump being banned from Twitter, it's something that has been a big concern for a long time, with calls for the monopoly to be broken up over the years,
And nothing done for years - this is an issue for Trump because he benefits hugely from platforms and wouldn't want them altered to his detriment, yet has at times accused them of colluding with the Democrats.
Interfering with them also goes against the free market ideals for success: they simply did it better than everyone and have a position of power. Now they have the ability to buy startups who threaten their model without even breaking sweat.
Hegemony is very hard to break, and only happens with a radical change in thinking e.g. Tesla. Remember MySpace?
While certain measures can be introduced e.g. Apple can run the App Store but not sell its own apps, how do you break up Facebook effectively without creating the tribes you're trying to avoid? Can you remove some of the targeted advertising and still have them remain viable?
This isn't necessarily a tech problem. A stick is just a stick until you stab someone with it.
Buying up the competitors is one thing, a handful of big companies working together to block competitors from being successful is quite another.
They banned Trump from Twitter, saw subscriptions to Parler go up so banned the Parler app from their app stores and then removed their site from AWS. That's Google, Apple and Amazon working together to ensure they keep their monopoly while not allowing content they don't like.
I don't have an easy answer to how to solve that problem, but to deny it's even wrong (not that you are denying that) is really sticking your head in the sand.
-
@No-Quarter is it more of a cartel than monopoly? the apple and google still compete...so not a monopoly
its also possible that two companies just don't want Trump on their platforms
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@TeWaio said in US Politics:
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
I haven't chipped in too much on this but one point, is it so hard to believe Twitter and Facebook have just decided they don't like trump? do they have to be completely neutral? lots of companies take stands on political or social issues, I know my company (American) does all the time
they may have just decided if people don't like it they can stop using our service and we'll survive
The problem with this is when an alternative platform like Parler is also effectively banned, by denial of website hosting, app availability, payment services etc.
It's no good saying "if you don't like it, leave" and "they're a private company" if the alternatives are now getting cancelled.
and so Twitter and Facebook aren't allowed to take political and social stands like other companies because everyone just decided it was easier to use their shit than make an alternative at any point over the last 10-15 years?
I dont really use Twitter and so havent really considered it a right in any form
I don't use Twitter or Facebook or any of the alternatives either. I've said many times that I don't understand why people don't just walk away. But I have to admit that that argument is harder to sustain when it's pretty clear that lawmakers are using what is said on these platforms as a weathervane for making policy.
We all know they are largely echo chambers but if you have an MP, Congressperson or Senator holding it up as if it is representative of public opinion as a whole then using it as justification for acting in a particular way, well that's an issue. And the problem with censoring users who have a particular perspective is that it allows politicians and mainstream news organisations to claim there is complete accord on anything contentious. Well there will be, won't there, if you ban dissent.
The logical counterbalance to this is to ensure there is a plurality of opinion available on competing platforms. But they never survive, as we've recently seen. If the big tech platforms don't just absorb them they conspire to starve them of access to the support services they need to survive. That's an abuse of monopoly power.
-
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
@NTA said in US Politics:
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
The big tech companies have a monopoly on the market and are actively trying to shut the door on any competitors. They shouldn't be allowed to do that, and they shouldn't have the power to be able to do it so effectively. It's a problem that is much wider than just Trump being banned from Twitter, it's something that has been a big concern for a long time, with calls for the monopoly to be broken up over the years,
And nothing done for years - this is an issue for Trump because he benefits hugely from platforms and wouldn't want them altered to his detriment, yet has at times accused them of colluding with the Democrats.
Interfering with them also goes against the free market ideals for success: they simply did it better than everyone and have a position of power. Now they have the ability to buy startups who threaten their model without even breaking sweat.
Hegemony is very hard to break, and only happens with a radical change in thinking e.g. Tesla. Remember MySpace?
While certain measures can be introduced e.g. Apple can run the App Store but not sell its own apps, how do you break up Facebook effectively without creating the tribes you're trying to avoid? Can you remove some of the targeted advertising and still have them remain viable?
This isn't necessarily a tech problem. A stick is just a stick until you stab someone with it.
Buying up the competitors is one thing, a handful of big companies working together to block competitors from being successful is quite another.
They banned Trump from Twitter, saw subscriptions to Parler go up so banned the Parler app from their app stores and then removed their site from AWS. That's Google, Apple and Amazon working together to ensure they keep their monopoly while not allowing content they don't like.
I don't have an easy answer to how to solve that problem, but to deny it's even wrong (not that you are denying that) is really sticking your head in the sand.
Why would they try so hard to block Trump now? He's been spouting lies for years. All these companies have dealt with both sides in the past so I don't believe this is in any way politically motivated. As always, its all about the bottom line and they all clearly feel Trump is bad for business
-
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
They banned Trump from Twitter, saw subscriptions to Parler go up so banned the Parler app from their app stores and then removed their site from AWS. That's Google, Apple and Amazon working together to ensure they keep their monopoly while not allowing content they don't like.
Well it is either collusion by them or individual and coincidental agreement that Parler presents a reputational risk through association.
Google and Apple have done this before when apps were serving malicious content, with the aim of protecting their users, and by extension themselves (makes you wonder how they got through the vetting process in the first place).
The issue here is mainly around the choice to view the content of Parler and make up your own mind - the danger is that people will be radicalised and put in touch with other radicals. The FBI lists right win extremism as the largest terrorist threat in the USA, after all.
AWS justified their actions using the Terms of Service that Parler signed up for:
In an email obtained by BuzzFeed News, an AWS Trust and Safety team told Parler Chief Policy Officer Amy Peikoff that the calls for violence propagating across the social network violated its terms of service. Amazon said it was unconvinced that the service’s plan to use volunteers to moderate calls for violence and hate speech would be effective. “Recently, we’ve seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms," the email reads. "It’s clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service.”
I actually feel for the Parler guys on that last point, because the sudden influx of users spouting shit would have been difficult for anyone to moderate given the surge in growth.
Of course, consistency (or lack of) is the key here - going back to Iran for a second: market share of social media for Twitter is under 3%. In Australia is is 13% and the US 17% by comparison. Facebook has Iran 11%, Australia 61%, USA 57% - similar spread of market share in that Iran has SFA but the others are well into it. (Interestingly, Pinterest is listed as 44% in Iran! Go figure...)
So let the Ayatollah go nuts. He's not getting the kind of coverage / trouble that 88M followers gets you.
The rules seem to change depending where / what you are. Could say it's unfair or just smart business.
On balance, you couldn't say Parler was going to be much more than a fringe player in terms of threat to established Social Media platforms, so what is the threat? I'm using the premise that "these violent Trump supporters are just a fringe group of loonies" doesn't fit with "Parler was deliberately hampered because it threatened the big boys".
It didn't.
-
@NTA said
"Of course, consistency (or lack of) is the key here - going back to Iran for a second: market share of social media for Twitter is under 3%. In Australia is is 13% and the US 17% by comparison. Facebook has Iran 11%, Australia 61%, USA 57% - similar spread of market share in that Iran has SFA but the others are well into it. (Interestingly, Pinterest is listed as 44% in Iran! Go figure...)
So let the Ayatollah go nuts. He's not getting the kind of coverage / trouble that 88M followers gets you."
And for Malaysia? Twitter coverage there is 12.9% according to Statista, pretty much identical to what you quote for Australia. And their Prime Minister tweeted that “Muslims had a right to be angry and to kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past”. That was eventually removed but his account is still operational.
As you say, consistency is the key. They are under no obligation to be even-handed and objective, but at least when challenged have they could have the decency to admit that Biden's politics aligns more closely with what they want to do and what their workforce expects. Then when the WaPo or the NYT of Huffpost talks about Twitter they can refer to it as "Left-wing platform Twitter". I'd have more respect for them if they declared their biases.
-
WTF
Could be a Trump supporter or more likely someone against him doing this, but seriously!
-
@taniwharugby it might look a bit like him but I doubt he could play golf with those small flippers
-
Getting away from the tech monopoly arguments for a moment (which I thought had another thread (?))
Trump since the election has shown the very personal qualities that many of us have railed against for years. The whole argument of excusing his ways because some of his policies found favour with your leanings was always flawed as it was a matter of time before his narcissism created a bad situation. Luckily it wasn't war, but people have been warning others for a long time that his instability and tantrums were likely to cause problems.
The GOP now have to find a way out of the mess they have helped create. The US is even more divided and the disenfranchised have enede up on the losing side which is likely to result in ever simmering tension.
And all for what? More money in the pockets of those that already have plenty? Easier paths to make money by those that have plenty?
Crazier still is that it was all underpinned by support from those with little and still have little.
A disastrous experiment. -
@Crucial said in US Politics:
And all for what? More money in the pockets of those that already have plenty? Easier paths to make money by those that have plenty?
I must say that the Swamp wasn't drained in quite the way I thought - they cut costs by NOT filling positions and then funnelling money into their own interests. Hardly an efficient administration.
Jeez there are a LOT of appointments in Executive Branch tho. Maybe some good could come of it.
-
@Siam sorry I don't get your meaning. I think the organizations have the right to block who they like, I don't consider that censure in the sense he has other means to communicate.
I personally believe social media companies should be better regulated but to me that is a different issue. -
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@nostrildamus said in US Politics:
Wow. Which button did I push? Merely meant to point out there is a duty of care (and a question of scale and impact) regards a world leader accused of using Twitter (or whatever) to stage a coup and a bullied teenager (or their bullies).
I believe the social media giants should be regulated and that they blur journalism and duty and so forth when they feel like it. But currently, they are private companies and IMO can ban who they like. And yes, there are huge gaps in the laws protecting citizens from them, but I could say giant media companies also still seem to shirk responsibility (the phone tapping scandals were disgraceful).
The question of privacy is different (I hope) to question of access.Probably read more shrill than I intended.
The private company line works if they are not publishers. Publishers have different liability under US law, and IMO they have crossed the line with recent actions.
I’m also sick and tired of Google and Facebook, and a lesser degree Twitter, buying their competitors or working in collusion with other service providers to make competition impossible.
They are pulling up the ladders behind them and controlling the 21st century’s version of electricity. It’s deeply concerning for our democracy, our right to privacy and just having choice as a consumer.
Right, ok, we probably are very much in agreement here. I have friends at Facebook and Google and I can't stand the former and I am a little wary of the latter (though I have to rely on it and to a lesser extent Facebook-related companies/products). Twitter, I know less of their influence or business model. I would add Amazon to that list of dangerous companies. Apple possibly as well.
But the issue of who they can ban and suspend, I think, is a different matter.
Then again, if Trump is threatening national security/the Constitution, shouldn't there be legislative or judicial or executive people to rein him in? -
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
And all for what? More money in the pockets of those that already have plenty? Easier paths to make money by those that have plenty?
I must say that the Swamp wasn't drained in quite the way I thought - they cut costs by NOT filling positions and then funnelling money into their own interests. Hardly an efficient administration.
Jeez there are a LOT of appointments in Executive Branch tho. Maybe some good could come of it.
I'd add pardoning your children before they are even charged with something would scream Deep State! to me.
Swamps. When they built the University of Central Florida campus they drained the swamp and moved the alligators out. Very quickly, the alligators moved back in, swamp or no swamp, and depending on the student or department you visit, you may encounter one.
Also Orlando (and Florida in general) themeparks, a boy was called at a Walt Disney resort. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article150486247.html
So rather ironic Trump planned to go to Florida. I understand local lawyers are trying to keep him out so where would he go ? New York doesn't seem that friendly to him.
US Politics