What do you think of the BigTech Crackdown

[LeadCrow]

My facebook groups are have issues now... worried about getting taken down. Years of work and much of my income down the drain if that happens.

They were never "your" groups the entire time. You were promoting facebook and its use all along, and it can decide to shutter the groups anytime. They can choose to give you a reason or call you abject organ trafficking criminals and you'll have and be given no recourse but yelling at clouds. Who's going to risk trusting people assigned such serious accusations (even misleadingly or as a deliberate smear against the chosen adversaries of the day) ?

Building a community on someone else's platform always introduces an uncontrollable liability that goes beyond TOS and contracts ("the cloud" is just someone else's computer). If you want sovereignty, host local on your own infrastructure, and wether you do or dont , try keeping your communities clean and politics-free - its clear motivated adversaries dont and wont care about the fact users are responsible for their own posts and submissions, bearing all responsibility for any use and disclaiming. For board managers building communities on reputation, mere false accusations can cause longlasting harm courts will not hold them protected or indemnified against.

 

[zappaDPJ]

If you want sovereignty, host local on your own infrastructure

Or at the very least make sure you have a current, local backup of your data. If you don't or can't have that, you don't have control.

 

[NicoMoon]

Are you harbouring and promoting hate speech and violence on your site and ignoring all requests to delete and moderate it?

No?

I wouldn't worry about it then.

Who gets to define what is "hate speech" or "violence"? FB defines those as anything it doesn't want posted on it's censored site. Disagreeing with someone can be "violence" by their vague usage of the word. Free speech is an inherent human right. No one's opinion trumps our right to speak.

 

[Nev_Dull]

Free speech doesn't exist. Yes, in western democracies, we have the freedom to voice our opinions on pretty much anything, but everything we say has consequences. Some people may be offended by what you say. Some may even feel threatened. In some cases, the things you say may cost you your job or get you put on a watch list.

Time, public opinion, and politics change what is acceptable to say and what isn't. This is what's happening now on social media sites.

 

[NicoMoon]

Free speech doesn't exist. Yes, in western democracies, we have the freedom to voice our opinions on pretty much anything, but everything we say has consequences. Some people may be offended by what you say. Some may even feel threatened. In some cases, the things you say may cost you your job or get you put on a watch list.

Time, public opinion, and politics change what is acceptable to say and what isn't. This is what's happening now on social media sites.

What's happening on social media is called mind control. Perceptions are formed by available information. Whoever controls information controls perception. Our perceptions are being modified unless we understand and acknowledge that we've all been mind controlled since birth. Like the perception that freedom of speech is a favor or an opinion. The right to SPEAK is a fundamental, inherent human right. We can defend it or give it away, but it will always be our right as humans to speak freely. We might be punished for it, or forced in some way to comply, but it's still our inherent human right, the same as breathing is. When someone stops that by force, it's called murder. What is it when our right to speak freely is stopped?

 

[Nev_Dull]

What's happening on social media is called mind control.

I agree with you there. Social media sites have done a great job of creating group think and herd mentality by showing users more content from others who share their ideas. The takeaway from this shows us how our education system is failing to provide students with the tools they need to understand how sites like these work, how to analyze information and think critically. Even now, the vast majority of facebook users don't understand how that company makes money.

As for speech, the ability to speak is an inherent human trait. The right to speak out isn't, unfortunately, an inherent right. There are far too many places in the world where there is no such ability. Indeed, even here in the so called "first world", there are a lot of people who have no real voice, because of economics, race, religion, education, etc.

My problem is with the term "free speech" which has been twisted and bastardized by so many to justify saying anything they want with impunity. It really should be referred to as the "right to speak".

 

[NicoMoon]

I agree with you there. Social media sites have done a great job of creating group think and herd mentality by showing users more content from others who share their ideas. The takeaway from this shows us how our education system is failing to provide students with the tools they need to understand how sites like these work, how to analyze information and think critically. Even now, the vast majority of facebook users don't understand how that company makes money.

As for speech, the ability to speak is an inherent human trait. The right to speak out isn't, unfortunately, an inherent right. There are far too many places in the world where there is no such ability. Indeed, even here in the so called "first world", there are a lot of people who have no real voice, because of economics, race, religion, education, etc.

My problem is with the term "free speech" which has been twisted and bastardized by so many to justify saying anything they want with impunity. It really should be referred to as the "right to speak".

Seems like you bought the propaganda on how Freedom of Speech isn't really a right. That's all very new "thinking", but nothing to do with the intentions or beliefs of the Founders who were very explicit in their definition of that Fundamental Right. How would a person speak without speaking "out"? We can speak freely as long as no one else hears us? Is that the idea?

 

[Oh!]

We should keep in mind that Freedom of Expression is a constitutional right in the US. Though, to varying degrees, similar rights exist in most (if not all) Western democracies. But even in the US, where this particular right possibly holds greater prominence, the right is not absolute. The reason, if you take a moment to think about it, is pretty obvious: in the US (and most other countries) we hold a multitude of rights, but there are no neat boundaries; such rights often conflict with each other. So, if you take an extremist position with Freedom of Expression (or any other particular right), it will curtail another or the very same right of other people. If rights are absolute, perhaps others will champion another pet right in the extreme which you feels infringes your rights.

Courts necessarily become involved to work out how to balance each right and where to draw the best compromise in particular situations. This is how related case law develops.

So, none of have an absolute right to anything. Because as soon as we do, the rights of others are seriously undermined. Reasonable people understand this and accept that none of us can have everything we wish because this antithetical to freedom for all.

 

[NicoMoon]

We should keep in mind that Freedom of Expression is a constitutional right in the US. Though, to varying degrees, similar rights exist in most (if not all) Western democracies. But even in the US, where this particular right possibly holds greater prominence, the right is not absolute. The reason, if you take a moment to think about it, is pretty obvious: in the US (and most other countries) we hold a multitude of rights, but there are no neat boundaries; such rights often conflict with each other. So, if you take an extremist position with Freedom of Expression (or any other particular right), it will curtail another or the very same right of other people. If rights are absolute, perhaps others will champion another pet right in the extreme which you feels infringes your rights.

Courts necessarily become involved to work out how to balance each right and where to draw the best compromise in particular situations. This is how related case law develops.

So, none of have an absolute right to anything. Because as soon as we do, the rights of others are seriously undermined. Reasonable people understand this and accept that none of us can have everything we wish because this antithetical to freedom for all.

An inalienable right, said Richard Foltin of the Freedom Forum Institute, is “a right that can't be restrained or repealed by human laws.” Sometimes called natural rights, inalienable rights “flow from our nature as free people.” ... Instead, it is a government's job to protect inalienable rights.

 

[NicoMoon]

An inalienable right, said Richard Foltin of the Freedom Forum Institute, is “a right that can't be restrained or repealed by human laws.” Sometimes called natural rights, inalienable rights “flow from our nature as free people.” ... Instead, it is a government's job to protect inalienable rights. Which was the belief of the Founders when crafting the Constitution and a just and equitable society. There are very few legal restraints on speech because it is an INALIENABLE RIGHT, the same as breathing is.

 

[NicoMoon]

We should keep in mind that Freedom of Expression is a constitutional right in the US. Though, to varying degrees, similar rights exist in most (if not all) Western democracies. But even in the US, where this particular right possibly holds greater prominence, the right is not absolute. The reason, if you take a moment to think about it, is pretty obvious: in the US (and most other countries) we hold a multitude of rights, but there are no neat boundaries; such rights often conflict with each other. So, if you take an extremist position with Freedom of Expression (or any other particular right), it will curtail another or the very same right of other people. If rights are absolute, perhaps others will champion another pet right in the extreme which you feels infringes your rights.

Courts necessarily become involved to work out how to balance each right and where to draw the best compromise in particular situations. This is how related case law develops.

So, none of have an absolute right to anything. Because as soon as we do, the rights of others are seriously undermined. Reasonable people understand this and accept that none of us can have everything we wish because this antithetical to freedom for all.

Do we have an absolute right to life? Or murder is relative? If I restrict your ability to breathe, is that relative in a court of law? If I lock you in a room and starve you, is that an infringement of your absolute rights, or you don't have any absolute rights? This is all mental masturbation to cause arrogant people to rethink the Constitution, which affords ALL of us equal access to justice. Justice doesn't mean that everyone wins and gets what they want, that's what a lot of people don't seem to understand. If we lived by the Principles of this nation, we wouldn't be spending our lives in courts. Court decisions are not inalienable. Only our fundamental human rights that provide us the means to exist and flourish are inalienable. That includes the ability to speak and be heard.

 

[mcmastodon]

They were never "your" groups the entire time. You were promoting facebook and its use all along, and it can decide to shutter the groups anytime. They can choose to give you a reason or call you abject organ trafficking criminals and you'll have and be given no recourse but yelling at clouds. Who's going to risk trusting people assigned such serious accusations (even misleadingly or as a deliberate smear against the chosen adversaries of the day) ?

Building a community on someone else's platform always introduces an uncontrollable liability that goes beyond TOS and contracts ("the cloud" is just someone else's computer). If you want sovereignty, host local on your own infrastructure, and wether you do or dont , try keeping your communities clean and politics-free - its clear motivated adversaries dont and wont care about the fact users are responsible for their own posts and submissions, bearing all responsibility for any use and disclaiming. For board managers building communities on reputation, mere false accusations can cause longlasting harm courts will not hold them protected or indemnified against.

I get that I didn't own the real estate, but if we don't own the ISPs, then we also don't have "control".

 

[zappaDPJ]

I get that I didn't own the real estate, but if we don't own the ISPs, then we also don't have "control".

As I said earlier, as long as you are able to backup your data locally you have total control. If your service provider pulls the plug in any way shape or form, you switch provider. In the unlikely event you can't access the installed files for your chosen platform you migrate your database to another software.

If you are building a community you should never rely on a platform that won't allow you to backup your data and that includes free image hosting because you can guarantee that hosting service will hold your data to ransom when the time is right for them to profit from it.

 

[mcmastodon]

As I said earlier, as long as you are able to backup your data locally you have total control. If your service provider pulls the plug in any way shape or form, you switch provider. In the unlikely event you can't access the installed files for your chosen platform you migrate your database to another software.

If you are building a community you should never rely on a platform that won't allow you to backup your data and that includes free image hosting because you can guarantee that hosting service will hold your data to ransom when the time is right for them to profit from it.

I think Invision does that. i really don't know much about that. They don't answer emails well, but they do allow for physical hosting, so I assume that means I can.

 

[zappaDPJ]

I think Invision does that. i really don't know much about that. They don't answer emails well, but they do allow for physical hosting, so I assume that means I can.

The majority of forum software, paid or those that are free to use will allow you to take a local backup. A few products, including Invision Community give you the option to host with them or a provider of your choice.

They don't answer emails well

I'll poke Matt M for you, I'm sure he'll appreciate me putting him in the spotlight (He's the Director of Development at Invision Community).

 

[mcmastodon]

The majority of forum software, paid or those that are free to use will allow you to take a local backup. A few products, including Invision Community give you the option to host with them or a provider of your choice.



I'll poke Matt M for you, I'm sure he'll appreciate me putting him in the spotlight (He's the Director of Development at Invision Community).

He was actually the one the finally got some hosting stuff set straight for me.

 

[Nev_Dull]

Seems like you bought the propaganda on how Freedom of Speech isn't really a right. That's all very new "thinking", but nothing to do with the intentions or beliefs of the Founders who were very explicit in their definition of that Fundamental Right. How would a person speak without speaking "out"? We can speak freely as long as no one else hears us? Is that the idea?

That's not new thinking at all. In the big world outside of the US, there are many places where people do not enjoy the freedom to voice their opinions without fear of prosecution or persecution.

As stated, my issue is with the term "free speech" which many interpret to mean "free from consequence". Like free will or free love, it doesn't exist. I think Oh! explained it very well; your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

 

[davert]

Seems like you bought the propaganda on how Freedom of Speech isn't really a right. That's all very new "thinking", but nothing to do with the intentions or beliefs of the Founders who were very explicit in their definition of that Fundamental Right. How would a person speak without speaking "out"? We can speak freely as long as no one else hears us? Is that the idea?

It's not new thinking at all. Even in the very early days of this nation, its founders put severe limits on speech. The “free speech” issue was a direct broadside on England, which:
1) Required newspapers to get pre-censorship
2) Allowed slander cases where truth was not a defense.

Nowhere did the leaders of this nation provide evidence they wanted completely free speech with no consequences, which should be obvious by the Alien & Sedition Acts, as well as very early slander and libel laws — truth was a defense (still is) but knowingly lying about someone is usually actionable (though not if you have lots of cash, á la Elon Musk, or slander someone famous, even if your slander makes them famous—but those are both later court interpretations).

You have freedom of speech in the United States — you do not have freedom of speech without consequences. That has always been the case, since 1789.

You can go back and find clear evidence for what I’m saying, if you choose to.

 

[NicoMoon]

"you do not have freedom of speech without consequences. " Agreed. All actions have consequences.

 

[SAFAD]

Since this discussion turned into free speech thing I'll just leave this one here: