D
Deleted member 111968
Guest
And when they see the opportunity to try and kill off competition who doesn't support their partisan narrative, they are more than happy to do it.
What do you think of the BigTech Crackdown
- Thread starter DigNap15
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2013
- Messages
- 2,792
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. This is precisely the kind of behaviour that you get with that freedom you were talking about. It's almost like you don't want that freedom unless it's convenient for you - and it's an outrage when someone else uses the same freedom to be inconvenient. That is, unfortunately, the nature of freedom.
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2010
- Messages
- 296
Parler wasn't a competitor to Amazon, it was a customer.
It isn't really a competitor to Facebook, either. The audiences are completely different, although there is a small bit of overlap.
It is a competitor to Twitter but it's a very small one. Twitter's an international mega-site, Parler appeals to right wing Americans only, many of whom never left Twitter anyway. Parler is a tiny pebble in Twitter's shoe, nothing more. Jack isn't losing any sleep, I'm sure.
Z
Zelda
Guest
The problem with the concept of freedom is it is such an abstract thought. Unfortunately, no one can genuinely agree on freedom's premiss, as everyone's perspective and understanding can be uniquely different. Yet freedom is such an essential concept that though we may disagree on the level and quality humanity is entitled to, we all agree on the importance of having what sometimes seems like the unattainable, a universal construct defining freedom in a complete form, beyond just the definition of the word. At first thought, freedom of speech seems as though it should be such a simple concept. Yet nothing has proven more controversial as of late.
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, so can absolute freedom and what restrictions we use to curb that absolution. Suffice to say; there are no easy answers to be had here.
My opinion on the matter reflects this.
On the one hand, I do not believe violent speech and hate speech should be included and entitled in our understanding of freedom of speech. The social media platform, formally known as, Parler, crossed into that realm far too quickly and often for them to blissfully attempt to try to claim ignorance today. While their intentions may have been to provide an unlimited and nearly uncensored outlet for anyone to speak their mind, they became a hate site through lack of moderation and sheer volume. On the other hand, I do not believe disliked speech or uncomfortable speech should be swept away simply because someone else takes offense. To do so would leave no freedom of speech as everything can and probably does offend someone somewhere. For this reason, I can see the value behind perhaps their original intention. However, I may have disagreed with what many there would have had to say to a progress-minded individual such as myself; I still believe in everyone's freedom to speak freely.
That belief that everyone should have the freedom to speak freely also coincides with the idea that no one should be enslaved. No one should be forced to conduct work or service beyond mutually agreed-upon terms. I am thankful that for many, hate speech and violence are seen well beyond was is to be acceptable or mutually agreed-upon. On the other hand, The Internet (for the moment) is the most widely utilized and available outlet for human communication we currently have. Somewhere disliked and uncomfortable speech should be permitted if we are to be a society to claim to support freedom of speech. The question then becomes, where? I often wonder if perhaps the government should provide such an outlet to ensure freedom of expression.
If there is no freedom of speech without consequences, then arguably free speech is world-wide. We, of course, being rational, should all reasonably know that is not true. While it is true, nothing physically prevents me from saying, for example, "Kim John-un is a butt-wipe," while standing in the middle of Pyongyang (North Korea's capital). However, the so-called consequence for doing so is most likely, in most instances, death. For this reason, I have often disliked the argument that no speech is without consequences because to argue so is to argue indirectly; we all technically have free speech. That is not so.
But I digress—the problem with the concept of freedom, including freedom of speech, is such an abstract thought—one with no defined absolutes, beyond the textbook definition of the word, yet often in sore need of some.
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, so can absolute freedom and what restrictions we use to curb that absolution. Suffice to say; there are no easy answers to be had here.
My opinion on the matter reflects this.
On the one hand, I do not believe violent speech and hate speech should be included and entitled in our understanding of freedom of speech. The social media platform, formally known as, Parler, crossed into that realm far too quickly and often for them to blissfully attempt to try to claim ignorance today. While their intentions may have been to provide an unlimited and nearly uncensored outlet for anyone to speak their mind, they became a hate site through lack of moderation and sheer volume. On the other hand, I do not believe disliked speech or uncomfortable speech should be swept away simply because someone else takes offense. To do so would leave no freedom of speech as everything can and probably does offend someone somewhere. For this reason, I can see the value behind perhaps their original intention. However, I may have disagreed with what many there would have had to say to a progress-minded individual such as myself; I still believe in everyone's freedom to speak freely.
That belief that everyone should have the freedom to speak freely also coincides with the idea that no one should be enslaved. No one should be forced to conduct work or service beyond mutually agreed-upon terms. I am thankful that for many, hate speech and violence are seen well beyond was is to be acceptable or mutually agreed-upon. On the other hand, The Internet (for the moment) is the most widely utilized and available outlet for human communication we currently have. Somewhere disliked and uncomfortable speech should be permitted if we are to be a society to claim to support freedom of speech. The question then becomes, where? I often wonder if perhaps the government should provide such an outlet to ensure freedom of expression.
If there is no freedom of speech without consequences, then arguably free speech is world-wide. We, of course, being rational, should all reasonably know that is not true. While it is true, nothing physically prevents me from saying, for example, "Kim John-un is a butt-wipe," while standing in the middle of Pyongyang (North Korea's capital). However, the so-called consequence for doing so is most likely, in most instances, death. For this reason, I have often disliked the argument that no speech is without consequences because to argue so is to argue indirectly; we all technically have free speech. That is not so.
But I digress—the problem with the concept of freedom, including freedom of speech, is such an abstract thought—one with no defined absolutes, beyond the textbook definition of the word, yet often in sore need of some.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2011
- Messages
- 1,606
Fascinating leaked internal memo from Facebook here.
It’s an analysis of the explosive growth of the Stop the Steal and Patriot Party movements on Facebook following the election and leading up to the insurrection.
It talks about how they flagged indicators of harm, hate and violence. They talk about how there were ‘super inviters’ who helped grow the groups so fast. How they scanned for white supremecist content, slurs, q terms and misinformation, and monitored for unusual organisational activity such as admin only groups and other network growth activity.
www.buzzfeednews.com
It’s an analysis of the explosive growth of the Stop the Steal and Patriot Party movements on Facebook following the election and leading up to the insurrection.
It talks about how they flagged indicators of harm, hate and violence. They talk about how there were ‘super inviters’ who helped grow the groups so fast. How they scanned for white supremecist content, slurs, q terms and misinformation, and monitored for unusual organisational activity such as admin only groups and other network growth activity.
Facebook Stopped Employees From Reading An Internal Report About Its Role In The Insurrection. You Can Read It Here.
After BuzzFeed News reported on an internal document that examined the social network’s failings leading up to the Capitol riot, many of Facebook's employees were prevented from accessing it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2015
- Messages
- 309
There is one word in that post, R0binHood, that points to a problem that has been with us for ages. Media folks can slant things and do so no matter what tool they are using to communicate their particular view of a matter.
The sinking of the Maine is a classic example. When that fella went to print the word was already out-and-about that it was an accident.
Just because it is now the Net, ain't no different.
Now, that word - - - what is the meaning of "insurrection"?
Constant repeating of that one word by all sorts of media bosses was total hogwash and that should be 'hogwash' with an upper-case 'H' but I am trying to be polite.
The sinking of the Maine is a classic example. When that fella went to print the word was already out-and-about that it was an accident.
Just because it is now the Net, ain't no different.
Now, that word - - - what is the meaning of "insurrection"?
Constant repeating of that one word by all sorts of media bosses was total hogwash and that should be 'hogwash' with an upper-case 'H' but I am trying to be polite.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2013
- Messages
- 2,792
A terrible Star Trek film?
Z
Zelda
Guest
Star Trek Insurrection was OK. It was nowhere near (not even remotely) the best Star Trek film, but I never agreed with it being as bad as some folks made it out to be. I am more disappointed that they changed the timeline. Star Trek Nemesis I liked. I felt it was the first movie that allowed digging deep into the Romulans, a race of beings I feel was never fully explored and given enough screentime. The Bajoran people and Betazoid were my other favorite races from the Trek universe.?
- Thread starter
- #109
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2019
- Messages
- 1,115
Haha
My forum is full of people posting about the "insurrection"
My forum is full of people posting about the "insurrection"