I’ve said this for two maybe three years. They are gonna ban the donald at the exact point it’s the most strategic for the DNC. I keep saying this so people know I’m on record when it happens.
Cmon droppers you know better than to believe that.
That's a move of someone who is working from an ideological perspective.
These corporations only work from a perspective of profitability - not just that, but PREDICTABLE profitability - nonvolatile.
Like maybe they'd see an uptick in traffic if they did it, but that's volatile growth. They would prefer 1% year over year instead of 5% that might disappear in a few weeks.
Other way around. Corporate capitalism has co-opted woke ideology because its adherents are so easy to predict and will slavishly defend any organization that espouses their viewpoints. It's free publicity and a self-reinforcing consumer base rolled into one.
Imo the dnc dropped labor unions, in favor of tech companies. All these coincidences and ‘oopsies’ with the algorithms, seem to effect enemies to the left and right of the dnc. I hope I’m wrong, but idk
The Democratic Party has long since abandoned left-wing class politics, three decades ago with Bill Clinton and his "third way" politics, media consolidation, free-trade agreements, and financial deregulation. The Republicans have been all too happy to go along until relatively recently, when they realize they've been completely outclassed by a different breed of corporatism.
Regarding the algorithms, there aren't oopsies and they aren't intentional, either. Statistical learning is inherently self-reinforcing if your data set is largely homogenous.
Don’t disagree with first part. Alphabet needs to be considered the publisher they are, they have too much power and ability to meddle in elections. Tulsi gabbard being shut down from advertising, while she was trending is just one of the many. All I’m saying is that they don’t deserve special protections, as you may consider their politics to align with your own right now, but that won’t always necessarily be the truth.
I'm assuming you're using the general "you". And yes, you're rightm, but not because of a shift in the politics of the tech companies. I actually view the tech companies as somewhat apolitical. They are a gun. The tech will do as it's told, and as you noted, that tech may be used against you in the future.
As for "special protections", there are none right now. They are just normal property rights. Imagine I build a massive convention center that becomes the most popular place to host various political discussions. It's my property. I have every right to decide who enters and who can stay, just as I would with a store. Forcing a private business to accept people is more akin to nationalization or discrimination laws. What you're thinking of would not be the removal of special protections, but rather the imposition of regulation on these private entities, i.e. the application of special protections. Right now there are no political protected groups. This would be completely new territory that will open up Pandora's box.
Google built these data centers and servers on its own. The government taking action to force them to accept political viewpoints would be government intervention on private property. I'm not espousing a particular stance, just warning you that you (and most conservatives) are looking at this completely wrong. What you're advocating for would be the equivalent of a Civil Rights Act for political groups. Now imagine if the DSA or, God forbid, a domestic interest group for the CCP, uses this to force its way into private interests.
Yes, you consider them neutral bc it hasn’t effected you. Secular talk, chinuncensored, and Steven crowder all have evidence that says otherwise.
They are protected, they are treated as a neutral platform like the phone company when they are absolutely publishers, taking on the duties of editing and curating who sees what. This is a pretty bipartisan take, at this point, only the mayo left defends them for ideological purposes.
Also, I don't think his point was that he believes they are neutral, blind publishers, but that the alternative that conservatives seem to be suggesting, to force social media/hosting companies to allow anyone and anything onto their systems just shy of illegal content is a worse idea. In that way you can basically institutionalize and amplify foreign bad faith actors into our shared online discourse.
Right now the best those actors can do is secretive astroturfing (which companies can attempt to police) or lean on companies via investment and partial ownership. By forcing companies into neutrality you'd tie their hands of the ability to do anything, unless you want to create a massive bureaucracy of federal internet jannies or a 'great firewall' type situation.
It’s almost as though you skipped secular talk and Chinauncensored, neither of which are right wing. My point is, that anyone without a mainstream political opinion, is making the exact same complaint. Sorry not sorry, when an entity is this powerful they need to be treated like any other organization via anti trust.
Yes, you consider them neutral bc it hasn’t effected you.
Bruv, I'm in neither camp. The tech companies are neutral in the sense that they are just doing what their advertisers demand. The advertisers and associated corporations are certainly not neutral.
They are protected
Yes, they are protected by basic property rights.
when they are absolutely publishers
My take is that our current legal framework is not equipped to handle online social media. They are not publishers in the traditional legal sense. To attempt to apply the current legal publishing standards to these companies would be incredibly foolish and would just open up an entirely different set of abuses. The legal framework surrounding these issues needs to be fundamentally reformed.
The other user put it very well:
Also, I don't think his point was that he believes they are neutral, blind publishers, but that the alternative that conservatives seem to be suggesting, to force social media/hosting companies to allow anyone and anything onto their systems just shy of illegal content is a worse idea. In that way you can basically institutionalize and amplify foreign bad faith actors into our shared online discourse.
Think beyond petty politics for a moment and just consider the deluge of unintended consequences that would result in response to squaring social media platforms into the circle that is current publishing law.
I agree with most of what you said. All I’m saying is they shouldn’t be allowed to meddle in our elections, when most of their donors are from a certain political persuasion. Their needs to be accountability.
Dude, we are so far beyond meddling via social media. Our entire electoral system has been permeated by corporate money from all political persuasions. If your rational in regulating social media is to limit corporate influence on elections, then you will need to go so much deeper.
Oh, when I say they need oversight, I mean they should be broken up, like any other monopoly. I don’t really care if that upsets (((people))). And by “they” I mean alphabet, just bc they are a technology company, that shouldn’t give them a pass on being an absolute monopoly. New legislation would need to be drafted.
25 comments
6 Matues49 2019-10-24
Bruh when I read the title I thought Daddy tweeted this
3 Jeb4Pres2020 2019-10-24
Same. Holy fuck that was an exciting couple of seconds before I checked.
1 GARBAGE_MACHINE 2019-10-24
Lol same
3 pol__invictus__risen 2019-10-24
Please let Daddy shut down Reddit personally.
This is all I want for Christmas.
2 Kat_B0T 2019-10-24
I’ve said this for two maybe three years. They are gonna ban the donald at the exact point it’s the most strategic for the DNC. I keep saying this so people know I’m on record when it happens.
1 NMJ87 2019-10-24
Cmon droppers you know better than to believe that.
That's a move of someone who is working from an ideological perspective.
These corporations only work from a perspective of profitability - not just that, but PREDICTABLE profitability - nonvolatile.
Like maybe they'd see an uptick in traffic if they did it, but that's volatile growth. They would prefer 1% year over year instead of 5% that might disappear in a few weeks.
2 big_papa_stiffy 2019-10-24
lol dude
1 Kat_B0T 2019-10-24
There is an ideological bend to woke capitalism 😱
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-10-24
Other way around. Corporate capitalism has co-opted woke ideology because its adherents are so easy to predict and will slavishly defend any organization that espouses their viewpoints. It's free publicity and a self-reinforcing consumer base rolled into one.
1 Kat_B0T 2019-10-24
Imo the dnc dropped labor unions, in favor of tech companies. All these coincidences and ‘oopsies’ with the algorithms, seem to effect enemies to the left and right of the dnc. I hope I’m wrong, but idk
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-10-24
The Democratic Party has long since abandoned left-wing class politics, three decades ago with Bill Clinton and his "third way" politics, media consolidation, free-trade agreements, and financial deregulation. The Republicans have been all too happy to go along until relatively recently, when they realize they've been completely outclassed by a different breed of corporatism.
Regarding the algorithms, there aren't oopsies and they aren't intentional, either. Statistical learning is inherently self-reinforcing if your data set is largely homogenous.
1 Kat_B0T 2019-10-24
Don’t disagree with first part. Alphabet needs to be considered the publisher they are, they have too much power and ability to meddle in elections. Tulsi gabbard being shut down from advertising, while she was trending is just one of the many. All I’m saying is that they don’t deserve special protections, as you may consider their politics to align with your own right now, but that won’t always necessarily be the truth.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-10-24
I'm assuming you're using the general "you". And yes, you're rightm, but not because of a shift in the politics of the tech companies. I actually view the tech companies as somewhat apolitical. They are a gun. The tech will do as it's told, and as you noted, that tech may be used against you in the future.
As for "special protections", there are none right now. They are just normal property rights. Imagine I build a massive convention center that becomes the most popular place to host various political discussions. It's my property. I have every right to decide who enters and who can stay, just as I would with a store. Forcing a private business to accept people is more akin to nationalization or discrimination laws. What you're thinking of would not be the removal of special protections, but rather the imposition of regulation on these private entities, i.e. the application of special protections. Right now there are no political protected groups. This would be completely new territory that will open up Pandora's box.
Google built these data centers and servers on its own. The government taking action to force them to accept political viewpoints would be government intervention on private property. I'm not espousing a particular stance, just warning you that you (and most conservatives) are looking at this completely wrong. What you're advocating for would be the equivalent of a Civil Rights Act for political groups. Now imagine if the DSA or, God forbid, a domestic interest group for the CCP, uses this to force its way into private interests.
1 LongPostBot 2019-10-24
look im gunna have 2 ask u 2 keep ur giant dumps in the toilet not in my replys 😷😷😷
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-10-24
I will take a giant dump on your face, LongPostBot.
1 Kat_B0T 2019-10-24
Yes, you consider them neutral bc it hasn’t effected you. Secular talk, chinuncensored, and Steven crowder all have evidence that says otherwise. They are protected, they are treated as a neutral platform like the phone company when they are absolutely publishers, taking on the duties of editing and curating who sees what. This is a pretty bipartisan take, at this point, only the mayo left defends them for ideological purposes.
1 duckraul2 2019-10-24
God, man, have some self respect.
Also, I don't think his point was that he believes they are neutral, blind publishers, but that the alternative that conservatives seem to be suggesting, to force social media/hosting companies to allow anyone and anything onto their systems just shy of illegal content is a worse idea. In that way you can basically institutionalize and amplify foreign bad faith actors into our shared online discourse.
Right now the best those actors can do is secretive astroturfing (which companies can attempt to police) or lean on companies via investment and partial ownership. By forcing companies into neutrality you'd tie their hands of the ability to do anything, unless you want to create a massive bureaucracy of federal internet jannies or a 'great firewall' type situation.
1 Kat_B0T 2019-10-24
It’s almost as though you skipped secular talk and Chinauncensored, neither of which are right wing. My point is, that anyone without a mainstream political opinion, is making the exact same complaint. Sorry not sorry, when an entity is this powerful they need to be treated like any other organization via anti trust.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-10-24
Bruv, I'm in neither camp. The tech companies are neutral in the sense that they are just doing what their advertisers demand. The advertisers and associated corporations are certainly not neutral.
Yes, they are protected by basic property rights.
My take is that our current legal framework is not equipped to handle online social media. They are not publishers in the traditional legal sense. To attempt to apply the current legal publishing standards to these companies would be incredibly foolish and would just open up an entirely different set of abuses. The legal framework surrounding these issues needs to be fundamentally reformed.
The other user put it very well:
Think beyond petty politics for a moment and just consider the deluge of unintended consequences that would result in response to squaring social media platforms into the circle that is current publishing law.
1 Kat_B0T 2019-10-24
I agree with most of what you said. All I’m saying is they shouldn’t be allowed to meddle in our elections, when most of their donors are from a certain political persuasion. Their needs to be accountability.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-10-24
Dude, we are so far beyond meddling via social media. Our entire electoral system has been permeated by corporate money from all political persuasions. If your rational in regulating social media is to limit corporate influence on elections, then you will need to go so much deeper.
1 Kat_B0T 2019-10-24
Oh, when I say they need oversight, I mean they should be broken up, like any other monopoly. I don’t really care if that upsets (((people))). And by “they” I mean alphabet, just bc they are a technology company, that shouldn’t give them a pass on being an absolute monopoly. New legislation would need to be drafted.
1 SnapshillBot 2019-10-24
Have you posted bussy yet?
Snapshots:
I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers
1 OfficialBeetroot 2019-10-24
High quality title
1 The_Reason_Pete_Wins 2019-10-24
Lololol 🤣🤣🤣