Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

As an aside, newly sworn-in Democratic congressman, Rashida Tlaib, made some waves when she said “we’re gonna go in there and impeach the motherfucker” in reference to Donny boy.

Highly unprofessional, but highly amusing too.

[SalmonGod]

IMO, both sides are right here in different ways.

The crux of it is it's genuinely scary how much power modern infotech giants have over what information the majority of the public is exposed to, and that gives them historically unprecedented ability to bend the world in whatever direction they want. 

None of the analogies brought up so far do justice to the scope of the issue, and pointing out that current legal definitions don't have a problem with it isn't any comfort.

We're already seeing these platforms leveraged to devastating effect against the political landscape, mainly due to the reckless disregard their developers had for any responsibility to the power their algorithms wielded in deciding what content users were exposed to for the purpose of keeping them around so there would be more opportunity to throw ads up on their screens.  Stuff like the blacklisting of Alex Jones is a public facing maneuver to make it appear that they now understand that they wield this power and are going to try to exercise more responsibility.

But... uhh... if they didn't understand before the type of power they had in their hands, they do now after they've been raked over the coals for it.  And from here they're going to begin developing sophistication in intentionally leveraging it in a way that doesn't set off any alarms in the public consciousness.  If we don't make some noise about it now while it's topical, it will go the way of mass surveillance.  It will become a ubiquitous feature of society that has deep effects on the nature of our culture and freedoms and makes everyone kinda uncomfortable, but has been so normalized for so long that most don't bother to think about it very much, except as an easy source of black humor.  By the time we've reached that point, and it won't take long, it will already have become 100x more difficult to do anything about it.

It is a sticky problem.  Because it's true that we don't want to establish a legal obligation for an organization to act as any individual's loudspeaker just because they have the technical capability.  We want to defend notions of free association and so on.  But all good ethical foundations can be broken and abused by context, which is why absolutism is bad.  I'm not saying I have any answers.  I just think that we do need to acknowledge the current state of information on the internet is in a dangerous place, and it's a new sort of situation that likely requires a completely innovative approach.

Maybe there is no answer, and our society is progressing in a way that requires us to just grow the fuck up in a general sense as a civilization and a species.  Everything is so interconnected, complex, and powerful now, in ways that couldn't have been imagined 200 years ago.  An individual's ability to abuse their freedoms to harm others continues to accelerate dramatically, but there's no point in restricting freedom to protect a life without freedom.  If we want to continue pushing the scope and capabilities of our civilization to greater heights, we need to be sincerely dedicated to becoming better human beings in the process, or it simply will not work out in the end.

[redwallzyl]

As an aside, newly sworn-in Democratic congressman, Rashida Tlaib, made some waves when she said “we’re gonna go in there and impeach the motherfucker” in reference to Donny boy.

Highly unprofessional, but highly amusing too.

I see no issue with it. She has every reason to despise him personally and politically. It's a plus for me.

[Lord Shonus]

IMO, both sides are right here in different ways.

The crux of it is it's genuinely scary how much power modern infotech giants have over what information the majority of the public is exposed to, and that gives them historically unprecedented ability to bend the world in whatever direction they want. 

None of the analogies brought up so far do justice to the scope of the issue, and pointing out that current legal definitions don't have a problem with it isn't any comfort.

We're already seeing these platforms leveraged to devastating effect against the political landscape, mainly due to the reckless disregard their developers had for any responsibility to the power their algorithms wielded in deciding what content users were exposed to for the purpose of keeping them around so there would be more opportunity to throw ads up on their screens.  Stuff like the blacklisting of Alex Jones is a public facing maneuver to make it appear that they now understand that they wield this power and are going to try to exercise more responsibility.

But... uhh... if they didn't understand before the type of power they had in their hands, they do now after they've been raked over the coals for it.  And from here they're going to begin developing sophistication in intentionally leveraging it in a way that doesn't set off any alarms in the public consciousness.  If we don't make some noise about it now while it's topical, it will go the way of mass surveillance.  It will become a ubiquitous feature of society that has deep effects on the nature of our culture and freedoms and makes everyone kinda uncomfortable, but has been so normalized for so long that most don't bother to think about it very much, except as an easy source of black humor.  By the time we've reached that point, and it won't take long, it will already have become 100x more difficult to do anything about it.

It is a sticky problem.  Because it's true that we don't want to establish a legal obligation for an organization to act as any individual's loudspeaker just because they have the technical capability.  We want to defend notions of free association and so on.  But all good ethical foundations can be broken and abused by context, which is why absolutism is bad.  I'm not saying I have any answers.  I just think that we do need to acknowledge the current state of information on the internet is in a dangerous place, and it's a new sort of situation that likely requires a completely innovative approach.

Maybe there is no answer, and our society is progressing in a way that requires us to just grow the fuck up in a general sense as a civilization and a species.  Everything is so interconnected, complex, and powerful now, in ways that couldn't have been imagined 200 years ago.  An individual's ability to abuse their freedoms to harm others continues to accelerate dramatically, but there's no point in restricting freedom to protect a life without freedom.  If we want to continue pushing the scope and capabilities of our civilization to greater heights, we need to be sincerely dedicated to becoming better human beings in the process, or it simply will not work out in the end.

Honestly, I don't think either Facebook or Google is nearly as powerful as the East India Tea Company was in 1775. The key difference is that modern companies can get that kind of power on their own, while their 18th century equivalents needed government support.

[bloop_bleep]

As I said a couple times before, the big tech companies are quite definitely capable of nearly erasing whatever they deem as problematic content from existence.

Nowadays, if you don’t exist on the Internet, you hardly exist at all. This should be clear to everyone here; you simply cannot plaster posters throughout every town and city in the United States. Not being able to use the Internet to spread your cause is not just “inconvenient,” it very, very severely limits what you can do with a certain amount of resources.

Nowadays, additionally, if you don’t exist on the major websites, you hardly exist on the Internet. The big tech companies indisputably have an oligopoly over the vast majority of the media distributed on the Internet. They have also shown a willingness to cooperate (conspire?) with each other to take down any content which they have a problem with, as in the case of Alex Jones. This is extremely dangerous. Normally, yes, a firm would have the right to reject content on their website if they deemed it inappropriate. But when a very small group of firms have control over something as essential as the freedom to spread information of the whole world, then it calls for tighter measures. This is why utility companies exist. Before it became widespread, electricity was distributed by normal firms. At that point they’d be able to pick and choose which clients could and couldn’t buy electricity. But once it became clear that electricity was now large and important enough to be essential for people to function as normal members of society, it became heavily regulated. If distributors of electricity are not allowed to pick and choose clients based on arbitrary criteria, why should distributors of information, an even more fundamental human right, be allowed to?

[Loud Whispers]

Honestly, I don't think either Facebook or Google is nearly as powerful as the East India Tea Company was in 1775. The key difference is that modern companies can get that kind of power on their own, while their 18th century equivalents needed government support.

It is no consolation to anyone concerned with the power of Facebook or Google that either does not possess their own army or territory :P

There is the matter that the companies in question, Google and Facebook, have taken explicit political stances on many issues. A homophobic content creator or person shouldn't have any expectations of being allowed to host such content on sites that belong to companies that are openly pro LGBT for example. They don't pretend to be some kind of neutral party that allows all viewpoints as if they're equal, they've publicly picked their side already. Expecting them to host views contrary to their own rather violates their freedom not to support or voice viewpoints they disagree with.
Same way Toady bans anyone who uses bigoted speech on here really, they're just bigger so people who complain about them get more attention than people who complain about the moderation here do.

I know in the USA partisan media is accepted as norm and on the internet it has also become normal for everyone to live in their own politically homogeneous islands, but it does not have to be so. The UK is on the arse end of a nightmare when it comes to protecting liberties (speaking from the moral pit here) but one accomplishment the UK is yet to erase, is the principle that free elections without impartial media are pointless. Once you abandon this principle, who gives a fuck what you or I think? It won't matter, what will matter is what political party President is allying with what corporate head at Facebook or Google, and vice versa. At that point voting means nothing meaningful; you can vote out the Liberal Democrats get Nick Clegg in Facebook. Can you not see what will happen when you endorse such empowerment of the tech giants? You abandon the notion that democracies should be pluralistic and open to disagreement, they become a zero-sum game all about power and eliminating the enemy. Those who have power are represented, those who have none can speak to nothing.

As I said a couple times before, the big tech companies are quite definitely capable of nearly erasing whatever they deem as problematic content from existence.
Nowadays, if you don’t exist on the Internet, you hardly exist at all. This should be clear to everyone here; you simply cannot plaster posters throughout every town and city in the United States. Not being able to use the Internet to spread your cause is not just “inconvenient,” it very, very severely limits what you can do with a certain amount of resources.

Especially in urban environments, it guarantees that you will be unable to form any political network large enough to disrupt anything or enact any change outside of established political networks, the very ones integrated with the big tech companies. That's to say nothing of the real life consequences of having your life ruined through the internet, losing your job, having your information used against you, released to the public e.t.c.

Nowadays, additionally, if you don’t exist on the major websites, you hardly exist on the Internet. The big tech companies indisputably have an oligopoly over the vast majority of the media distributed on the Internet. They have also shown a willingness to cooperate (conspire?) with each other to take down any content which they have a problem with, as in the case of Alex Jones. This is extremely dangerous. Normally, yes, a firm would have the right to reject content on their website if they deemed it inappropriate. But when a very small group of firms have control over something as essential as the freedom to spread information of the whole world, then it calls for tighter measures. This is why utility companies exist. Before it became widespread, electricity was distributed by normal firms. At that point they’d be able to pick and choose which clients could and couldn’t buy electricity. But once it became clear that electricity was now large and important enough to be essential for people to function as normal members of society, it became heavily regulated. If distributors of electricity are not allowed to pick and choose clients based on arbitrary criteria, why should distributors of information, an even more fundamental human right, be allowed to?

Agreed. I do not accept this from any other medium and I see no reason to bring exception here - private ownership is not a license to engage in the behaviour forbidden to states

[Gentlefish]

Okay, I should clarify my point here I guess.

I am against the wanton censorship of free speech.

However, obscenity laws are still a thing. And that's fine. So long they're reasonable. Take whatever stance you want, the fact that there's both large porn and non-porn media sites is a great thing and they should probably stay that way.

Alex Jones absolutely should have been muzzled. He was well past the point of protected free speech. Thus, media removed illegal content from their sites.

Not Logan Paul is still a large Youtuber. He was tasteless (putting it mildly) and he was punished for this. You could call it a slap on the wrist but there were consequences for his actions. However, he's still up (minus, you know, the whole suicide forest video). That's... Not really great, I think he's terrible, but he's "allowed" to keep posting because he really hasn't incited violence or spewed bigoted comments at the world.

[bloop_bleep]

Again, the point isn’t about Alex Jones, it’s that this demonstrated that tech companies are willing and able to do this, and so this could happen to anyone next. Alex Jones was most likely just a relatively safe experiment to test the waters.

EDIT: And no, Alex Jones’s content was not illegal. It was undesirable for the media companies, sure, but they weren’t obligated to remove it.

[Karnewarrior]

I'm pretty sure this is the longest Ameripol has stayed on topic. Guess the Oompaloompa in chief pissing his pants at the sight of a blue house isn't as distracting as it used to be.

[Baffler]

Alex Jones absolutely should have been muzzled. He was well past the point of protected free speech. Thus, media removed illegal content from their sites.

No he wasn't. Maybe in the UK or continental Europe where 'free speech' is a bit of a canard he would be, but in the USA hate speech doesn't really exist as a concept, and these firms follow US law. You can say more or less whatever you want outside of a few very narrowly defined zones (which Jones is well-practiced in skirting around) and be perfectly fine.

[Culise]

I'm pretty sure this is the longest Ameripol has stayed on topic. Guess the Oompaloompa in chief pissing his pants at the sight of a blue house isn't as distracting as it used to be.

Aye.  Threats of multi-year shutdowns or a declaration of a state of national emergency are just difficult to take seriously.  He could do the former just by continuing to do nothing, but the latter would end up tangled in so much litigation.

[smjjames]

Actually trying to make a shutdown last a year or more would be political suicide anyway and trying to use a national emergency for frivolous reasons is an abuse of power that is just asking to be impeached over.

[Rolan7]

Free Speech for outright racists is alive and well, [Link to Infowars which I just confirmed is up] and it's hilarious how they suddenly beg for government regulation in this case.  Not for the planet, not for human life, rarely for roads, but to subsidize their speech?  Of course!

I'm pretty sure this is the longest Ameripol has stayed on topic. Guess the Oompaloompa in chief pissing his pants at the sight of a blue house isn't as distracting as it used to be.

Aye.  Threats of multi-year shutdowns or a declaration of a state of national emergency are just difficult to take seriously.  He could do the former just by continuing to do nothing, but the latter would end up tangled in so much litigation.

Yeah, I guess it's easier to discuss ivory-tower free speech than to address the absurd standoff currently wasting millions of dollars and blocking government services.

I want Pelosi to plant a section of picket fence on the border just so Trump can "win" and stop fucking our nation over one nonsense pledge out of the many he chose to ignore.
Or better yet, for the Republicans to finally throw him under the bus, as they tried so hard to do in the primary.  (but her emails)

[wierd]

Okay, I should clarify my point here I guess.

I am against the wanton censorship of free speech.

However, obscenity laws are still a thing. And that's fine. So long they're reasonable. Take whatever stance you want, the fact that there's both large porn and non-porn media sites is a great thing and they should probably stay that way.

Alex Jones absolutely should have been muzzled. He was well past the point of protected free speech. Thus, media removed illegal content from their sites.

Not Logan Paul is still a large Youtuber. He was tasteless (putting it mildly) and he was punished for this. You could call it a slap on the wrist but there were consequences for his actions. However, he's still up (minus, you know, the whole suicide forest video). That's... Not really great, I think he's terrible, but he's "allowed" to keep posting because he really hasn't incited violence or spewed bigoted comments at the world.

[got delayed by resident cray-cray and rounds, so probably ninja'd]

There's a problem with "reasonable."


Say, Middle Eastern standards--  That news anchor in the bright red suit top that shows just a teensy bit of cleavage?  PROFANE! RACY! WHORISH!

Or, going the other way--  That indigenous tribe in South America. Bare breasts as far as the eye can see. God forbid that some poor impressionable child see that in the western world! (remember the hysteria about Janet Jackson's nipple slip faux-pas? I sure as hell do.)

"Reasonable" is by its very definition, "What either *I* consider reasonable" (which does not speak for other people, or their tastes), OR, "What the current culture considers reasonable", which does not respect individual people's choices.  It is a terrible, and very inconsistent measurement device for considering things that ultimately determine people's rights. (Remember, it was "Reasonable" a century and a half ago to keep slaves. Mull on that.)

[smjjames]

except that he’s asking for 5 million (or was it billion? Some ridiculous number), so, it’d be what, a diamond encrusted wooden picket fence?

Also, portions of the Democratic base would flay the Democrats alive if they allowed Trump to ‘win’. So, it’s a real no-go.