"The videos, despite including calls to be peaceful, sounded more like a pep talk for a mob that had already breached the Capitol."
Isaac this is the kind of statement that shows that, while you try to be objective, your are actually being subjective. You have characterized the tone and audience based on your own bias while disavowing the actual words.
This is why we have to be very wary of censorship. If it is deemed to be illegal then the platform should have the right to pull it subject to any legal proceedings the author and platform may take subsequently. If the platform wants to place disclaimers as to the source, accuracy, offensiveness etc. then have at it.
It is disingenuous to say the Facebook has the right as a private organization to censor whomever they want. Facebook is, for better or worse, the town square.
Nobody if forced to read Trump's banal bleatings or to do his bumptious bidding. And if you think the idiots that trashed the capitol are the worst groups using Facebook you aren't paying attention.
Unfortunately, this story and the thousands (actually much more: google facebook bans trump and you get About About 318,000,000 results 0.91 seconds) like it are keeping him in the public eye and garnering more support among the people who DO think it is government overreach.
If it is legal you should be allowed to post it. Full Stop.
That seems extreme: You're saying that a platform owner cannot decide what to allow on their own platform?
Facebook is not the only avenue for communicating. For example, Trump could and did create a website/blog. He could use e-mails. Even if Facebook was the only avenue, you should not be able to force others to amplify your opinions. In other words, expression is a right, but reach is not.
Of course he can create his own website and I believe he has, though I've never seen it. But as what happened with Parler having a social media presence is still at the whim of some oligopolies (Facebook, Twitter, Apple, AWS, Azure, Google etc). If Facebook "amplifies" opinions the you can see how that is much different from building a website/blog.
When a few oligopolists control all the social media avenues then we must ensure that they cannot arbitrarily limit free speech. What if they find BLM offensive? or Judaism? or Bernie Sanders?
I wish that these companies never got to the size they are and hold the power they do but the anti-trust enforcers were either incompetent, corrupt or apathetic. Had they done their job there may have actually been some competitive alternatives. But they didn't and here we are with a handful of people as gatekeepers and their minions in the mainstream media howling for even more restrictions on "misinformation" which includes both what is not factual and whatever goes against their particular narrative.
They CANNOT be allowed to decide who has reach beyond what is prohibited by law.
I don't think terms like "minions" and "howling" lead to great discussions.
I agree with your point about anti-trust. It would be better if there were competing networks. It's interesting how economics, politics and expression intersect here.
However, I think you're conflating the different types of oligopolies. Facebook and Twitter are platforms, but you can create your own platform (i.e., Facebook and Twitter can't stop you). Apple, AWS, Azure, and Google are infrastructure providers and their power is greater. They can stop you from creating alternatives. Your example of Parler is a good one. If we were to curb the power of an entity, it probably should be them.
Jake, I hear you but if you are here at Tangle because you are interested in both sides of a story then I think we have to be very careful that we are not suppressing free speech just because it is objectionable. I would argue objectionable speech is the only type of speech that needs protecting.
When the press parrots bullshit delivered on a platter to them by CIA and other "government sources" then don't bother to check the facts then I believe minions is an appropriate label. That the press keeps repeating this same mistake time after time is hard to fathom if the "journalists" were doing their job and were not minions.
If you follow the hue and cry about such outlets as substack, private chat rooms and even CNN has suggesting that cable companies take down news stations like Fox News for their conservative bias then I think howling is apt.
As to the different types of oligopolies, the main point is that they are oligopolies. They all refer to themselves as platforms and Google especially has both cloud services and social media in YouTube as well as Googleplay. Microsoft has Azure and LinkedIn and Skype. Facebook has WhatsApp and Instagram. Amazon has AWS and is the dominant online retailer. Apple's app store is the only way to get an app on an iPhone or iPad.
It is disingenuous to say you can start your own platform. Many - YouTube, WhatsApp, Instagram, have tried but were allow to be subsumed by Google or Facebook and it is very expensive especially when you can't use any of the cloud platform services because they could face political pressure to close you down. Apple, Amazon and Google acted in concert to eliminate Parler and Twitter, Google and Facebook acted in concert to de-platform Trump.
Besides, that misses the point. If you have the largest social media organizations in the world deciding, based either on their own biases or based on political pressure from whichever government is currently in power, which points of view are allowed and which are not then you are getting very close to the endgame. We've already seen them block the New York Post from posting articles that were true and accurate and they blocked articles that speculated on COVID being a lab accident yet allowed untrue stories about Russian bounties, Russian collusion, peeing prostitutes etc.
I was never on Parler and have no direct knowledge of their content though if you can believe what has been written, there was more right-wing nutbar content on Facebook concerning the capitol incident. If they were breaking laws they should be prosecuted but not persecuted.
"The videos, despite including calls to be peaceful, sounded more like a pep talk for a mob that had already breached the Capitol."
Isaac this is the kind of statement that shows that, while you try to be objective, your are actually being subjective. You have characterized the tone and audience based on your own bias while disavowing the actual words.
This is why we have to be very wary of censorship. If it is deemed to be illegal then the platform should have the right to pull it subject to any legal proceedings the author and platform may take subsequently. If the platform wants to place disclaimers as to the source, accuracy, offensiveness etc. then have at it.
It is disingenuous to say the Facebook has the right as a private organization to censor whomever they want. Facebook is, for better or worse, the town square.
Nobody if forced to read Trump's banal bleatings or to do his bumptious bidding. And if you think the idiots that trashed the capitol are the worst groups using Facebook you aren't paying attention.
Unfortunately, this story and the thousands (actually much more: google facebook bans trump and you get About About 318,000,000 results 0.91 seconds) like it are keeping him in the public eye and garnering more support among the people who DO think it is government overreach.
If it is legal you should be allowed to post it. Full Stop.
That seems extreme: You're saying that a platform owner cannot decide what to allow on their own platform?
Facebook is not the only avenue for communicating. For example, Trump could and did create a website/blog. He could use e-mails. Even if Facebook was the only avenue, you should not be able to force others to amplify your opinions. In other words, expression is a right, but reach is not.
Of course he can create his own website and I believe he has, though I've never seen it. But as what happened with Parler having a social media presence is still at the whim of some oligopolies (Facebook, Twitter, Apple, AWS, Azure, Google etc). If Facebook "amplifies" opinions the you can see how that is much different from building a website/blog.
When a few oligopolists control all the social media avenues then we must ensure that they cannot arbitrarily limit free speech. What if they find BLM offensive? or Judaism? or Bernie Sanders?
I wish that these companies never got to the size they are and hold the power they do but the anti-trust enforcers were either incompetent, corrupt or apathetic. Had they done their job there may have actually been some competitive alternatives. But they didn't and here we are with a handful of people as gatekeepers and their minions in the mainstream media howling for even more restrictions on "misinformation" which includes both what is not factual and whatever goes against their particular narrative.
They CANNOT be allowed to decide who has reach beyond what is prohibited by law.
I don't think terms like "minions" and "howling" lead to great discussions.
I agree with your point about anti-trust. It would be better if there were competing networks. It's interesting how economics, politics and expression intersect here.
However, I think you're conflating the different types of oligopolies. Facebook and Twitter are platforms, but you can create your own platform (i.e., Facebook and Twitter can't stop you). Apple, AWS, Azure, and Google are infrastructure providers and their power is greater. They can stop you from creating alternatives. Your example of Parler is a good one. If we were to curb the power of an entity, it probably should be them.
Jake, I hear you but if you are here at Tangle because you are interested in both sides of a story then I think we have to be very careful that we are not suppressing free speech just because it is objectionable. I would argue objectionable speech is the only type of speech that needs protecting.
When the press parrots bullshit delivered on a platter to them by CIA and other "government sources" then don't bother to check the facts then I believe minions is an appropriate label. That the press keeps repeating this same mistake time after time is hard to fathom if the "journalists" were doing their job and were not minions.
If you follow the hue and cry about such outlets as substack, private chat rooms and even CNN has suggesting that cable companies take down news stations like Fox News for their conservative bias then I think howling is apt.
As to the different types of oligopolies, the main point is that they are oligopolies. They all refer to themselves as platforms and Google especially has both cloud services and social media in YouTube as well as Googleplay. Microsoft has Azure and LinkedIn and Skype. Facebook has WhatsApp and Instagram. Amazon has AWS and is the dominant online retailer. Apple's app store is the only way to get an app on an iPhone or iPad.
It is disingenuous to say you can start your own platform. Many - YouTube, WhatsApp, Instagram, have tried but were allow to be subsumed by Google or Facebook and it is very expensive especially when you can't use any of the cloud platform services because they could face political pressure to close you down. Apple, Amazon and Google acted in concert to eliminate Parler and Twitter, Google and Facebook acted in concert to de-platform Trump.
Besides, that misses the point. If you have the largest social media organizations in the world deciding, based either on their own biases or based on political pressure from whichever government is currently in power, which points of view are allowed and which are not then you are getting very close to the endgame. We've already seen them block the New York Post from posting articles that were true and accurate and they blocked articles that speculated on COVID being a lab accident yet allowed untrue stories about Russian bounties, Russian collusion, peeing prostitutes etc.
I was never on Parler and have no direct knowledge of their content though if you can believe what has been written, there was more right-wing nutbar content on Facebook concerning the capitol incident. If they were breaking laws they should be prosecuted but not persecuted.