Jack Dorsey Criticizes Zuckerberg Over His Free-Speech Argument (bloomberg.com) 120
Twitter Chief Executive Officer Jack Dorsey called out his counterpart at Facebook, saying Mark Zuckerberg has a "major gap and flaw" in his argument for free speech on social media. From a report: "We talk a lot about speech and expression and we don't talk about reach enough, and we don't talk about amplification," Dorsey said at the Twitter News Summit in New York. "And reach and amplification was not represented in that speech." Zuckerberg gave a lengthy address at Georgetown University last week in which he explained that Facebook's approach to content -- which favors letting people say whatever they want -- is part of an American tradition of free speech in the marketplace of ideas. He evoked the civil rights movement and other grassroots campaigns that were allowed to spread because of free speech.
Like Twitter, Facebook's algorithm for sorting posts in a person's social media feed gives heavier weight to those that users share and comment on. Often that means the most incendiary or surprising messages find their way to the biggest audience. Other than addressing his algorithm, Zuckerberg didn't talk about the difference between content that naturally goes viral and promoted posts that people pay to send to a bigger audience. "It was a major gap and flaw in the substance he was getting across," Dorsey said.
Like Twitter, Facebook's algorithm for sorting posts in a person's social media feed gives heavier weight to those that users share and comment on. Often that means the most incendiary or surprising messages find their way to the biggest audience. Other than addressing his algorithm, Zuckerberg didn't talk about the difference between content that naturally goes viral and promoted posts that people pay to send to a bigger audience. "It was a major gap and flaw in the substance he was getting across," Dorsey said.
Dorsey: Town Square Landlord (Score:5, Insightful)
Dorsey's position is basically: "Sure, you have freedom of speech, you can say whatever you want. But have no doubt, we own the town square now. So, sure, you're free to whisper in a proverbial back alley or abandoned lot, but if you don't freely conform to the approved worldview and position, we'll feel free to keep your disruptive and contemptible speech muted."
Re:Dorsey: Town Square Landlord (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, I'm not so sure. Media companies have always "owned the town square" including when the town square had printed notices posted in it. Zuck was engaging in some creative revisionist history, as if Facebook was created for a noble cause other than rating college students' hotness, decorum be damned.
Dorsey's point, and a good one, is that with these platforms, it's about more than someone's approved / contemptible worldview, it's also about the need to recognize that this information can be hyper-amplified, whether true or not, or disruptive or not, and that can have serious consequences.
I get it, he's Zuck's competitor, but he at least seems to understand the nuance of how these platforms can be used for good/evil, and Zuck just seems to want to pacify everyone with platitudes so he can get back to running things the way he wants.
Re:Dorsey: Town Square Landlord (Score:4, Insightful)
it's also about the need to recognize that this information can be hyper-amplified, whether true or not, or disruptive or not, and that can have serious consequences.
Selective amplification rather than organic can also have serious consequences. In fact, radicalization starts with isolation of individuals. Engagement promotes deradicalization. So Jack is quite wrong here. He's too afraid of amplify wrong ideas, not understanding that amplifying those wrong ideas will promote the kind of open discussion that can change minds in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the exact opposite, radicalisation begins with inclusion.
They offer the individual a community, an alternative to the rejection and loneliness that they are experiencing elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the exact opposite, radicalisation begins with inclusion.
This is wrong. Inclusion in a wider audience that is actually diverse (not an echo chamber) deradicalizaes individuals and promotes actual discussion.
You're thinking of rejection of individuals from the greater sphere of public discourse which pushes them into fringe communities. The more fringe, the more radicalized they become.
So no, it's exactly like I said, not the opposite as you think.
an alternative to the rejection
Wait, did you just claim in the same post that "radicalisation begins with inclusion" and that "rejection results in
Re: (Score:2)
You are mistaken on both fronts.
Radicalisation works by bringing people in to the radical group. Of course at first it's all very tame, lots of jokes and memes. 4chan is an example, lots of anime and video games and porn as well as the politics board.
The rejection is from other non-radical groups. It often begins in real life with bullying at school and the like. Later the radicals push it to get that person to disengage from friends and family and instead live in their world, which is how they get to the p
Re: Dorsey: Town Square Landlord (Score:2)
Youâ(TM)ve just described Antifa members to a T.
Re: (Score:2)
>Someone isn't racist because they said you were a racist
If they accuse you of being a racist for being white, then they are a racist, because they think your opinions and actions are determined by your race, which flies in the face of what Martin Luther King called for.
>Antifa isn't even a community, it's just a general label given to people who don't like Nazis. Which is most of us. You can't "join" Antifa, and Antifa isn't going to "accept you" after you were rejected by the rest of society. What y
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any research to back up your claims? Because what you are saying goes against a decade or so of research on the topic.
Whether you are starting with McCauley and Moskalenko, with Silva, or with the USAID, they all agree that isolating and excluding people is a major factor in radicalization. This follows other psychology research that says that loneliness leads to despair and desperation.
In fact, most anti-radicalization plans, such as the one from the Center for the Prevention of Radicalizatio
Re: (Score:2)
4chan isn't s cult, is something else.
I didn't use the word cult of describe one, so please don't infer stuff like that because I'm usually careful with the words I use.
Re: (Score:2)
This is wrong. Inclusion in a wider audience that is actually diverse (not an echo chamber) deradicalizaes individuals and promotes actual discussion.
And herein lies the fault in your viewpoint: You are oblivious to how platforms like Facebook and Twitter function. You speak of a utopia of a marketplace of ideas, when in reality it is, on the grand scale, all siloed.
Re: (Score:2)
He's too afraid of amplify wrong ideas
Wrong Ideas?
Labeling ideas as right or wrong leads to some pretty shitty places.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dorsey: Town Square Landlord (Score:4, Insightful)
Media companies have always "owned the town square"
The concentration of ownership in social media is far greater than it ever was in paper media. Even in the days of Hearst and Pulitzer, there were thousands of independent newspapers.
Just because corporations controlled speech in the past, doesn't mean it was a good idea, and doesn't mean they should do the same today. Print journalists ignored great chasms of racial injustice and championed aggressive wars based on lies and distortion. It was not a "golden age" of free expression.
Zuck was engaging in some creative revisionist history, as if Facebook was created for a noble cause
Facebook's origins are irrelevant. What matters is the reality of what it is today. This isn't about Zuckerberg's personal morality.
Re: (Score:2)
I get it, he's Zuck's competitor, but he at least seems to understand the nuance of how these platforms can be used for good/evil, and Zuck just seems to want to pacify everyone with platitudes so he can get back to running things the way he wants.
First, define good/evil. Once you're done with that, then we can talk about "nuance"...
Re: (Score:2)
In the 1970s, people went into malls to protest outside businesses they didn't like. The malls, privately owned, kicked them out. The protesters took them to court.
They argued the malls functioned as modern town squares, and so should have the First Amendment applied. The Supreme Court disagreed, this is private property, and the First Amendment bans government censorship, not private. Your right to free speech carries no obligation for others to assist you with messages they disagree with.
It's ironic m
Re: (Score:2)
Dorsey is an operative, meaning he wants to control the Narrative so he will defend his position, Zuck is showing (saying) he is not an operative. Being an operative is ok if you are a media company but not if you are the town square.
Re:Dorsey: Town Square Landlord (Score:5, Insightful)
"Often that means the most incendiary or surprising messages find their way to the biggest audience. "
The civil rights movement was incendiary... and surprising for most segregated white Americans to find out that their neighbors a few miles away were being harmed by that segregation. Separate was not equal. It took acts of mass protest over years and years to get enough attention to that issue to make a difference. Millions of Americans were harmed in the years and years that it took trying to get the word out.
All meaningful political speech falls under the category of "incendiary and surprising". Politics and political speech is literally war by other means.
As long as we are trying to avoid real war and real civil war then we should be trying to allow as much speech, even incendiary speech, as possible.
People can choose their filters, the problem in society is when the filters choose the people.
Re: (Score:2)
I really think the modern left / SJW approach is unfortunately very harmful to the pe
Re: (Score:2)
We've been censoring who gets to speak in the town square for centuries. This stuff is not some new threat to our democracy. It's the usual decay that we've always faced and why we've been told many times that we must defend our freedom or we'll lose it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it sounds like "guided" censorship. The world is way too complicated to have one company decide which "free speech"should be allowed.
Re: Dorsey: Town Square Landlord (Score:2)
The problem isn't how many people (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Appeals to emotion are frustratingly like that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"real problem is people that are too stupid to tell the difference or if they believe it simply bother to verify it."
Or, plainly, censorship and suppression are as necessary as reach and amplification.
Not freedom. That's not being supported with these arguments. And for further clarification, 'too stupid to tell the difference' is essentially the argument that 'I'm right, you're wrong, and you do not deserve to be heard'. That's also not freedom.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: The problem isn't how many people (Score:2)
And the statements not posted? Suppressed, Not shown to you, never aware. Censorship. Not freedom. And not just Facebook. This is industry wide by all accounts. The real issue is 'why'. Until we understand that we can't really address the issue.
Re: (Score:3)
>Sometimes being right beats freedom.
Stalin, Mao and Hitler would be proud of you. A true scion of ideology of "being right is more important than right of people who are wrong".
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, freedom trumps your bullshit, and you'll die trying to force people to go along with you. That shit might fly in Yurop, but not here.
Re: The problem isn't how many people (Score:2)
Sadly your opinion is not supported by history. Freedom is not man's default form of governing. Indeed, the US, both as defined by our Constitution and by our history, is still unique in the world, badly imitated but not quite equaled.
We are the minority. Freedom is neither faught for nor sacrificed for very often, and it faces constant opposition.
But we must fight for our freedom, or perish, because our enemies cannot let us even survive defeat. They fear we'll rise again.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether it gets out to 10 people or 10 million the real problem is people that are too stupid to tell the difference or if they believe it simply bother to verify it.
Right, and as we know, half of the people are more stupid than average (as worrying as it is unsurprising) and they make it shitty for the rest of us. So we really need to think about how we as a society work with this, without sending anyone to re-education camps, instead of blindingly hiding behind free speech arguments.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So we have to censor and suppress in order to not get to re-education camps? Sorry, but the offensiveness of speech is not a factorâ"or, at least, shouldnâ(TM)t be a factorâ"when deciding whether the First Amendment protects expression.
Yeah, maybe? I mean this is what we've done here on slashdot after all. Some pretty terrible opinions do get through occasionally but generally all the GNAA and other outright horseshit gets modded below zero and we don't have to deal with it. In any case, this has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment, /. (or twitter or facebook) has no responsibility to protect anyone's expression.
I'm for free speech too, but this is what I mean by hiding behind it immediately. Truth can be hard to determine, but something
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, and as we know, half of the people are more stupid than average (as worrying as it is unsurprising) and they make it shitty for the rest of us. So we really need to think about how we as a society work with this, without sending anyone to re-education camps, instead of blindingly hiding behind free speech arguments.
And, if you decide that you get the be the one that decides which people belong to which half, you have become a demon.
Re: (Score:2)
No, retard.
People choosing to believe or disbelieve something, on their own is a good thing.
ESPECIALLY if you disagree with what others believe.
So ditch the algorithm and just have date-based? (Score:3)
Maybe that's the problem. Instead of trying to tweak your algorithm to only show double-plus or state-approved content, just switch (back) to a display that lists everything some entity published in chronological order.
Re: So ditch the algorithm and just have date-base (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Instead of trying to tweak your algorithm to only show double-plus or state-approved content, just switch (back) to a display that lists everything some entity published in chronological order.
You can actually do this on Faceboot, with two clicks... every time you go to a group, or load your stream. I presume that there are add-ons, user scripts, or some other thing to do this for you, but I haven't looked.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the problem is most people don't do this, they just take what the algorithms give them.
And it's not like Facebook hasn't had a habit for years of just changing people's preferences, whether directly or as some kind of improvement that restructured the choices so that you had to go back in and change them to more or less what they were before.
So I think there are people that just gave up and stopped trying to preserve their preferences because they got fatigued by them always being changed.
Facebook d
Re: (Score:2)
And it's not like Facebook hasn't had a habit for years of just changing people's preferences, whether directly or as some kind of improvement that restructured the choices so that you had to go back in and change them to more or less what they were before.
So I think there are people that just gave up and stopped trying to preserve their preferences because they got fatigued by them always being changed.
IIRC this has never been a setting which stuck, you've always had to select it every time. But I've been wrong before.
Re: (Score:2)
I quit using Facebook 3 years ago because I couldn't stand the politically oriented cesspool it became, but I seem to remember the news feed around 2009 being basically chronological.
My memory is that it when it first stopped being chronological there was no way to revert it, then you could, but it might not stick, then there was more algorithm changes and new preferences that could partially override it back to chronological.
I would still use it if it was just people I knew sharing pictures of their dinner
Like Dorsey is some pinnacle of freedom. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dorsey is just as guilty as Zuck.
Hey Dorsey - how bout those latest Alex Jones tweets? Oh that's right, you kicked him off of your platform for saying things you didn't like. (then he bull-horned you outside the White House when you met with Trump)
Hey Dorsey - how about those latest Laura Loomer tweets? Oh, you kicked her off your platform too? Now she's running for office, and win or lose she may have a legitimate election interference case against you over it? Wow, you don't say?
Hey Dorsey - how about those verified poster badges? Oh, you took them away from conservatives and blamed bullying from the left?
Hey Dorsey - how about the new rules you made specifically so you don't have to have egg on your face about kicking the president off of your platform, but my making it harder for people to actually re-share and interact with what he (or other non-globalist/big-government) politicians say?
Dorsey is a partisan hack pretending to work in the public interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Dorsey is just as guilty as Zuck.
Hey Dorsey - how bout those latest Alex Jones tweets? Oh that's right, you kicked him off of your platform for saying things you didn't like. (then he bull-horned you outside the White House when you met with Trump)
So...sounds like Twitter's actions had no effect on Jones' freedom of speech then, huh?
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on how you look at it.
How are your views on segregation? Do you think we should have chilled water fountains for whites and straight from the pipe water fountains for blacks?
If you think that is fair, then I guess not.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on how you look at it.
How are your views on segregation? Do you think we should have chilled water fountains for whites and straight from the pipe water fountains for blacks?
If you think that is fair, then I guess not.
When being an annoying dumbass is a federally protected class alongside race, then you can use segregation as a comparison.
If I go into a store blasting loud profane music or shouting at the top of my lungs, the store management can request that I leave and bar me from ever coming back. Doesn't mean I can't go play my music somewhere else or even in another store if they allow me to do so. All Twitter did was kick Jones out of their store.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh?
I was under the impression Twitter was more like news feed than an open plaza. You only got the feeds you selected to follow, then something you didn't care about could go on and on all they wanted, you weren't following it. If things you follow cite something you don't want to see enough you have the option to block individuals or tags. The reason I don't get flooded with hints and tips about knitting are because I chose not to follow hints and tips about knitting, but I do occasionally see a picture
Re: (Score:3)
Oh?
I was under the impression Twitter was more like news feed than an open plaza.
Sure it's an open plaza. It's a privately owned plaza where you have multiple (in this case possibly millions) of people standing around talking. You can choose to stand in front of anyone and listen to them (by following them) if you like what they say, or you can keep walking. Some people that are talking might stand out by talking louder/have a bigger box to stand on/bigger crowd in front of them/etc (more followers/retweets, verified, etc). The owner of the plaza makes money by selling advertising o
Re: (Score:2)
Unless of course all the sites work together and ban him all at once [theguardian.com] and anyone who doesn't ban him gets bullied into doing so, even if following him is very optional on the platform [cnet.com].
It looks to me like "woke culture mobs [unherd.com]" often times not really grass roots, but well funded P.R. movements - I've worked in marketing firm, I know how it works - are the consequences of not squashing speech. Not submitting to the mob can cost you your own freedom otherwise, loss of bank account, software licenses (seriously),
Re: (Score:2)
Unless of course all the sites work together and ban him all at once [theguardian.com] and anyone who doesn't ban him gets bullied into doing so, even if following him is very optional on the platform [cnet.com].
Ok, so...he can stop being a dick. If everyone keeps treating you (not you you, but Jones) like you're a dick, your probably a dick.
Let's put it this way: say a guy, who just happens to be black, is an alcoholic and a mean drunk. He lives in a town with 5 bars and has proceeded to get drunk and start a fight in each one (or harass a female bartender, or even just keeps shouting that he's going to fight everyone there-that last one may be more akin to Alex Jones). One by one, all of the bars have kicked h
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is that didn't happen in this case.
There was a backroom meeting where they all decided to pull the plug at once and harass anyone who didn't. That's far, far different than your drunken bar slug scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
Dorsey is a partisan hack pretending to work in the public interest.
It's pretty hilarious to see you attack Jack for being too harsh on your favorite nutjobs like Jones and Loomer. If you go look at some more specifically leftist forums, you'll see people complaning the's basically enabling neonazis and other like minded folks through his very lax and inconsistent policing of the platform.
Twitter isn't a public place... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So that baker in Colorado didn't have to bake the cake either right?
So I can put a sign on the door of my cafe saying no trannies allowed?
Re: Twitter isn't a public place... (Score:2)
Re:Like Dorsey is some pinnacle of freedom. (Score:4, Insightful)
Your views and opinions on these people have little bearing on what I said. The fact is they're being squelched. I see no evidence supporting anything you just said, but let's give it a tit for tat:
"Lol Alex Jones is a pedo" - I've not seen any evidence of that. Let's suppose for an instance he is - Kevin Spacey is a Pedo and is allowed to speak. There is massive amounts of evidence Bill Clinton is a Pedo based on the Epstein ties (plus), he is allowed to speak.
"who pushes harm-causing pills" - citation needed. BuzzFeed tried to prove this, what they found was sometimes it's cheaper to buy his relabeled stuff elsewhere and that some of it didn't taste very good. You got anything more scientific than a BuzzFeed something or another to go on?
"He also wants frogs gay" - uhmmm that's a stupid fucking statement. He reported on the very real phenomenon that is in respected studies from multiple sources [harvard.edu]. In fact the concern is ongoing and funded. [upi.com] Only your own bias makes it "funny".
"Loomer is a racist nutjob" - Citation needed. I have seen nothing racist out of her. I've seen things extremist lefties might call racist, but extremist lefties say you're automatically racist if you're white or conservative, so what they say doesn't really matter.
" who won't win any election" Maybe, maybe not, it's an election. Are you justifying only allowing people Dorsey agrees with access to the town square? If what you said is true, if she is a racist nutjob she won't win an election, so giving her access to the town square shouldn't be an issue, all she'll do is embarrass herself. If she is speaking truth, and it disagrees with Dorsey's position of power then it must be silenced. Even if she is a racist nutjob, silencing her gives the appearance of Dorsey being a fascist by silencing dissenting opinions. Crazy speaks for itself.
Re:Like Dorsey is some pinnacle of freedom. (Score:5, Informative)
Alex Jones "who pushes harm-causing pills" - citation needed.
"Sandy Hook is a synthetic completely fake with actors, in my view, manufactured. I couldn’t believe it at first. I knew they had actors there, clearly, but I thought they killed some real kids. And it just shows how bold they are, that they clearly used actors. I mean they even ended up using photos of kids killed in mass shootings here in a fake mass shooting in Turkey -- so yeah, or Pakistan. The sky is now the limit."
"a giant hoax."
https://youtu.be/Ap-DvMoiMOY [youtu.be]
I Don't know, if one of your kids was killed that day, would statements like these cause harm? How about his followers that then harassed and stalked the parents of the victims? Could that be harmful?
"Loomer is a racist nutjob" - Citation needed.
A few of her twitter posts :
"Leave it to Muslims to ruin everything. People can't even enjoy #Halloween without those savages f**king everything up for everyone."
"I'm late to the NYPD press conference because I couldn't find a non Muslim cab or @Uber @lyft driver for over 30 min! This is insanity."
"How many more people need to die before everyone agrees that Islam is cancer & we should never let another Muslim into the civilized world?"
I don't know , is this considered racism, or is it just bigotry?
He [Alex Jones] reported on the very real phenomenon
He didn't "report on" anything. The Harvard article you link to says "Studies of fish upstream and downstream of wastewater treatment plants have found more female and intersex fish downstream from the plants, presumably because of the higher estrogen levels in the downstream water."
Alex Jones says "The government is using chemicals to create gay people. It's putting "estrogen mimickers" in juice boxes and water bottles. This makes the men want to wear women's clothes and makeup and no one will have children, all ultimately designed to depopulate the world."
Do you want any more citations?
Re: (Score:2)
Muslim is a religion, not a race, so being anti-Muslim is not racist.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know , is this considered racism, or is it just bigotry?
Islam isn't a race. Its a religion. Replace muslim in those sentences with Christian or Buddhist. Do they still sound racist to you?
Re: (Score:2)
Giving a link to a video that isn't there doesn't support anything, especially when it has nothing to do with his supplement line.
Islam is not a race, it's a religious and political system. The fact it's a political system leaves it open to political attack.
Who cares if he says the things you say he's saying. Xenoestrgen is a real thing and he's reporting on it. [infogalactic.com] Are you saying he should not report on it? Are you saying he should be completely ostracized from society for reporting on it? Are you saying
Re: (Score:2)
Giving a link to a video that isn't there doesn't support anything, especially when it has nothing to do with his supplement line.
Islam is not a race, it's a religious and political system. The fact it's a political system leaves it open to political attack.
Who cares if he says the things you say he's saying. Xenoestrgen is a real thing and he's reporting on it. [infogalactic.com] Are you saying he should not report on it? Are you saying he should be completely ostracized from society for reporting on it? Are you saying that drawing lines between what he sees as cause and effect should be forbidden?
Long story short - we allow Flat Earthers to speak. We allow furries to speak. Why do we not allow someone - that according to you - is a complete nutcase and wrong - to speak? If he's a nutcase and wrong people will just tune him out, like we do Flat Earthers and Furries.
Couple things.
1)I didn't make any statement. I asked this question :
"I don't know , is this considered racism, or is it just bigotry?"
A couple people answered that question stating that it wasn't racist, no one bothered to address the bigotry portion.
2) The video isn't there anymore because he was banned from youtube, the video was the source of his quote I provided. I didn't ban him from youtube, nor did I take a position on his rights to the platform.
3) You asked for citations so I provided them.
4) My op
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like there's a lot of stupid in there, but we're not here debating their ideas, but rather their ability to speak out on them. I assume if I read more of their views, I'd agree with you they are either racist or bigoted, but here's the nuance: I'd defend to my last breath their right to say it. I'm not talking about purpose-based forums like school or work either, where I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to throw their ass out for making completely outlandish arguments. I'm talking about a public space like twitter WHERE YOU HAVE EVERY ABILITY TO JUST NOT LISTEN.
Principles are very hard to stand by, I get it, but we need more of it.
Yes free speech is important. But no one is arguing that free speech should be taken away.
Here's a very plausible highly common scenario to put this in perspective :
Say you are a book publisher. I bring you a manuscript for a book. Are you legally obligated to publish my book?
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter tries to pass themselves off as a common carrier, not a publisher in most cases. If they're a publisher they open themselves up to liabilities they're shielded from as a common carrier. If they begin to pick and choose who they carry they actually do become responsible for what is said on their platform.
They would actually have less liability if they didn't kick people off.
Re: (Score:2)
> Sandy Hook is a synthetic completely fake
Yea... and 911 was an inside job. Why is that nutty opinion any worse than any other conspiracy? If this is the first exposure you have to Jones then yea sounds provocative and offense (the point). But if you know anything about Jones then it's mostly par for the course.
Did you intend this comment to support the distribution of Jones' views? If nutty conspiracy theories are "par for the course", then why should we care about his contribution to political discourse?
Note that I'm not advocating the suppression of wackos, just pointing out that complaints about removal of some wackos from major platforms are pretty weak. If you want to make a compelling argument, find an example that isn't an obvious loon. Someone who takes extreme positions on real issues, fine. But peo
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to make a compelling argument, find an example that isn't an obvious loon.
Do you believe people like David Knight deserved to have their own channels banned from YouTube?
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to make a compelling argument, find an example that isn't an obvious loon.
Do you believe people like David Knight deserved to have their own channels banned from YouTube?
I don't know who David Knight is or what he to get banned. If he actually got banned (not just demonetized) it must have been pretty egregious.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know who David Knight is or what he to get banned. If he actually got banned (not just demonetized) it must have been pretty egregious.
Ignorance is bliss.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's who you use when deciding or illustrating rights issues. The ACLU supporting a LGBTQ parade is boring, but the ACLU's support of Nazis' right to parade was the stuff of legends, an impressively badass example of civil rights advocacy.
Nazis. Fucking Nazis. They're perfect. That's how we know our rights are secured. The thinking is that if "they" can't come for for the Na
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>Because he's right a lot of the time.
Citation fucking needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation fucking needed.
They were also all over fluoride for decades and now look where the science is headed.
"Gay frogs" meme he is mocked for is a demonstrated fact. Chemical pollution has in fact been conclusively shown to alter sex of frogs.
Look at what they were saying about Globalists censoring the Internet then sure as shit... global coordinated campaign against wrong thinkers everywhere by a handful of massive corporations.. many of whom enjoy monopoly positions in their particular markets.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation fucking needed.
They were also all over fluoride for decades and now look where the science is headed.
"Gay frogs" meme he is mocked for is a demonstrated fact. Chemical pollution has in fact been conclusively shown to alter sex of frogs.
Look at what they were saying about Globalists censoring the Internet then sure as shit... global coordinated campaign against wrong thinkers everywhere by a handful of massive corporations.. many of whom enjoy monopoly positions in their particular markets.
Nope , he's wrong about fluoride too.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... [snopes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Nope , he's wrong about fluoride too.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch [snopes.com]...
I stopped reading at "Updated 22 September 2017".
https://jamanetwork.com/journa... [jamanetwork.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm so glad you turned to Snopes, the pinnacle of scientific knowledge and not the least bit tainted by the political aims of those who fund them.
Re: (Score:2)
Apologies, replying on my phone and I replied at the wrong comment.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Roaches scatter when the lights come on, I just like firing up the spotlight.
Pol Pot criticizing Mao (Score:3)
Defense of free speech (Score:3)
Agenda driven algorithms are not the solution... (Score:1)
Just let stuff trend organically. That's the only viable solution. Stop trying to decide what should and shouldn't be "amplified". The saviour complex in some people is getting out of hand.
Hosts like Twitter and Facebook should be worried about one thing only IRT speech : Is it law breaking. If it doesn't break laws, let society deal with the speech, rather than try to have computers detect and purge speech based on any other "decency" criteria.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
(e.g. don't algorithmically promote tweets advocating flat earth theories).
You shouldn't be promoting anything algorithmically. It should be the masses that decide. The best counter to flat earth theories is flat earth debunking.
Notice how most online media turned off comments when they started getting comments debunking their stories right under them. It's because media know the best fix to bullshit is countering it directly. Hiding it only creates echo chambers where people find platforms that let them post their BS unchallenged.
Re: (Score:2)
(e.g. don't algorithmically promote tweets advocating flat earth theories).
You shouldn't be promoting anything algorithmically. It should be the masses that decide. The best counter to flat earth theories is flat earth debunking.
I wish this were true. I really do.
The problem is that it ignores the fact that human brains are seriously hackable. Our cognitive processes evolved for a very different world, and as a result we have some deep and hard-to-fight cognitive biases. I won't go into the details of what the many types of biases are, I'm sure most of us have heard of many of them, and there's a good Wikipedia article with lots of links for those who want to dig deeper. [wikipedia.org]
When you couple that fact with the fact that ideas onli
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that it ignores the fact that human brains are seriously hackable.
This works from both sides. You just seem to approve because it's being done for stuff you agree with, which is the entire crux of the issue.
Isolating people you deem having "wrongthink" will only further radicalize them against you and your ideas. You're creating your own nemesis.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that it ignores the fact that human brains are seriously hackable.
This works from both sides. You just seem to approve because it's being done for stuff you agree with, which is the entire crux of the issue.
You're reading something into my post that wasn't there. I wasn't advocating for or against any content (well, I guess I was dissing flat Eartherism), I was just pointing out that relying on debunking to correct the spread of misinformation through the Internet clearly does not work.
Isolating people you deem having "wrongthink" will only further radicalize them against you and your ideas. You're creating your own nemesis.
Are you projecting your own ideas on me? I wasn't categorizing anything as wrongthink -- other than irrational, biased thinking, which is something we all inherently do, and must all fight, individually and collectively, if we
Re: (Score:2)
(e.g. don't algorithmically promote tweets advocating flat earth theories).
You shouldn't be promoting anything algorithmically.
This is unworkable for anything but very primitive case-matching search. That is, if we don't promote anything algoirhmically, we lose a lot of functionality that works just fine most of the time.
It is all about mobs (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook, Twitter etc.
They are breeding grounds (by design) to create (angry) mobs that tend to go to war with each other.
Activity equals advertising revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
Shadowbanning (Score:2)
Fuck "amplification" (Score:4, Insightful)
Amplification is a natural outgrowth of free speech.
Saying "I think ABC" has more impact, said in public than it does in the privacy of your own closet.
If Jack doesn't like it, TOUGH FUCKING SHIT.
The best disinfectant for bad ideas is sunlight.
Always has been.
Always will be.
Jack is just too caught up in his authoritarian utopian ideas where he can FORCE perfection on another person.
Re: (Score:2)
The best disinfectant for bad ideas is sunlight.
Always has been.
Always will be.
Except with modern technology it is way too easy for those bad ideas to cloud things up so bad the sunlight can't break through.
Re: (Score:2)
Except with modern technology it is way too easy for those bad ideas to cloud things up so bad the sunlight can't break through.
The Covington Kids situation is great proof that curated algorithms and "approved media" are even worse than organic trending. Since they get to pick what gets amplified, they often amplify their own attacks on their targets, and silence any opposition and debunking of their approved narratives.
Are you really sure you want to side with your "benevolent" dictators here ?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but BULLSHIT.
Know where sunlight DOESN'T break through?
Curated speech.
EVER.
You can't say that!
You can't even talk about the issue in neutral terms.
You can't even discuss the problem.
So you a nice, festering cyst of badness.
If you want to slob the knob of your corporate overlords, in the hopes of ending up on the side of those with power?
Guess what? There's a term for people like you.
USEFUL IDIOT.
And, like all useful idiots, YOU EVENTUALLY GET THE BULLET TOO!
The issue with Twitter is that Media reads it (Score:2)
So amplification does happen, but not in the way Dorsey willing to admit. Other than deleting Twitter for being cancerous pustule on public discourse, Dorsey could actually make it less a
Facebook oppresses the freedom of expression (Score:2)
Yeah, they can both go to hell. (Score:2)
The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it, sayeth Gilmore.
They can keep their proprietary data silos and get fucked.
not that you guys would notice but (Score:2)
Dorsey has good ideas in general but his execution and paradigms are so far behind
Jack Dorsey: Bitcoin is becoming the Internet&rsqu (Score:2)
What do you think?
The good censor (Score:2)