Stephen King, Elon Musk Criticize Social Media Policies (cnn.com) 97
CaptainDork spotted CNN's update about best-selling author Stephen King:
"I'm quitting Facebook," the author said on Twitter Friday. "Not comfortable with the flood of false information that's allowed in its political advertising, nor am I confident in its ability to protect its users' privacy...."
His Facebook profile has since been deleted. King encouraged his fans to follow him on Twitter. But meanwhile... Tesla CEO Elon Musk on Sunday slammed Twitter and Google for the rise in trolling networks and scams via fake bots on both the platforms.... "The crypto scam level on Twitter is reaching new levels. This is not cool," Musk reacted to a follower's tweet. "Report as soon as you see it. Troll/bot networks on Twitter are a *dire* problem for adversely affecting public discourse and ripping people off," he continued.
He also criticised Google for allowing scammers to flourish. "Trolls/bots just need to be deemphasized relative to probable real people who aren't being paid to push an agenda or scam. Google still shows bs/scam pages, they're just several clicks away," Musk stressed.
And elsewhere, criticisms of Facebook and Google continued: in a new interview, venture capitalist and tech critic Roger McNamee specifically singled out Facebook and Google for their roles in spreading disinformation... "[T]hey're the reason we can't fix climate change," McNamee, author of the book "Zucked: Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe," said this week on the [Yahoo Finance show] Final Round. "They're the reason why we have an epidemic of measles due to the anti-vaxers. They're the reason why white supremacy and gun violence are on the rise because they empower the most disaffected people in society, and they give them a disproportionate political voice....
"If we want to do something about climate change or gun violence or white supremacy or anti-vaxers, we're going to have to fix Facebook and Google."
His Facebook profile has since been deleted. King encouraged his fans to follow him on Twitter. But meanwhile... Tesla CEO Elon Musk on Sunday slammed Twitter and Google for the rise in trolling networks and scams via fake bots on both the platforms.... "The crypto scam level on Twitter is reaching new levels. This is not cool," Musk reacted to a follower's tweet. "Report as soon as you see it. Troll/bot networks on Twitter are a *dire* problem for adversely affecting public discourse and ripping people off," he continued.
He also criticised Google for allowing scammers to flourish. "Trolls/bots just need to be deemphasized relative to probable real people who aren't being paid to push an agenda or scam. Google still shows bs/scam pages, they're just several clicks away," Musk stressed.
And elsewhere, criticisms of Facebook and Google continued: in a new interview, venture capitalist and tech critic Roger McNamee specifically singled out Facebook and Google for their roles in spreading disinformation... "[T]hey're the reason we can't fix climate change," McNamee, author of the book "Zucked: Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe," said this week on the [Yahoo Finance show] Final Round. "They're the reason why we have an epidemic of measles due to the anti-vaxers. They're the reason why white supremacy and gun violence are on the rise because they empower the most disaffected people in society, and they give them a disproportionate political voice....
"If we want to do something about climate change or gun violence or white supremacy or anti-vaxers, we're going to have to fix Facebook and Google."
...to follow him ON Twitter. (Score:1, Insightful)
You learned nothing.
You're still addicted.
Also, there is no such thing as social media. I just realized it has always been an oxymoron.
Social interaction happens only on person. Where empathy is possible. Where physical interaction m, good and bad, is possible. Everything else is only as good as it is able to simulate that.
And plain text of practically anonymous people from far away barely could be any further from that.
It is always anti-social, by definition.
Want happiness. Go to or create a real-life meet
Re: (Score:2)
Counter.Social is a good anti-example of the generally true case you state.
The interactions are very much more like face-to-face interactions.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing substitutes for the face-to-face interaction, especially not the shallowness of fucking Twitter, of all places.
Re: (Score:1)
You make your bed, now you must sleep in it... (Score:5, Insightful)
"They're the reason why we have an epidemic of measles due to the anti-vaxers. They're the reason why white supremacy and gun violence are on the rise because they empower the most disaffected people in society, and they give them a disproportionate political voice....
These folks amaze me. They want the likes of Google and Facebook to censor posts or links to what they deem to be unwelcome information [according to their standards], but then rebuke Russia or China for doing exactly that!!
If they want Freedom of speech, let them be ready to live by whatever comes of it as a result.
And ohh wait...they still have a choice NOT to consume whatever Google and Facebook peddle. That's Freedom.
Re:You make your bed, now you must sleep in it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Once upon a time in America we used to read headlines on Pravda and sensibly chuckle at the headlines they were feeding the masses in Russia.
Now we demand our own Pravda isn't criticized because Freedom.
Re: (Score:1)
*Whoosh*
If that's true, why were we allowed to read Pravda back then and chuckle at the censorship, but now we want to censor Pravda ourselves?
Pravda was not all that bad! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the main problem with "Pravda" was the lack of opposition. Soviet citizen had basically no other sources of information. TV, radio and other newspapers were pushing the same "party line".
This is EXACTLY what is happening with the US. A lot of people are never exposed to serious amounts of information outside their bubbles. They get their news from Faecesbook feeds, reinforce with recommended Youtube videos, hear the same spin on the radio and then watch the same points repeated on Fox. This is the problem.
Re: (Score:1)
I find your claims very dubious, since you chose to only go after Fox, and haven't said a peep about the obvious biases and spin concocted daily by other pravda-like outets, like CNN, MSNBC, HuffPost, and others. Those seem to me to be the biggest purveyors of propaganda, ramping up drama unneccesarily, removing facts from context, spinning around the words of the people you're not supposed to like, and trying to paint congress people who have sat in office for decades and decades, and done little to nothi
Re: (Score:3)
I find your claims very dubious, since you chose to only go after Fox, and haven't said a peep about the obvious biases and spin concocted daily by other pravda-like outets, like CNN, MSNBC, HuffPost, and others.
Out of that list only HuffPost approaches Fox levels of misinformation. And yet Fox is the most popular "news" channel in the US.
Those seem to me to be the biggest purveyors of propaganda, ramping up drama unneccesarily, removing facts from context, spinning around the words of the people you're not supposed to like, and trying to paint congress people who have sat in office for decades and decades, and done little to nothing, as the saviors we need, else the sky will fall.
Ah, I see. You're a prime example to my grandpost.
Re: (Score:2)
Because, generally, on that side of the aisle it's fox and a billion teeny voices with little viewership: OAN, maybe some of the bloggers.
Versus the "other side" which is a LOT of fairly heavyweight news sources, just not as large as Fox. ( MSN, CNN, etc).
If I had to hazard a guess, if you added viewership up among all of them, they'd come out roughly even.
And they ALL push Agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
Pravda is not that unlike Russia Today -- it's not all wrong, all the time. They do like to lure you in with some researched, reasonable articles. The problem is that then it becomes difficult to tell which are the propaganda, and which are the 'normal' articles you might find at any other news source.
We want same standars advertisers must follow!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Once upon a time in America we used to read headlines on Pravda and sensibly chuckle at the headlines they were feeding the masses in Russia.
Now we demand our own Pravda isn't criticized because Freedom.
I am guessing you're trolling us, but just in case you aren't, people don't have issue with their viewpoints being challenged. They have issues with provable lies being sold as truth. I like Bernie and Pete in the presidential race. If you want to criticize their policy..great...you want to spread baseless rumors about them having an affair with each other under an upside down American flag, then i want that post removed.
There is no freedom of speech on a private platform. They have no obligation to give equal time to Sandy Hook Conspiracy theorists or anti-Vaxxers or those Pizzagate nuts. They are spreading proven lies as facts that cause tangible harm to society.
What we want is standards like there are in advertising. Facebook, Google, and Twitter are advertising platforms and we have regulations on what you can advertise. If you make medical claims about whatever nonsense Goop is selling today, you're likely to get your ad removed. If CocaCola makes claims that Coke Zero cures Herpes, it would get taken down immediately and no crazy right wingers would be complaining about freedom of speech. We've all agreed that false ads are bad. Why not apply similar criteria to stories presenting themselves as facts and news?
What upsets me is that I work in computer security, particularly bot detection. We have technology to cheaply determine if Mandy from Iowa retweeting Trump tweets is who she says she is or if she's a bot from the Eastern Block. Every time I list something on eBay, I get a ton of clearly scam e-mails. eBay can stop it, they choose not to. Every time some hot 20yo with suggestive profile pics and no link ot me whatsoever (no common friends, almost no followers, different city, etc) asks to friend me on Facebook or Instagram, it's an obvious bot. I am confident human beings aren't making these profiles. Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc, have the resources to hire my company or any of our competitors, if not build the tech in house. They can block bots and aberrant user behavior.
This would make Facebook less of a sewer as the crazy person with theories about Hillary's secret lesbian affair will need to persuade actual humans to follow him rather than Putin's bots. It's also a win for Facebook's actual customers, the advertisers....If I spend money on an ad, I want a click through rate representing actual human beings, not scripts from malicious actors. You'd think the advertisers would be demanding better security. I genuinely feel bad for them, thinking they are paying to reach people and being scammed in the process.
Who determines the truth? (Score:1)
The Chinese have a very different view of what is true than I do.
Censorship is a slippery slope. And in small scale it is counter productive because it focuses on the lies. "It must be true if it is being censored."
The correct answer is education. To try to make people think critically.
Radical fake news does not actually have that much effect politically anyway, because those who consume it have already made their small minds up.
"Fake News" was an idiot creation of the Left. But making a big deal out of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, with the startling rise of the "cancel culture" we're seeing currently, one is less and less able to challenge viewpoints of others.
Hell, look at what's happening on college campuses these days.
They used to be open bastions of discussion of all type of viewpoints, but now...if you don't toe the groupthink line, they shout you down, try to get you banned from campus or even riot in some instances.
You now have to worry about safe
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. I'm fairly conservative, had a college friend who was extremely liberal. We pretty much disagreed on most things, but maintained decent relations and were friendly. We could debate ideas, and concern over not being an ass made us weigh our words more carefully than arguing with a random stranger. I enjoyed these discussions, and I believe each of us changed our minds a few times because of them.
Then, one day, a loser ran over a bunch of people in Charlottesville. And my friend cut me off because "
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech. Facebook is a private company, they don't owe anyone a platform and freedom of speech rules and moral rights do not apply to their website.
The issue here that Facebook is full of bullshit which gets people seriously ill or killed like anti-vax, and King being on their site just brings victims to it. Since Facebook won't do anything about it King is leaving so that people interested in him are not drawn there and exposed to that material.
That's his right, he get
Re:You make your bed, now you must sleep in it... (Score:5, Insightful)
This has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech. Facebook is a private company, they don't owe anyone a platform and freedom of speech rules and moral rights do not apply to their website.
The issue here that Facebook is full of bullshit which gets people seriously ill or killed like anti-vax, and King being on their site just brings victims to it. Since Facebook won't do anything about it King is leaving so that people interested in him are not drawn there and exposed to that material.
That's his right, he gets to decide where he posts and what he wants to be associated with or exposing his fans to. He isn't silencing anyone, he is simply saying he won't use interest in himself to draw people to that kind of material posted by others.
Exactly. I wish a few 10's of thousand more folks with lots of followers/friends would do the same the same thing. The only thing that will effect any change is a noticeable drop in revenue/drop in stock price.
Re: (Score:3)
This has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech. Facebook is a private company, they don't owe anyone a platform and freedom of speech rules and moral rights do not apply to their website.
You are expressing yourself incorrectly......this has nothing to do with the US first amendment. But private companies can still prevent (or allow) free speech.
Re: (Score:3)
It has everything to do with freedom of speech.
Just not, specifically, with the First Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you explain the basis for your right to free speech on Facebook?
Re:You make your bed, now you must sleep in it... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not unwelcome information, it's false information. If you're helping spread false information that will help people get harmed, you're not exercising freedom of speech.
You do know the difference between an opinion and a lie, right?
Re: You make your bed, now you must sleep in it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
False statements of facts kill. Take the US example, this bridge is safe and the bridge falls down, it was a lie that the bridge was safe and those who said it should be punished with criminal negligence. Same as this drug is safe when it is not or this food is safe when it is not. All the other corporate lies routinely peddled. The biggest lie of all in the USA, how the Corporate Republican/Democrat party is democracy.
Epstein did not commit suicide and was murdered to protect the Corporate Republican/Demo
Re: You make your bed, now you must sleep in it.. (Score:2)
Yes, sometimes. agreed.
>Take the US example, this bridge is safe and the bridge falls down, it was a lie that the bridge was safe and those who said it should be punished with criminal negligence.
Who said it? The bridge builder? The inspector? Yes. Some random jerkoff standing next to the bridge? No.
>Same as this drug is safe when it is not or this food is safe when it is not. All the other corporate lies routinely peddled.
Those are covered already by regulation
Re: You make your bed, now you must sleep in it.. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Google and Facebook do not provide free speech platforms. They've been censored and/or curated carefully from the start.
Re:Basically, hypocrisy (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, because King doesn't want his fans coming to Facebook to see what he is posting because they might be exposed to that stuff. Which is fine, just like you can't force advertisers to advertise on your site/video/TV show you can't force Steven King to post on Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is forcing him but the hypocrisy from these left-wing figureheads is enjoyable. The left and the (social) media is an ouroboros.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not hypocrisy if other people had some issue with him. That would just be unfortunate.
His twitter is hilarious. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Stop posting.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, you're THAT guy? From what I've been told, you're like Adolph Hitler and the Black Death sharing a cab.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You can't please the woke. Insanity is still thinking that you can.
Because when you cruise through one of their famed "intersections," you have no way of telling whether the light is green or red. No matter how carefully you navigate, you will at some point suddenly die without warning.
Re: His twitter is hilariou (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How can you so casually use such historically racist and oppressive terms like green" and "red"? You should be banned from this site and the whole internet immediately! I have filed complaints again you here, with your ISP, informed your employer via their twitter feed and am currently tracking down your extended family. I already got your dog to pee on your pillow this morning.
In other words you're exercising your free speech. Isn't that what you want? Unfettered free speech?
Re: His twitter is hilariou (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
and a number of other malicious forms of speech with no other societal value should not be protected.
So, anti-vax?
Re: His twitter is hilariou (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Of course, when I used the colonialist patriarchal terms "green" and "red." I was oversimplifying. At the woke intersections you will find signals of all colors, including transitioning shades that have not yet been classified. This includes signals that are simply turned off, because "no signal" is now a state freely chosen by some signals. Drivers milling around all over the place, scratching their heads, trying to figure out what to do next.
Re: His twitter is hilariou (Score:1)
My pronouns are he/him.
Re: (Score:2)
Me pronouns are Him/He. I refuse to bow to the powers of grammar.
Re: (Score:2)
The wokeness backfired on his friend J.K. Rowling recently as well, for stating a biological fact. ("biological sex is real" or something along those lines). She didn't even use the word gender, which is often the disputable term, she said "sex" and they still ripped her up and down. Insanity indeed. They helped create this monster though, so karma and all that. Enabling people who weaponize their "victimhood" does society no favors.
Bad reasoning (Score:4, Interesting)
"If we want to do something about climate change or gun violence or white supremacy or anti-vaxers, we're going to have to fix Facebook and Google."
I'm not a fan of disinformation and all that, but the solution is much more than simply preventing people from hearing false ideas. But it's way easier to blame a tech company than to dig into why people are gullible, why some people's critical thinking skills are poor, or how censorship as a solution might just backfire spectacularly.
Re:Bad reasoning (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not a fan of disinformation and all that, but the solution is much more than simply preventing people from hearing false ideas.
Indeed. The classic media also needs to be fixed. Right now the large chunk of classic media is owned by right-wingers who would put Goebbels to shame.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Right now the large chunk of classic media is owned by right-wingers"
I laughed so hard at that, I think I might have blown a few blood vessels in the process...
Re: (Score:2)
I laughed so hard at that, I think I might have blown a few blood vessels in the process...
What are you laughing at? See an example here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] - that's because Sinclair Group now owns stations in majority of states ( https://www.vox.com/2018/4/6/1... [vox.com] ). Fox News is the most popular "news" channel.
Re: Bad reasoning (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A few million a day listen to radio
https://www.statista.com/topic... [statista.com] - "Radio is one of the most powerful mediums in the United States, with a weekly reach of around 90 percent among adults ... As of 2018, Americans averaged 106 minutes of radio listening time per day, with much of this time being spent while commuting".
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, when radio transmits ONLY right-wingers. So listeners will only hear right-wing talking points when they hear news on radio. This is then compounded by right-wingers at local TV stations and on Fox Noose. This is especially true for older people and rednecks in flyover states.
It's pretty much the first time in the moden US history when rightwingers control ALL of the information sources for a large
Re: Bad reasoning (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IF you're trolling, it's very good and just on that line between absurd and reasonably.
If you're serious: I weep.
Re:Bad reasoning (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just that censorship and bias has backfired spectacularly. Certain political groups used Facebook and Twitter and other media outlets to push conspiracy theories against other political groups and lost, but with it they destroyed any respect and legitimacy to provide any facts.
The problem with disinformation is that it itself is bred from other disinformation. The media themselves started this whole anti-vaxxing thing with Jenny McCarthy getting a platform and legitimacy ~2008-2013 on CNN, The View, MSNBC, Oprah etc, she even got her own show on CBS' VH1 - hosts and opinion pieces were fawning on McCarthy's "brave stance against the male dominated fields in science" and "women should get a say in the diagnosis of their children" (those were actually sentiments reflected in think pieces of the day).
And then the measles break out in 2014, CNN switches to 'dangerous McCarthy' and 'how Oprah helped the anti-vax movement', but they didn't apologize, they didn't go back and say: yeah, we were wrong in promoting these dangerous ideas, no just, "why is everyone so stupid to believe that".
Re: Bad reasoning (Score:2)
The Musk Crypto Scam is Everwhere (Score:5, Informative)
Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
They're the reason why white supremacy and gun violence are on the rise
No. Gun violence is declining. And white supremacy is a fringe political view.
They're the reason we can't fix climate change
Again, no. If this represents anything close to a consensus in the USA, then just fix it. Drive economical and/or electric cars. Take transit, Ride bicycles. And the few remaining morons out on the fringe who are rolling coal in bro-trucks won't make a material difference to the environment. You don't need to have 100% acceptance to make a difference. Unless your point of view only represents the fringe. And you can't tolerate criticism lest the counter arguments might actually make sense to the majority. So, who's spouting the false information now?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not really (Score:4, Interesting)
Stop feeding them by reacting to them in the way they are expecting and gives them the best laughs.
They can't stop. When someone's entire identity is defined by being offended by any little thing, one just can't let stuff slide.
Re: (Score:2)
Far right terrorism is not increasing but it's not decreasing either, it's stayed pretty constant for years now.
https://www.newamerica.org/in-... [newamerica.org]
The far right was a significantly bigger threat (by deaths and serious injuries) than jihadists until the Orlando night club attack. By overall Islamic terrorist incidents are getting less common (but are often more deadly), while far right incidents remain at about the same rate.
Re: (Score:2)
From the quoted article:
No jihadist foreign terrorist organization has directed a deadly attack inside the United States since 9/11
Right. They are all classified as 'lone wolfs'. Crazy Saudi air force trainees, San Bernardino Islamic terrorist attack, New York city truck attack, Charlottesville attack. None of these were 'directed' by any organizations, making the quoted statistic somewhat meaningless. Even the Orlando night club attack was not directed by an outside organization, although Daesh claimed Mateen as a member after the fact. The best guess is that he was upset with his gay lover.
False narratives (Score:4, Insightful)
>"They're the reason why white supremacy and gun violence are on the rise"
Sorry if the facts don't support your emotions, but both statements above are false (at least in the USA). Using a false narratives to justify changing social media policies is just as bad as the misinformation from bots and trolls on those platforms you seek to prevent. And it is even worse when you seek to change the law.
>"nor am I confident in its ability to protect its users' privacy...."
THAT is a good and rational reason right there.
STFU, it's human ignorance and stupidity. (Score:2)
""[T]hey're the reason we can't fix climate change...They're the reason why we have an epidemic of measles due to the anti-vaxers. They're the reason why white supremacy and gun violence..."
OK, shut the fuck up. "[T]hey" are merely the tool. The ACTUAL reason falsehoods are perpetuated using that tool is because a few billion humans are too fucking stupid and ignorant to understand those are lies they're being brainwashed with.
What's next, you gonna blame human obesity on extra-large cups and spoons?
Common sense, you fucking morons. STOP blaming the tool, and START blaming the stupid human using the tool.
Re: (Score:2)
If you call everyone in the world stupid because they believe something, you won't win many arguments.
The reason people believe certain things, is because culture has thought them to believe it. And that can be many forms, it could be learned from home or in schools, in the media, or sources within counterculture.
The best thing is to apply evolution to bad ideas, if they're bad ideas, they will eradicate themselves and the good ideas will eventually win. But for that to be the case, you have to let both exi
Re: (Score:1)
So "Way Smarter Than You" does not understand what democratic socialism is... Not sure who the "You" he is referring to could be.
Re: STFU, it's human ignorance and stupidity. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Keep digging that hole...
I have lived in countries that have democratic socialism. You merkins really do need to realise that there is a whole wide world outside of your borders with countries that operate just fine without your right wing system.
Re: (Score:2)
If you call everyone in the world stupid because they believe something, you won't win many arguments.
Smart people try and educate others. A gun does not murder people any more than extra large cups and super sized meals make people fat. What is stupid here, is blaming the tool and not the user of said tool, which was my entire point. And we humans seem to be pretty damn good at ignorantly blaming the tool, particularly with my examples provided here.
The reason people believe certain things, is because culture has thought them to believe it. And that can be many forms, it could be learned from home or in schools, in the media, or sources within counterculture.
Here, let me clarify what you've said here. The reason people believe lies is because smart people aren't there to educate them with facts.
For decades your
Re: (Score:2)
Common sense, you fucking morons. STOP blaming the tool, and START blaming the stupid human using the tool.
A tool is something you use. You do not use facebook, facebook uses you. Blaming facebook IS blaming the user, not the hapless tools on the receiving end.
Re: (Score:2)
Common sense, you fucking morons. STOP blaming the tool, and START blaming the stupid human using the tool.
A tool is something you use. You do not use facebook, facebook uses you. Blaming facebook IS blaming the user, not the hapless tools on the receiving end.
It takes a massive amount of human input to feed Facebook. Otherwise, it wouldn't exist.
It takes a massive amount of human stupidity to believe everything you see or hear on Facebook. Otherwise, this conversation wouldn't exist.
Regardless of how Facebook abuses the data humans provide it, believing bullshit posted online isn't the fault of some algorithm. It takes a human to do that. And if that's still hard to swallow, then perhaps we should ask Mark "Dumb Fucks" Zuckerberg how he felt when creating it
Re: (Score:2)
It takes a massive amount of human stupidity to believe everything you see or hear on Facebook.
Well, that is not in short supply.
Regardless of how Facebook abuses the data humans provide it, believing bullshit posted online isn't the fault of some algorithm. It takes a human to do that.
It does, but given that people behave in a certain way it does at some point become the fault of the algorithm (or the people who created it since the algorithm itself has no agency).
I agree with Elon (Score:3)
Scammers are a massive problem.
Re: (Score:1)
People just want the fake news to come from their sources. They don't like the little people out there doing it. That is what "fixing it" means.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod'ing... (Score:1)
So I don’t know if we should just believe whatever Stephen King writes.
I don't know whether to mod you funny or informative.
There is no "good" social media (Score:5, Insightful)
Quitting Facebook only to embrace Twitter is like quitting one Internet mob and joining another because you don't like the style of pitchforks and torches used by the first one.
I've become convinced that there is no such thing as "good" social media. One way or the other, it either devolves into a howling mob or an echo chamber. Facebook eggs you on to quit speaking to friends and family members because they are not part of "your" groupthink. And on Twitter it is only a matter of when, not if, you say something that makes the mad dogs turn on you, forcing you to grovel to try to save yourself.
There is something in human psychology that is fundamentally incompatible with mature and rational behavior in social media. There was wisdom in our parents' old adage of "Never discuss politics or religion in polite company." Perhaps one day we'll all look back on the age of social media the same way we look back on the Salem witch hunts, or the McCarthy hearings - morbidly fascinated that people once acted that way.
Google? (Score:2)
Wait, Google has a Social Network platform again? It must be as successful as the last 3 times, because I never heard of it until now.
Re: Google? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Hypocrite (Score:1)
In a series of tweets, Musk said that desperate times call for desperate measures.
“The crypto scam level on Twitter is reaching new levels. This is not cool,” Musk reacted to a follower’s tweet.
“Report as soon as you see it. Troll/bot networks on Twitter are a *dire* problem for adversely affecting public discourse and ripping people off,” he continued.
"Trolls/bots just need to be deemphasized relative to probable real people who aren’t being paid to push an agenda or scam."
You mean as opposed to the scam tweet you [Musk] made and had to settle with the SEC [sec.gov] for?
hahaha quits facebook... (Score:1)
Suppressing alternate views (Score:2)
I'm quitting the telephone (Score:1)
Fight disinformation eliminate paywalls on researc (Score:2)