Elon Musk buys Twitter

[+OverSword]

6 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

No one is forcing you to use or read anything on Twitter.  It is a private company and I think too much government control is wrong.  There are places that should have government control, like what corporations dump in people's water sources, or how many oil spills happen by one company, where nuclear waste or chemical waste is stored, etc.   But a baker in a Denver should not have to worry about the local government shutting him down because he uses his right to deny service to someone.   I don't agree with Hobby Lobby owner's views on certain things but I don't think they should be put out of business for it.  I get to choose where I spend my money and that is the way it should work for private business, whether huge or small, if they are not damaging people's lives who have no choice then they should be allowed to do what ever.  If they have a monopoly on something then the government might find a way to  help a small business give them competition, but that is the extent of that.

What's amazing to me is that having a platform wherein people can see or hear what they want, regardless of if it's true or if we agree, is simply a winning business model.  So why was/is there so much censorship coming out of big tech?  Remember Yahoo used to have unmoderated comments but the folks at AWS said they were going to de-platform Yahoo if they didn't shut down their comment section and Yahoo had no choice but to do so.  Now Yahoo stocks have dropped largely because of that censorship but AWS had them over a barrel. I wonder if at some point the owners of internet infrastructure will pull the same with twitter if they don't like what people are being allowed to say?  Now here is where your first sentence loses some truth.  Mo one is forcing you to use twitter but at some point twitter may not have much choice about who hosts them as one company is very dominant.

[+OverSword]

21 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

What's fair is fair. I remember arguing on UM about how massive tech platforms have an unhealthy amount of control over communications and people here told us that "they are private companies and can do what they want."

Maybe now people on both sides of the spectrum will take the problem more serious. 

Yes it's a bit disturbing the part of human nature that doesn't see anything wrong with one sided issues if it favors their side.  A bit like slavery if I can really exaggerate to make a point.  Throughout history the enslavers saw no issue with making some people slaves based on whatever criteria that didn't effect them.  It seemed good and right to them.  

[+Desertrat56]

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

What's amazing to me is that having a platform wherein people can see or hear what they want, regardless of if it's true or if we agree, is simply a winning business model.  So why was/is there so much censorship coming out of big tech?  Remember Yahoo used to have unmoderated comments but the folks at AWS said they were going to de-platform Yahoo if they didn't shut down their comment section and Yahoo had no choice but to do so.  Now Yahoo stocks have dropped largely because of that censorship but AWS had them over a barrel. I wonder if at some point the owners of internet infrastructure will pull the same with twitter if they don't like what people are being allowed to say?  Now here is where your first sentence loses some truth.  Mo one is forcing you to use twitter but at some point twitter may not have much choice about who hosts them as one company is very dominant.

It is my second post that addressed some of that.   And I suspect Google has admitted to owning Yahoo now as the ads are all Google ads.   I still use Yahoo mail as I haven't found one I trust and Yahoo used to not be Google.  Now that it is I will be looking for a new email service.    It is at the point that none of us can avoid Google even if we try unless we just stay off the internet.   That is bad for us, and will eventually be bad for a lot of other businesses.    Like I mentioned somewhere before "Max Headroom - 10 minutes into the future".

 

[Knob Oddy]

28 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

What's fair is fair. I remember arguing on UM about how massive tech platforms have an unhealthy amount of control over communications and people here told us that "they are private companies and can do what they want."

Maybe now people on both sides of the spectrum will take the problem more serious. 

They were (maybe still are until elon says otherwise) meetings with government departments to censor speech. It's not the tech companies, it's the government, which also had direct portals to these platforms to remove information they don't like

Edited November 7, 2022 by Knob Oddy

[Tiggs]

23 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

What's fair is fair. I remember arguing on UM about how massive tech platforms have an unhealthy amount of control over communications and people here told us that "they are private companies and can do what they want."

Maybe now people on both sides of the spectrum will take the problem more serious. 

Private companies can do what they want.

People will vote with their feet, same as always. 

[+OverSword]

13 minutes ago, Knob Oddy said:

They were (maybe still are until elon says otherwise) meetings with government departments to censor speech. It's not the tech companies, it's the government, which also had direct portals to these platforms to remove information they don't like

I don't think it's the government.  I think big tech is mainly ran by left wing ideologues (who are also big wealthy hypocrites) and there is no need for the side of the aisle they favor to coerce them to censor the other side. 

[+OverSword]

4 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Private companies can do what they want.

People will vote with their feet, same as always. 

Until it's declared that some of these more encompassing companies are basically a utility and must represent equally.  At some point I believe that will happen.

[spartan max2]

14 minutes ago, Knob Oddy said:

They were (maybe still are until elon says otherwise) meetings with government departments to censor speech. It's not the tech companies, it's the government, which also had direct portals to these platforms to remove information they don't like

It's a tricky issue because in today's world it is proven that there are both Russian and Chinese bots who seek to spread misinformation or influence the public. 

I'm sure that's always been a thing to some level. But it's on a different scale now.

 

[Knob Oddy]

5 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Private companies can do what they want.
People will vote with their feet, same as always.

Indeed. Yet people who don't know that the government is colluding with the tech companies cannot make that informed decision to leave the platform over the manipulation.

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

I don't think it's the government.  I think big tech is mainly ran by left wing ideologues (who are also big wealthy hypocrites) and there is no need for the side of the aisle they favor to coerce them to censor the other side. 

 

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, spartan max2 said:

It's a tricky issue because in today's world it is proven that there are both Russian and Chinese bots who seek to spread misinformation or influence the public. 

I'm sure that's always been a thing to some level. But it's on a different scale now.

 

Google and meta and probably twitter might be better set up to detect that than the government is.

[+Desertrat56]

4 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

It's a tricky issue because in today's world it is proven that there are both Russian and Chinese bots who seek to spread misinformation or influence the public. 

I'm sure that's always been a thing to some level. But it's on a different scale now.

 

I think there are a lot of strategies in place to identify bots.   When AI gets perfected it might be much harder.

[spartan max2]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

Google and meta and probably twitter might be better set up to detect that than the government is.

I agree. I was referring to what he was talking about of the government meeting with the big tech people about it. I think the meetings are so they can work together on it easier.

[Knob Oddy]

4 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I don't think it's the government.  I think big tech is mainly ran by left wing ideologues (who are also big wealthy hypocrites) and there is no need for the side of the aisle they favor to coerce them to censor the other side. 

Yes, left wing ideologues who colluded with other governmental left wing ideologues to manipulate speech and remove speech.

 

4 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

It's a tricky issue because in today's world it is proven that there are both Russian and Chinese bots who seek to spread misinformation or influence the public. 

I'm sure that's always been a thing to some level. But it's on a different scale now.

 

If I enjoy content produced by "Russian and Chinese bots", why can't I see it? Who are you to tell me not to look? 

I have a brain and can distinguish truth from lies. I don't need government help in that regard

[Knob Oddy]

1 minute ago, spartan max2 said:

I agree. I was referring to what he was talking about of the government meeting with the big tech people about it. I think the meetings are so they can work together on it easier.

The meetings that we know about were to censor the hunter biden laptop story.

I'd say you still think the government is the good guy- "saving" you from bots

[+OverSword]

Just now, Knob Oddy said:

Yes, left wing ideologues who colluded with other governmental left wing ideologues to manipulate speech and remove speech.

 

If you have two groups with common interests and goals there is no need for an organized conspiracy they will both work towards the same goal.  The Timcast vid you posted does show there was some collusion around the last election but it was going on without collusion years before that.  It was happening during trumps administration too you know. 

[Knob Oddy]

4 minutes ago, OverSword said:

If you have two groups with common interests and goals there is no need for an organized conspiracy they will both work towards the same goal.  The Timcast vid you posted does show there was some collusion around the last election but it was going on without collusion years before that.  It was happening during trumps administration too you know. 

That the left wing ideologues in silicone valley were colluding with magats? 

Or that a criminal element in the federal government were colluding to undermine the 1st amendment?

Edited November 7, 2022 by Knob Oddy

[spartan max2]

17 minutes ago, Knob Oddy said:

If I enjoy content produced by "Russian and Chinese bots", why can't I see it? Who are you to tell me not to look? 

I have a brain and can distinguish truth from lies. I don't need government help in that regard

Sort of an odd way to word that  lol.

But I think political post on social media should be from real people and not robot armies from governments. 

 I'm sure you could find the same "content" to enjoy from real people 

[Tiggs]

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Until it's declared that some of these more encompassing companies are basically a utility and must represent equally.  At some point I believe that will happen.

Was MySpace a utility? Friendster?

Social media sites will come and go. People will choose which ones are popular with their feet.

[+OverSword]

20 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Was MySpace a utility? Friendster?

Social media sites will come and go. People will choose which ones are popular with their feet.

Those sites fell to the side because the platforms were old and felt obsolete, not because people thought they were being censored or couldn't express themselves. 

[+OverSword]

33 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Sort of an odd way to word that  lol.

But I think political post on social media should be from real people and not robot armies from governments. 

 I'm sure you could find the same "content" to enjoy from real people 

If it weren't being censored you mean 

[Tiggs]

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Those sites fell to the side because the platforms were old and felt obsolete, not because people thought they were being censored or couldn't express themselves. 

Seem to recall that the mass migration from MySpace to Facebook was in no small part due to Rupert Murdoch buying MySpace.

And there's several recent examples of social media sites springing up, such as Gab, Parler, and Truth Social, due to claims of censorship.

Suspect social media in general is heading towards an open platform where speech and reach are separated -- such as Mastodon, or the soon-to-be Bluesky.

Where anyone can post whatever they want* -- but no-one has to listen to them.


* Providing their content is legal, obviously.

[Knob Oddy]

52 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Sort of an odd way to word that  lol.

But I think political post on social media should be from real people and not robot armies from governments. 

 I'm sure you could find the same "content" to enjoy from real people 

What an odd response,, lol

If Russian or Chinese bots were posting memes,  why wouldn't I enjoy the humor?

Why do you think Chinese or Russian government bots are any way equal to American government censorship of REAL people and REAL information 

[Golden Duck]

2 hours ago, Knob Oddy said:

Indeed. Yet people who don't know that the government is colluding with the tech companies cannot make that informed decision to leave the platform over the manipulation.

 

And how do you know about the collusion?  Because of some leaked documents you haven't even read.

[Knob Oddy]

 

 

[Freez1]

He’s got more money than he does brains and this could be one of his worst mistakes yet.