Massive Turning Point For Big Tech?

[Gregmal]

On this whole topic the central question is: are social media sites like Twitter and Facebook ever justified in removing an individual or an app from their platforms?

The answer, of course is YES. The easy examples are:
- foreign governments attempting to meddle in US domestic affairs.
- pedophiles
- KKK

So i think we can all agree that, yes, these sites are justified to manage individual  accounts and apps. And we could also say they have an obligation to do so proactively.

The question then becomes one of what behavior/actions warrant removal?

So the key to this whole discussion is very simple:
1.) did Trump’s behaviour warrant his ban?
2.) did Parlour’s behaviour (lack of regulating its site) warrant the ban?

The behaviour of Trump and Parlour needs to be understood. That is what needs to be discussed. Once this is fully understood then the decisions by the teck companies can be analyzed... was it appropriate or not?

We are all getting excited about the punishment... what we need to do is dissect the crime (not saying there was one... i am trying to be inquisitive and open minded).

No, this was specifically listed as something best not needed to be discussed because folks inevitably go down predictable roads that ruin the thread and put it in the politics section.

What we are trying to discuss isnt this issue and isnt necessary but the slope that has essentially been established is 1) ban group A, 2) accuse people not in group A of being in group A(or simply expand who you consider group A), use rule 1 to eliminate them, 3) point to people with similar ideological views as you do to reinforce 1 and 2...

Section 230 and App Store/mobile operating system monopoly(which is nearly identical in substance to many MSFT antitrust issues) are the relevant issues so you dont need to even bring Trump into it, as hard as that may be...

[Read the Footnotes]

First, let's start with a little civics lesson:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That's the First Amendment in it's entirety. I can't find a mention of FaceBook or twitter anywhere. No shirt, No Shoes, No Service. Same idea. It's a business and they can regulate your behavior if you want to be on their property.

They are all going to "self-police" like crazy in the future. Every democracy is finally going to realize the dangers they should have learned from the Arab Spring. Every government in the world is going to look at this situation and ask, if this can happen to the USA, why can't it be us? So every government in the world is now going to see social media companies as an existential threat.

As far as the US Congress is concerned, they were the targets, along with Pence. I think it's pretty likely that they understand that their own heads are on the line. Given some of the personalities involved I think that personal risk will motivate them more than simply the risk of downfall of the USA. So yes the social media companies should be running scared and trying to shape or avoid oversight, but it is probably too late to do much other than shape the future.

Proposals I have heard include:

-limiting the size of social media companies and encouraging competition
-any social media platform above a certain size would have greater oversight more similar to a television station
-require social media companies to exercise a greater degree of diligence with anything that is trending beyond a certain level

[wabuffo]

This section belongs in politics.  The whole thesis hinges on politics so it belongs in the politics section.  Not everybody will be able to thread the needle and stay on point - so why not move it to politics and go nuts not having to worry about where the line is.

This thread is trying to talk raisins while trying to avoid turds, but sooner or later, a turd will slip in and then....

wabuffo

[Viking]

what we need to do is dissect the crime (not saying there was one...

Why? There'll be no agreement there.

Just recognition that a sizable fraction of the population believes there was no crime, and the big tech reaction amounts to censorship, is reason to expect something of a turning point.

‘Crime’ was a poor choice of words on my part.

‘Actions’ resulting ban is a better way to put it.

Regarding Trump, we all can listen to his actual words and follow his tweets and come to our own judgements of if his ban was justified.

Regarding Parler my understanding is they do not moderate their site (pretty much). Anything goes. Given what happened last week, how hot people are feeling and what is going to happen in a few days (Biden becoming President) the likelihood of further violence is very high... (people have already died and bombs were found so this is not an imaginary threat). Parler refused to moderate its site and then there were consequences (ban from big tech). Is the answer to let the fringe freely organize on Parler with no oversight and do more violence/killing?

[cubsfan]

This section belongs in politics.  The whole thesis hinges on politics so it belongs in the politics section.  Not everybody will be able to thread the needle and stay on point - so why not move it to politics and go nuts not having to worry about where the line is.

This thread is trying to talk raisins while trying to avoid turds, but sooner or later, a turd will slip in and then....

wabuffo

totally

[Gregmal]

They are all going to "self-police" like crazy in the future. Every democracy is finally going to realize the dangers they should have learned from the Arab Spring. Every government in the world is going to look at this situation and ask, if this can happen to the USA, why can't it be us? So every government in the world is now going to see social media companies as an existential threat.

As far as the US Congress is concerned, they were the targets, along with Pence. I think it's pretty likely that they understand that their own heads are on the line. Given some of the personalities involved I think that personal risk will motivate them more than simply the risk of downfall of the USA. So yes the social media companies should be running scared and trying to shape or avoid oversight, but it is probably too late to do much other than shape the future.

Proposals I have heard include:

-limiting the size of social media companies and encouraging competition
-any social media platform above a certain size would have greater oversight more similar to a television station
-require social media companies to exercise a greater degree of diligence with anything that is trending beyond a certain level

This is basically the gist and I think its a foregone conclusion. The ball has started rolling and this past week was an avalanche in terms of things that dont even relate to the events everyone is talking about. The power of tech is on full display and people finally seem to be scared of it. Its dominance is too large to ignore.

[cubsfan]

^ And "self-policing" means conveniently suppressing  free speech and political opponents.

Easily accomplished due to monopoly power.

[DooDiligence]

The title is a bit misleading and the author even says that "defeating" FB is not the goal.

https://ovid.github.io/articles/how-to-defeat-facebook.html

I remember a time when there was no 24 hour news cycle.

How many times do we really need to hear the same shit every day?

What would happen if media companies were only allowed a certain number of hours per day, let's arbitrarily say 4 hours, and they can only run an hour with 5 hours of lifetime channel, made for television dramas in between? OK that last bit is silly but basically, 1 hour of news, followed by 5 hours of not news.

Not saying this should happen, just spitballing.

[Viking]

How do you ‘judge’ the actions of big tech in recent days and ignore the actions of those receiving the ban (Trump and Parler)? Context is critical.

Does Parler need to manage its members and what they do on the site? Simple question. But critical to having an opinion on the derecent decisions from big tech. Should people be able to freely organize an event on Parler that results in violence and people getting killed? (And let law enforcement clean things up after the fact?) Some people will say ‘yes’ and i can respect their opinion; i might disagree but we are all different :-)

That is what we are really discussing here. That is NOT politics. Now when people say ‘big tech is evil and out to destroy the right’ and do not want to debate the relevant facts (like the reasons for the ban) then, yes, that is politics. And a complete waste of time (who learns anything by repeatedly yelling loudly from the rooftop).

[wabuffo]

That is what we are really discussing here. That is NOT politics.

I respectfully disagree - and that's why I used the raisins and turds analogy.  Let's call Security analysis = Raisins and Politics = Turds.

For any topic, the question we should ask is "what is the likelihood that a turd will be thrown in".   For most discussions about a specific stock, odds are close to zero.

For this topic, I'd say greater than 50% and probably approaching 100%.  So why not just err on the side of caution and send the thread to the Turds Politics section set aside for that purpose.

wabuffo