No you didn't, you said to nationalize it... then talked about algorithms.
I pointed out how such things would be a direct attack on the First Amendment, as it curbs speech and association. You may trust Donald Trump and his cronies to be in charge of all social media companies, but I'm sure as shit not going to let that happen.
[QUOTE=uuuhname;53393901].....
-snip-
So, how does your government combat those troll farms? Since you cannot explain how you would do it, maybe you can cite how they do it.
And who is going to control all of this?
I find it weird you think Trump and his administration would be capable of controlling them all. Tell me, why do you think his administration was competent enough to handle it in a fair and decent fashion?
You think the government should take over this website, clearly. I'm not sure how things would improve with their involvement.
Last edited by Machismo; 2021-09-21 at 06:11 PM.
And?
This isn't an argument. This is like saying "driving a car is totally fine, until someone decides to drive their car into a crowd of protestors to kill a bunch of them." Yeah, the latter's a problem. That's why you need laws to prosecute such actions. It doesn't mean you've made an argument against the first part, at all.
Your position here is fine if your argument is "we shouldn't support our country becoming an authoritarian regime". It isn't fine if you're trying to argue against government regulation or ownership. That's where you're straight off the rails and trying to claim all car owners are murderers.
I would argue that you're asking the wrong question.Do you want Trump and the GOP in charge of all the social media "including this site?"
If the USA has become a failed state that is collapsing into ethnofascist bullshit, then that's already a problem, and this particular issue isn't a contributing factor.
"Do you want domestic terrorists to be able to buy a car they can use to drive into crowds of protestors?" Same kind of question. The issue isn't "buying cars" in the analogy, or "government ownership" in what we're talking about, it's the specific motives of the specific actors you're introducing into the example.
People seriously overestimate how much the First Amendment protects them. There's plenty of types of speech that aren't protected speech.
dude, changes to how the website works is going to affect people, like, that's a fucking given. I don't have all the answers to the exact details to make it so one person has equal engagement to everyone else, but the goal is to make social media equitable. which, in case you didn't realize is why troll farms are a problem, that social media is itself not equitable by virtue of their being a profit motive.
Last edited by uuuhname; 2021-09-21 at 06:21 PM.
Don't get me wrong. I know it doesn't protect everything, but it protect enough that it can't do much like people seem to think here. Unless it's speech that is causing serious harm in some way they are limited in what they can do.
vegas82 wasn't able to answer so lets see if you can.
If I make the statement on social media in the manner of "I think Endus smells like poo" What law am I breaking?
- - - Updated - - -
So you don't have a real answer. You just threw out some buzz words hoping someone would agree.
Last edited by Orange Joe; 2021-09-21 at 06:26 PM.
MMO-Champ the place where calling out trolls get you into more trouble than trolling.
oh? okay sorry I didn't come up with something as bold and concrete as "truth". yeah "truth" really wins the day on the internet, it's been wining for the past 10 years, hasn't it? we're not having a conversation about misinformation running rampant on the internet. that's silly when Truth is sitting patiently in the corner. truth is all you need guys! "the truth is the truth and that's all it is, the truth."
Last edited by uuuhname; 2021-09-21 at 06:29 PM.
I mean, yeah. A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth can even get its pants on. The problem with "truth will win out", as a principle, can be separated into multiple points of failure;
1> Many prefer comforting lies to harsh truths. Particularly bigots and partisan extremists; the most likely to push these kinds of disinformation. They reject the truth because it does not confirm their pre-existing beliefs. They are seeking confirmation, not education.
2> It takes multiple sources to debunk a given lie. The lie requires zero sources and can be tossed off the cuff. In the time it took to debunk the first lie, the liar's already told three more lies. Those focusing on truth can't ever catch up.
3> Truth is often complicated. Lies are most often dead simple, precisely to make them easier to comprehend and accept. There's no way around this, because any attempt to oversimplify the truth turns into just another lie, after a certain point.
The truth has the advantage that it always wins out eventually. But that "eventually" may be in the context of "we now know that the cause of World War 3 breaking out some 150 years ago can be definitively traced to the actions of troll farms based out of Russia in the late 2010s and early 2020s". "Eventually" does not mean "soon" and does not even mean "within any living person's lifetime".
Last edited by Endus; 2021-09-21 at 06:33 PM.