Facebook: Troll Farms Reaching 140 Million Americans a Month

[uuuhname]

Nah. I define them how the dictionary does.

- - - Updated - - -



The first amendment isn’t unlimited. Stop acting like it ever was.

nor it is impossible to update or expand it's meaning, but why argue over how that's done and instead waste countless pages arguing over one person's inability to accept a narrative that diverges from theirs.

[Endus]

No, you said, "that I don't agree with him..." Nope... another dodge. I want to know exactly what YOU BELIEVE.

I'm just not going to give you yet another irrelevant derail to waste everyone's time with. It's not relevant and was never the subject being discussed, and I'm not going to introduce it to derail this all even further. Stop trying to derail discussion.

I am more than willing to discuss nationalization of all companies, which is what the other poster proposed. I simply pointed out just how fucking dangerous and authoritarian that is, and exactly why it's a terrible idea. I pointed to China as a prime example, and even they don't go that far.

There's nothing about nationalisation of companies that is "authoritarian". That's just not a connection that exists.

That's what I mean by it being a deflection.

We know how it goes, because we've got countless examples of the government controlling the entire media. When the government controls the narrative, then lies and propaganda abound. This isn't fantasy, we have countless examples of it.

USSR

China

Venezuela

North Korea

The Philippines

Cuba

Mind you, many of these didn't even nationalize everything, which is what the person was calling for. They simply nationalized some. Imagine if all the television stations in Russia were controlled by Putin and his regime...

And counter-examples. Like the BBC in the UK, or the CBC in Canada, or PBS in the USA.

It's almost like there's absolutely no correlation whatsoever between the two issues, despite your claims of a direct causative connection.

[Machismo]

Any country that does not have something similar to the US's first amendment.
Shame they don't use it to go down on anti-vax bullshit that is costing a lot of lives.

Like what countries, exactly?

Yours?

[Endus]

The first amendment isn’t unlimited. Stop acting like it ever was.

The First Amendment protects all speech!

Except obscenity.
Or libel/slander/defamation.
Or incitement to riot or other illegal conduct.
Or child pornography.
Or speech entailing illegal conduct.
Or speech that threatens another.
Or speech that advertises falsely.
Or broadcast that violates federal standards.
Or speech that defrauds another.
Or speech that unfairly uses the intellectual property of another.
Or speech by most members of the military.
Or speech by a prisoner.

I could probably find more examples, honestly.

[Machismo]

[/B]

I'm just not going to give you yet another irrelevant derail to waste everyone's time with. It's not relevant and was never the subject being discussed, and I'm not going to introduce it to derail this all even further. Stop trying to derail discussion.



There's nothing about nationalisation of companies that is "authoritarian". That's just not a connection that exists.

That's what I mean by it being a deflection.



And counter-examples. Like the BBC in the UK, or the CBC in Canada, or PBS in the USA.

It's almost like there's absolutely no correlation whatsoever between the two issues, despite your claims of a direct causative connection.

There's your mistake. This isn't like them controlling PBS.

Its like them controlling CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, HBO, Netflix, Hulu, Showtime, FX, SyFy, Comedy Central, the Cartoon Network, CNN, Fox News, and literally every other single station.

Its almost as if you chose to defend the guy calling for that.

Shit, that also means this very website.

The fact that you cannot even say what your stance is on the issue... means you have nothing of substance to offer.

Have a splendid day.

- - - Updated - - -

The First Amendment protects all speech!

Except obscenity.
Or libel/slander/defamation.
Or incitement to riot or other illegal conduct.
Or child pornography.
Or speech entailing illegal conduct.
Or speech that threatens another.
Or speech that advertises falsely.
Or broadcast that violates federal standards.
Or speech that defrauds another.
Or speech that unfairly uses the intellectual property of another.
Or speech by most members of the military.
Or speech by a prisoner.

I could probably find more examples, honestly.

You are expounding on his straw man...

[Machismo]

nor it is impossible to update or expand it's meaning, but why argue over how that's done and instead waste countless pages arguing over one person's inability to accept a narrative that diverges from theirs.

You mean like someone who still cannot even say how he wants the government to change those algorithms?

[Endus]

There's your mistake. This isn't like them controlling PBS.

Its like them controlling CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, HBO, Netflix, Hulu, Showtime, FX, SyFy, Comedy Central, the Cartoon Network, CNN, Fox News, and literally every other single station.

Its almost as if you chose to defend the guy calling for that.

Shit, that also means this very website.

You're deflecting. This isn't about their argument. It's about your argument. Which you still refuse to defend properly.

The fact that you cannot even say what your stance is on the issue... means you have nothing of substance to offer.

No, it means I'm not contributing to your attempts to derail. Just documenting them.

[Machismo]

You're deflecting. This isn't about their argument. It's about your argument. Which you still refuse to defend properly.



No, it means I'm not contributing to your attempts to derail. Just documenting them.

This is their argument, and you are still trying to defend it.

I'm not derailing, I'm talking about the topic and the thread.

The other dude wants to nationalize all those things. I simply highlighted why it was a bad idea.

Have a splendid day.

[uuuhname]

The First Amendment protects all speech!

Except obscenity.
Or libel/slander/defamation.
Or incitement to riot or other illegal conduct.
Or child pornography.
Or speech entailing illegal conduct.
Or speech that threatens another.
Or speech that advertises falsely.
Or broadcast that violates federal standards.
Or speech that defrauds another.
Or speech that unfairly uses the intellectual property of another.
Or speech by most members of the military.
Or speech by a prisoner.

I could probably find more examples, honestly.

not listed is how businesses that own the means of communication can curtail speech on these social media platforms services as they see fit. if we lived the the fantasy world libertarians live in where a new platform can just martialize out of nothing and fill the spot a platform like twitter and FB sits in overnight. maybe if tech monopolies didn't exist that wouldn't be a problem.

[Doctor Amadeus]

the first amendment as it stands is inadequate to protecting democracy in the digital age. because surprise surprise capitalism in of itself is not pro democracy.

Pretty much this 100%. The constitution these days serves as more of a prop to this theater that snake oil salesmen and bullshit artist are the same as inadequate mainstream media.

Moron's that can't tell the difference between experts and educated people making a mistake and opportunist making shit up about anything and everything that could be true.

Being old enough one of the things I remember about the early days of cable and this same argument under the guise of free speech cable company should provide PUBLIC access to everyone in the community that wanted to be on it. If you don't know and ever get chance, between Talk Radio and Public Access the amount of pure stupidity orcas rated by the same kind of idiots we have running around today.

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression, those things are nice but when you have far to many of generations that don't rightly know where the fuck those things come from. It's impossible for that to mean anything anymore.

The Point being is YouTube, Facebook, Instagram have made a huge profit out of our American culture of being famous for nothing, and rich by any means. American Idol, to America's Got Talent. These people have made money off the desperation for so many to be like what they imagined so much so even people that should know better have gotten sucked in and tainted.

I mean PBS now runs ads for these scam artist. So no we have a problem and the lack of idiots having their free speech to says shit nobody cares about shit like having the Government inject them with whatever is stupid.


More importantly, when we are in a critical crises with a global pandemic and we have jackass's talking about taking horse dewormer making 100's millions, yeah people need to held more accountable.

If Joe Rogan is going to go on a platform and spew utter nonsense and gets people injured, killed or does harm then Spotify and any other organization should be on the hook for damages that includes Facebook Steve Zuckerberg, YouTube or TikTok.

[Machismo]

Pretty much this 100%. The constitution these days serves as more of a prop to this theater that snake oil salesmen and bullshit artist are the same as inadequate mainstream media.

Moron's that can't tell the difference between experts and educated people making a mistake and opportunist making shit up about anything and everything that could be true.

Being old enough one of the things I remember about the early days of cable and this same argument under the guise of free speech cable company should provide PUBLIC access to everyone in the community that wanted to be on it. If you don't know and ever get chance, between Talk Radio and Public Access the amount of pure stupidity orcas rated by the same kind of idiots we have running around today.

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression, those things are nice but when you have far to many of generations that don't rightly know where the fuck those things come from. It's impossible for that to mean anything anymore.

The Point being is YouTube, Facebook, Instagram have made a huge profit out of our American culture of being famous for nothing, and rich by any means. American Idol, to America's Got Talent. These people have made money off the desperation for so many to be like what they imagined so much so even people that should know better have gotten sucked in and tainted.

I mean PBS now runs ads for these scam artist. So no we have a problem and the lack of idiots having their free speech to says shit nobody cares about shit like having the Government inject them with whatever is stupid.


More importantly, when we are in a critical crises with a global pandemic and we have jackass's talking about taking horse dewormer making 100's millions, yeah people need to held more accountable.

If Joe Rogan is going to go on a platform and spew utter nonsense and gets people injured, killed or does harm then Spotify and any other organization should be on the hook for damages that includes Facebook Steve Zuckerberg, YouTube or TikTok.

Let's put this in a way you can relate.

Should a mall be liable if walk in, and starts screaming libous claims?

How about if they shoot someone?

How about if they shoplift?

By extension, wouldn't that make a mall security officer also liable?

- - - Updated - - -

not listed is how businesses that own the means of communication can curtail speech on these social media platforms services as they see fit. if we lived the the fantasy world libertarians live in where a new platform can just martialize out of nothing and fill the spot a platform like twitter and FB sits in overnight. maybe if tech monopolies didn't exist that wouldn't be a problem.

This is disingenuous on your part. Not only are they not monopolies, you already called on nationalizing every single one... including this very site.

[Edge-]

Should a mall be liable if walk in, and starts screaming libous claims?

If the mall has actively created a system that highlights and shares those libelous claims broadly with as many people in the mall as possible because that's how they keep people in the mall and stay profitable...yeah, they have some level of responsibility.

Your other attempted comparisons are fairly awful and without any remote analogue on Facebook.

[uuuhname]

This is disingenuous on your part. Not only are they not monopolies, you already called on nationalizing every single one... including this very site.

they are de facto monopolies. same as how IPS's are de facto monopolies by owning the infrastructure that the public uses. and so what? are you going to cry about it like that means anything to me some more? you already acted disingenuous claiming I want to scrub the first amendment from existence even though that's the exact opposite of what I said. so go on goofball, see if I care.

[Machismo]

If the mall has actively created a system that highlights and shares those libelous claims broadly with as many people in the mall as possible because that's how they keep people in the mall and stay profitable...yeah, they have some level of responsibility.

Your other attempted comparisons are fairly awful and without any remote analogue on Facebook.

In reality, its simply private property where people can come. It's actually more restrictive, because you can ignore ahit on social media, it's a bit harder to do in a mall.

But, as we see, people are not just talking about Facebook. Some want to nationalize this website. Others are calling for direct action against the First Amendment as a remedy.

If a person is breaking the law, then arrest them. I see no way in which the "platform" is doing so.

[JohnBrown1917]

Like what countries, exactly?

Yours?

Don't really care, it should be done either way.
But most countries have direct power to control the media in various ways.


You think you can just publish anything you want?

[Machismo]

they are de facto monopolies. same as how IPS's are de facto monopolies by owning the infrastructure that the public uses. and so what? are you going to cry about it like that means anything to me some more? you already acted disingenuous calming I want to scrub the first amendment from existence even though that's the exact opposite of what I said. so go on goofball, see if I care.

Nah, they are not.

You are complaining, because everyone (not literally) uses them. Their size is why people want tonuse them. Thats not a monopoly, that's a feature.

You can literally start your own social media site, with your own algorithms, and choose to not be motivated by profits. Hell, it's not even expensive to get started.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't really care, it should be done either way.
But most countries have direct power to control the media in various ways.


You think you can just publish anything you want?

Then, this really isn't a very good argument on your part.

Nope, there are libel laws. There's obscenity laws. Heck, there's even laws protecting internet companies from when people post those things.

[JohnBrown1917]

Then, this really isn't a very good argument on your part.

That the gov should ban certain kinds of misinformation that is very harmful to Public health? Like anti-vax shit?

Nope, there are libel laws. There's obscenity laws. Heck, there's even laws protecting internet companies from when people post those things.

So now the gov can limit what you post? So what is the problem with using that power for anti-vax bullshit?

[Machismo]

That the gov should ban certain kinds of misinformation that is very harmful to Public health? Like anti-vax shit?


So now the gov can limit what you post? So what is the problem with using that power for anti-vax bullshit?

Once again, can you cite precedent in your country?

[JohnBrown1917]

Once again, can you cite precedent in your country?

I'm not talking about what is happening, im talking about what should happen, and that is to censor certain kinds of misinformation.


Although genocide denial is against the law, if you really want to know.

[uuuhname]

Nah, they are not.

You are complaining, because everyone (not literally) uses them. Their size is why people want tonuse them. Thats not a monopoly, that's a feature.

You can literally start your own social media site, with your own algorithms, and choose to not be motivated by profits. Hell, it's not even expensive to get started.

right, that's why sites like Gab, parlor, kiwifarms, etc. are just as poplar and used as much as FB and Twitter, that's why there are dozens of social media sites that I've somehow never heard of popping up all the time. I'm just blind to these sites existing and this isn't you pulling shit out of your ass, like you always do.