Internet Companies Censoring Debate

[Fame Monster]

Just watched the Social Dilemma and it touched upon the trend of the internet and social media giants cancelling, hiding, or failing to report news that challenges the politics of some of the people who run these companies.

Google, for example, were forced into a u-turn for not showing search results for the Great Barrington declaration, a letter signed by medical experts from all over the world. They still only show certain, conforming news results about other contentious issues.

Twitter have been accused of the same - manually altering what news 'trends' if it doesn't fit their worldview, forcing Jack Dorsey to apologise after news about Joe Biden's son was stopped from being shared.

Is this an acceptable practice and is it a case of 'if you don't like it, don't use it' or should there be a regulator looking into these practices to make sure that they're not being used as propaganda tools?

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

What I enjoy most about social media like chat rooms is watching the way some posters try to Trojan Horse in a narrative when the prevailing one is working against them. I enjoy it because I find it amusing. I often wonder about their mindset -- whether they think they're creative, as opposed to transparent, which is what they actually are.

Anyhow, I'm sure the usual suspects will be here soon like ants at a picnic, and then some people who legitimately care about this issue and have something interesting to say and take the thread at face value. But given the starting point, I feel sorry for those that fall into the trap. Ta.

 

[adrianr]

Is this an acceptable practice and is it a case of 'if you don't like it, don't use it' or should there be a regulator looking into these practices to make sure that they're not being used as propaganda tools?

Society needs regulation. Individually we are hopelessly outgunned against the likes of Google, Facebook, Amazon etc. We vote for a Government to represent us as a whole and they should be going to bat for us in cases such as this. People shouldn't waste their efforts focusing on what they can do against Google, but researching who they can vote for to properly represent their interests where it can make a difference. If corporations couldn't buy our politicians so cheaply we might be able to start fighting back against the mess they've made of society.

 

[Fame Monster]

What I enjoy most about social media like chat rooms is watching the way some posters try to Trojan Horse in a narrative when the prevailing one is working against them. I enjoy it because I find it amusing. I often wonder about their mindset -- whether they think they're creative, as opposed to transparent, which is what they actually are.

Anyhow, I'm sure the usual suspects will be here soon like ants at a picnic, and then some people who legitimately care about this issue and have something interesting to say and take the thread at face value. But given the starting point, I feel sorry for those that fall into the trap. Ta.

Why don't you stop being cryptic and if you've got a problem with the phrasing of the question or something else that bothers you, tell me and you might persuade me why what I've said is wrong or unfair and we might come to share the same opinion?

Or better still, why don't you put the framing of the question to one side, and voice your opinion on the substance of whether you think social media companies should be regulated in relation to some of the practices I listed above?

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Just watched the Social Dilemma and it touched upon the trend of the internet and social media giants cancelling, hiding, or failing to report news that challenges the politics of some of the people who run these companies.

Google, for example, were forced into a u-turn for not showing search results for the Great Barrington declaration, a letter signed by medical experts from all over the world. They still only show certain, conforming news results about other contentious issues.

Twitter have been accused of the same - manually altering what news 'trends' if it doesn't fit their worldview, forcing Jack Dorsey to apologise after news about Joe Biden's son was stopped from being shared.

Is this an acceptable practice and is it a case of 'if you don't like it, don't use it' or should there be a regulator looking into these practices to make sure that they're not being used as propaganda tools?

But who would regulate / appoint the regulator? Is the bias presentation of the news you describe really any different to the slant put on the news by printed media or TV/radio? Plenty of other browsers out there that produce search results in a more transparent way than Google.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Why don't you stop being cryptic and if you've got a problem with the phrasing of the question or something else that bothers you, tell me and you might persuade me why what I've said is wrong or unfair and we might come to share the same opinion?

Or better still, why don't you put the framing of the question to one side, and voice your opinion on the substance of whether you think social media companies should be regulated in relation to some of the practices I listed above?

The fact that you think I was "cryptic" only strengthens my desire to want nothing to do with the inevitable direction of this thread, and underscores exactly why it was created in the first place. I have spent many, many, many words on the democratization of the bully pulpit which you can find on many threads if you search for them if you're interested (which, I assure you, you are not).

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Just watched the Social Dilemma and it touched upon the trend of the internet and social media giants cancelling, hiding, or failing to report news that challenges the politics of some of the people who run these companies.

Google, for example, were forced into a u-turn for not showing search results for the Great Barrington declaration, a letter signed by medical experts from all over the world. They still only show certain, conforming news results about other contentious issues.

Twitter have been accused of the same - manually altering what news 'trends' if it doesn't fit their worldview, forcing Jack Dorsey to apologise after news about Joe Biden's son was stopped from being shared.

Is this an acceptable practice and is it a case of 'if you don't like it, don't use it' or should there be a regulator looking into these practices to make sure that they're not being used as propaganda tools?

Medical experts from all over the world eh?
Plus cranks, nutters, tin foil hat wearers and non existent people.

 

[BobKowalski]

Just watched the Social Dilemma and it touched upon the trend of the internet and social media giants cancelling, hiding, or failing to report news that challenges the politics of some of the people who run these companies.

Google, for example, were forced into a u-turn for not showing search results for the Great Barrington declaration, a letter signed by medical experts from all over the world. They still only show certain, conforming news results about other contentious issues.

Twitter have been accused of the same - manually altering what news 'trends' if it doesn't fit their worldview, forcing Jack Dorsey to apologise after news about Joe Biden's son was stopped from being shared.

Is this an acceptable practice and is it a case of 'if you don't like it, don't use it' or should there be a regulator looking into these practices to make sure that they're not being used as propaganda tools?

Christ yes they should ban lots. Flat Earthers. Moon Landing deniers. 9/11 conspiracies, World leaders are lizards or Satan worshipping pedo’s (I mean for fuck‘s sake just agree on one). Phone masts give you Covid. Anything Trump says. Anything Johnson says. Exit the EU on ‘Australian terms’, Nazi’s, people who like Nazi’s, Libertarians who are shy Nazi’s, Holocaust deniers, Right Wing nut jobs, Left wing nut jobs, Jordan Peterson (although he is now mute, but just in case he learns sign language), Liverpool supporting journos...’

Basically it’s a long list.

 

[Fame Monster]

The fact that you think I was "cryptic" only strengthens my desire to want nothing to do with the inevitable direction of this thread, and underscores exactly why it was created in the first place. I have spent many, many, many words on the democratization of the bully pulpit which you can find on many threads if you search for them if you're interested (which, I assure you, you are not).

Fuck me, you're difficult.

This isn't work you know, you don't have to ring in if you're not going in.

If you don't want anything to do with this thread, don't post. You don't have to announce you're not posting. Nobody gives a fuck.

You don't need to condescend either at the people who 'fall into the trap' of posting. They're obviously not as clever as you but at least they're not gonna hide behind some pseudo-intellectual persona to avoid giving an answer to a pretty simple question.

 

[Fame Monster]

Medical experts from all over the world eh?
Plus cranks, nutters, tin foil hat wearers and non existent people.

Fair point but it was signed by experts from Oxford, Harvard, and Stanford as well I believe. So it does have legitimate backing from some experts therefore I'm not so sure it's a good idea to omit it from search results if people google the name of the declaration whether or not you agree with the content of the declaration.