Pedo guy megalomaniacal manchild officially owns Twitter

[Reputator]

Just now, skillzdadirecta said:

Do they? How? 

 

Because nothing motivates a platform better than money, and Musk is learning the hard way that going against that reality results in financial ruin.

[skillzdadirecta]

Just now, Jwheel86 said:

 

We're on the verge of electing the first black female President, while most of Europe is electing fascists or making deals with the far left to keep the fascists out. 

 let's all pack our shit up and go home! We've now solved racism in this country for what, the third time? Or is it the fourth? I've lost count.

[skillzdadirecta]

Just now, Reputator said:

 

Because nothing motivates a platform better than money, and Musk is learning the hard way that going against that reality results in financial ruin.

Is he though? And how did Advertisers regulate Twitter and other social media companies prior to Musk taking over? So you're basically saying "The Invisible Hand of The Free Market" will solve this problem?

[Reputator]

Just now, skillzdadirecta said:

Is he though? And how did Advertisers regulate Twitter and other social media companies prior to Musk taking over? So you're basically saying "The Invisible Hand of The Free Market" will solve this problem?

 

In so far as it can be solved, that "invisible hand" is the best way to solve it. Government can't, and shouldn't.

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, Reputator said:

 

In so far as it can be solved, that "invisible hand" is the best way to solve it. Government can't, and shouldn't.

So you trust the Government to regulate other industries but not social media companies? Or do you not believe in any Government regulation at all?

[Jwheel86]

2 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Do they? How? 

 

Rumble vs YouTube is a pretty good example.  

Just a moment...

KICK.COM

 

[Reputator]

Just now, skillzdadirecta said:

So you trust the Goverment to regulate other industries but not social media companies? Or do you not believe in any Government regulation at all?

 

I'm more surprised that you do trust government to do that job. Like someone in government isn't going to come along and say that the Holocaust didn't happen and any talk of its existence will be blocked or prosecuted. An extreme example? Maybe, but we've been riding so close to the sun now with these extremist that crazyland scenarios like that don't sound too farfetched anymore.

 

Also regulating industries is quite a simpler task than regulating the speech of every human being in America.

[skillzdadirecta]

3 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

Rumble vs YouTube is a pretty good example.  

Just a moment...

KICK.COM

 

What am I supposed to be seeing here?

[Jwheel86]

2 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

What am I supposed to be seeing here?

 

The cesspool of advertisers you're left with when you don't moderate content. 

[skillzdadirecta]

17 minutes ago, Reputator said:

 

Also regulating industries is quite a simpler task than regulating the speech of every human being in America.

I'm not talking about regulating the speech of every human being in America... no idea where you're getting that idea from. I'm talking about regulating Social Media Companies and making them responsible for the shit they allow on their platforms. I don't think these companies are special and they are not entitled to exceptions that other industries not enttitled to. Why should media companies be resonsible for the content they allow on their platforms but social media companies shouldn't? That's what I'm not following here.

[Kal-El814]

2 hours ago, Jwheel86 said:

We're on the verge of electing the first black female President, while most of Europe is electing fascists or making deals with the far left to keep the fascists out. 

 

Absolutely none of that changes what I said. Nor does it change the fact that we were one Mike Pence away from being on the real shit end of misinformation. Regulating bad faith actors being difficult and having the potential for abuse are simply not compelling enough reasons to do nothing beyond going after the individuals responsible for it, especially when they’re actively out there playing the hits.

 

1 hour ago, Reputator said:

Because nothing motivates a platform better than money, and Musk is learning the hard way that going against that reality results in financial ruin.

 

Democracy and Musk taking it on the chin, seems like an even exchange.

 

1 hour ago, Reputator said:

Also regulating industries is quite a simpler task than regulating the speech of every human being in America.

 

Once again for the people in the cheap seats… nobody is advocating this.

[Jwheel86]

13 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 let's all pack our shit up and go home! We've now solved racism in this country for what, the third time? Or is it the fourth? I've lost count.

 

Of course not, but you're chasing a solution you can't offer an example of it achieving the desired outcome. 

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

The cesspool of advertisers you're left with when you don't moderate content. 

How is that an example of what we were talking about? I'm honestly confused about the point you're making here.

[Reputator]

1 minute ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I'm not talking about regulating the speech of every human being in America... no idea where you're getting that idea from. I'm talking about regulating Social Media Companies and making them responsible for the shit they allow on their platforms. I don't think these companies are special and they are not entitled to exceptions that other industries not enttitled to. My should media companies be resonsible for the content they allow on their platforms but social media companies shouldn't? That's what I'm not following here.

 

How do you think the reaction to that would be if they started doing that? Would it be.... election interference? A controversy worse than CRT? What's the outcome in your mind? And don't just say "better than what we have now" because that's lazy.

[skillzdadirecta]

8 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

Of course not, but you're chasing a solution you can't offer an example of it achieving the desired outcome. 

I can't point to anyone solving world hunger or homelessnes either doesn't mean we shouldn't try to. I'm REALLY not following your line of thinking here. So we should what, do nothing? Let misnformation and disinformation reign and let these companies do business as usual?

[skillzdadirecta]

8 minutes ago, Reputator said:

 

How do you think the reaction to that would be if they started doing that? Would it be.... election interference? A controversy worse than CRT? What's the outcome in your mind? And don't just say "better than what we have now" because that's lazy.

Bro they're saying all of that shit NOW. Who gives a shit? I personally don't give a flying fuck how these people will react. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with preventing these companies from profiting from the deleberate spread of disinformation and misnformation. Nothing. These social media companies are causing real world harm and not just in the political sense.  Cyber bullying is another areas where social media companies can improve on without infringing on anyone's free speech and they deliberately choose not to often hiding behind freedom of speech laws. Not just students are bing bullied now. Teens are harassing teachers online now.

 

Quote

Once again for the people in the cheap seats… nobody is advocating this.

Nope but this is the straw man we're being forced to contend with.

[Reputator]

3 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Bro they're saying all of that shit NOW. Who gives a shit? I personally don't give a flying fuck how these people will react. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with preventing these companies from profiting from the deleberate spread of disinformation and misnformation. Nothing. These social media companies are causing real world harm and not just in the political sense.  Cyber bullying is another areas where social media companies can improve on without infringing on anyone's free speech and they deliberately choose not to often hiding behind freedom of speech laws. Not just students are bing bullied now. Teens are harassing teachers online now.

 

This is just way more complicated than you're making it out to be. Like where is the line drawn where government has to step in for bullying? Given the nuance of speech, the lawyering of language that exists in our society, how do you prove something is bullying? Government could step in but it seems like every case would need to be litigated based on minutia of detail on wording and intent.

 

This is not a conquerable problem in the way that you're describing.

[skillzdadirecta]

13 minutes ago, Reputator said:

 

This is just way more complicated than you're making it out to be. Like where is the line drawn where government has to step in for bullying? Given the nuance of speech, the lawyering of language that exists in our society, how do you prove something is bullying? Government could step in but it seems like every case would need to be litigated based on minutia of detail on wording and intent.

 

This is not a conquerable problem in the way that you're describing.

Wait so we don't have laws that prohibit harassment and terrorizing? People have literally been bullied and harassed to death online and you're arguing that we shouldn't do anything to stop it because It's too hard? There are literraly limits on what you can post online on these platforms NOW and you're saying that we can't expand that under any circumstances because... why exactly? I swear I heard these same arguments ten years ago when people argued that services like Xbox Live couldn't do anything to curb the torrent of racist bullshit and harassment that existed on that platform. And MS took it's sweet time doing anything about it too because of this sentiment.

 

These platforms are NOT public spaces and no one has a guaranteed "right of free speech" on ANY of them. You're posting on a message board right now where the owner doesn't allow certain content to be posted and that is within his right. These social media companies are having it both ways right now... controlling the content on their plaforms when its against their interests but hiding behind the first ammendment when any calls to regulate the content they allow goes against  their interests.  Right now that's their right too... but don't be mad when Brazil becomes just the first of many countries that shut Twiiter/X down due to it's shitty owner and his viewpoints and the threat that they percieve his misinformation campaign to be to their national security. 

 

Let's be real, this is not and has never been about "free speech". This is about the freedom to spread misinformation without any consequence regardless of the real world ramifications with no culpability for these platforms because that is and has been an extremely profitable business model.  It's absurd to think that these companies cannot be regulated in a way that leads to a more healthy and honest public discourse with infringing on the individuals free speech.

[Jwheel86]

4 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I can't point to anyone solving world hunger or homelessnes either doesn't mean when shouldn't try to. I'm REALLY not following your line of thinking here. So we should what, do nothing? Let misnformation and disinformation reign and let these companies do business as usual?

 

I can point to entire libraries of data that food programs decrease hunger. I can also point to the same amount of data that the War on Drugs made shit worse. Doing something doesn't always make things better. Doing something could easily back fire. Was keeping Hunter Biden's dick out of the headlines worth the 4 years of constant complaining by the Right? 

 

I'm all for regulating algos and removing shields for companies who feed people algo content. But trying to regulate the content itself, good luck there. 

[Jwheel86]

3 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

why exactly?

 

Because society agrees and consents to those regulations. There is not the same consent and agreement on how to regulate social media. 

[skillzdadirecta]

5 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

I can point to entire libraries of data that food programs decrease hunger. I can also point to the same amount of data that the War on Drugs made shit worse. Doing something doesn't always make things better. Doing something could easily back fire. Was keeping Hunter Biden's dick out of the headlines worth the 4 years of constant complaining by the Right? 

 

I'm all for regulating algos and removing shields for companies who feed people algo content. But trying to regulate the content itself, good luck there. 

Huh? Sooo... do NOTHING? The War on drugs was implemented for several reasons, none having to do with actually preventing drug use. Because someone made a bad faith policy call to solve one societal issue, We should throw our hands up and say "fuck it", no need to try to fix anything because we may fuck it up worse?

 

1 minute ago, Jwheel86 said:

There is not the same consent and agreement on how to regulate social media. 

Huh? I'm not even touching this one... 

[TUFKAK]

The lefts obsession with free speech is ridiculous.

[Jwheel86]

1 minute ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Huh? Sooo... do NOTHING? The War on drugs was implemented for several reasons, none having to do with actually preventing drug use. Because someone made a bad faith policy call to solve one societal issue, We should throw our hands up and say "fuck it", no need to try to fix anything because we may fuck it up worse?

 

 

I didn't saying nothing, I've given at least 3 examples of things you could do which wouldn't involve regulating content and you'd get wide spread agreement on. Remove Section 230 protections for algo promoted content, making influencers over X size open their book to check for foreign funding, require algos be open source, ban minors from social media. Those ideas would probably get 70%+ approval.

 

Something is happening organically in the form of people rejecting national populism because they are fucking weird, the more people learn about the cesspool of right wing discourse, the less popular it is, look at Vance. 

 

17 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Huh? I'm not even touching this one... 

 

Everyone agrees health inspectors at restaurants is good even if the local owner of Mike's Pizza thinks Stacy at the county health department is out to get him. Every local government in the entire country has them. It is something people except of their government. Same with every regulated industry. 

 

"Should government regulate misinformation on social media" would probably poll in the low 40s and nose dive when you ask about the details. 

[TUFKAK]

So ad populum huh? Dipshit Americans aren’t in favor of it so fuck it? Just wait for people to organically stop being dipshits? 
 

Don’t wanna hear anything about stay at home orders and masking then; dipshits were opposed therefore shouldn’t have done it cause freedumb.

[Uaarkson]

25 minutes ago, TUFKAK said:

The lefts obsession with free speech is ridiculous.

Nah. The right sure as shit doesn’t give a fuck about actual civil rights, someone has to defend free speech. This thread is pretty obvious fucking proof of that.

[skillzdadirecta]

14 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

ban minors from social media

THIS isn't infringing on personal rights? And your suggestions  do amount to regulating the social media companies which is ALL I'm calling for. I don't have specifics because I'm not a policy whonk but as I've said several times in this topic, these companies need some kind of regulation because they can't be trusted to regulate themselves. Sounds like you agree? I honestly can't tell anymore.

[TUFKAK]

1 minute ago, Uaarkson said:

Nah. The right sure as shit doesn’t give a fuck about actual civil rights, someone has to defend free speech.

Then we better stop advocating for restrictions on firearms too

[Uaarkson]

Just now, TUFKAK said:

Then we better stop advocating for restrictions on firearms too

I mean, I say ban guns altogether. I’m not seeing the equivalency here. Freedom of speech underpins western democracy; guns don’t.

[TUFKAK]

The right says the same thing about firearms which is also a constitutionally guaranteed civil right so we better not being restricting it to prevent slippery slopes.

 

240Gs for everyone.

[Kal-El814]

1 hour ago, Jwheel86 said:

We're on the verge of electing the first black female President, while most of Europe is electing fascists or making deals with the far left to keep the fascists out. 

 

I wanna come back to this real quick for a few reasons.

 

1) This is being a Monday morning quarterback except you’re doing it at halftime on Sunday when the score is tied. If Biden had snorted some Ritalin before the debate Kamala wouldn’t be on the verge of anything, so let’s dial this back 

2) Other countries have had female heads of state as of the 1960s, unless I’m forgetting someone. Trying to wed Kamala’s potential (and I stress, potential) election to show much freedom we’ve got is straining correlation equalling causation to a significant degree

3) Other countries with close to equivalent free speech laws are also having issues with right wing authoritarianism gaining popularity, so again, boiling this down to a correlation between restrictions on speech and a rise of fascism is a dog that just don’t hunt

[Kal-El814]

5 minutes ago, Uaarkson said:

I mean, I say ban guns altogether. I’m not seeing the equivalency here. Freedom of speech underpins western democracy; guns don’t.

 

 

Love lifts us up where we belong.

[SuperSpreader]

1 minute ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

I wanna come back to this real quick for a few reasons.

 

1) This is being a Monday morning quarterback except you’re doing it at halftime on Sunday when the score is tied. If Biden had snorted some Ritalin before the debate Kamala wouldn’t be on the verge of anything, so let’s dial this back 

2) Other countries have had female heads of state as of the 1960s, unless I’m forgetting someone. Trying to wed Kamala’s potential (and I stress, potential) election to show much freedom we’ve got is straining correlation equalling causation to a significant degree

3) Other countries with close to equivalent free speech laws are also having issues with right wing authoritarianism gaining popularity, so again, boiling this down to a correlation between restrictions on speech and a rise of fascism is a dog that just don’t hunt

 

 

 

This you

[Kal-El814]

Just now, SuperSpreader said:

 

This you

 

44 years and counting, baby.

[skillzdadirecta]

@Kal-El814 in here cooking...

 

[Jason]