Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[TechTalk]

Well, a lot of people on social media find the tracking of their every move, what they buy, etc. an invasion of privacy.  Your not caring I think is a rare position.  So now you're agreeing that owners of these services should be allowed to make political decisions as to what people can say?  I'm not talking about using vile language or suggesting we overthrow the government.  I'm talking about plain ordinary political positions.  Twitter and Facebook are huge and have become the public square.  If these outlets can affect political outcomes due to their unique power, that's a concern to many people.  Next time it could be your guy that is shut down.

I'm free to say what I think and companies are free to decide whether to distribute what I say—whether it's a newspaper accepting or rejecting an article or letter to the editor or a social media company.  I'm free to use or not use a social media platform. Private social media companies are free to set the terms of use for their platform and determine what is acceptable conduct on their platform. Tracking and privacy invasion are among the reasons that I don't use their services, lack of interest is another.

Private individuals built social media businesses and you want someone else dictating what content they must distribute on them? They don't get to control their own standards and reputation? If it's the size of the company that's the issue or market dominance, then I'm all for Congress investigating and considering their compliance with antitrust laws. The internet offers an endless variety of means, methods, opportunities, and platforms for information.

Of more concern are ISPs (Internet Service Providers) as they are your gatekeeper to the internet...

https://www.pcmag.com/news/trump-officially-hands-control-of-your-data-to-isps

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/senate-votes-to-let-isps-sell-your-web-browsing-history-to-advertisers/

And Net Neutrality elimination, allowing your ISP to block internet traffic and sites from you or slow them down...

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/14/16771910/trump-fcc-ajit-pai-net-neutrality-repeal

[jeremyrh]

Well, a lot of people on social media find the tracking of their every move, what they buy, etc. an invasion of privacy.  Your not caring I think is a rare position.  So now you're agreeing that owners of these services should be allowed to make political decisions as to what people can say?  I'm not talking about using vile language or suggesting we overthrow the government.  I'm talking about plain ordinary political positions.  Twitter and Facebook are huge and have become the public square.  If these outlets can affect political outcomes due to their unique power, that's a concern to many people.  Next time it could be your guy that is shut down.

Well, I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with Alan. I think that laws have not kept up.with the emergence of social.media companies big enough to collect massive amounts of information about us and the big data methods of using it, and how that can be used in the wrong hands.

https://www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy/up-next?language=en

https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-platforms-must-pay-for-their-role-in-the-insurrection/

[TechTalk]

There's so much bias in the news, it's hard to know what is the truth.

Not all that hard really—at least if the best version of the truth is what you're after, far too many are not. Absolute truth is unattainable, sorting out the best version of it is the best we can do.

That's complicated by what you say that we go into the position already believing certain things.

Having that awareness and being conscious of it and routinely questioning your own perception and biases is key. Too many have no awareness and believe that their ideology is the key to understanding what's true and what isn't. All ideology softens the mind up to accept lies and misleading propaganda. Ideology is largely an appeal to emotion over reason and pushes aside the legitimate concerns of views that conflict with it.

Which is the better camera?  Nikon or Canon?

A poor analogy as my needs may be different from someone else.

[TechTalk]

Well, I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with Alan. I think that laws have not kept up.with the emergence of social.media companies big enough to collect massive amounts of information about us and the big data methods of using it, and how that can be used in the wrong hands.

With that I agree. It's a separate issue from what content they find acceptable to distribute. I would have no problem with government intervening to regulate personal data collection or considering antitrust action due to excessive dominance in a market.

Alan has a habit of starting on one topic and then dragging in other issues with each new post. Is twitter like a phone call or email... to they're censoring political speech... to personal data collection. I was replying only to letting social media companies set their terms of service and standards regarding acceptable content.

For decades the U.S. had a "Fairness Doctrine" that required broadcasters using public airwaves to offer balanced points of view. It was attacked by conservatives and libertarians and finally eliminated by a Reagan appointed chairman of the FCC. Its elimination led to the proliferation of right-wing talk radio and later Fox News, Sinclair Broadcasting, etc. Now it seems conservatives want a new fairness doctrine applied to social media due to the reluctance of those companies to be used as vehicles for mass distribution of potentially dangerous lies and conspiracy hoaxes; incitement of hate and violence; and deceptive foreign propaganda; under the cover of being political speech. I think that it's understandable that companies want to control certain content that may, in their view, be damaging to the public interest and as a result to their reputations as well—and potentially leading to a larger loss of users and revenue than if they did not control such content.

[John Camp]

There is a complicated thing going on here -- the social media companies argue on one hand that they're not responsible for what their users say, that they're just a means of transmission, but on the other hand, they do take *some* responsibility -- they ban Trump. They have taken a step that, say, Verizon has never taken. If you want to conspire to something illegal on Verizon, they won't stop you or even try to stop you; if the FBI finds out about it, they may get a warrant to listen in on your calls, but Verizon doesn't do anything but comply with the terms of the warrant. Facebook and Twitter have now taken a step beyond that, and on their own responsibility, have begun limiting what Trump can say, banning his use of their means of transmission. By doing that, it seems to be they have asserted not only a responsibility but a right. And if they have the right to do that, it seems to me that they have now abandoned the pretense (which is all it was) of being purely a means of transmission, and are now more the equivalent of a newspaper...and so could be sued for things like libelous statements carried on their electronic pages. 

[TechTalk]

The poor public gets snippets and headlines that are politically and biasly written.

The poorly informed only read snippets and headlines that fit their political bias. Complete stories, full context, and opposing points of view are of little to no interest to the poorly informed.

[TechTalk]

There is a complicated thing going on here -- the social media companies argue on one hand that they're not responsible for what their users say, that they're just a means of transmission, but on the other hand, they do take *some* responsibility -- they ban Trump. They have taken a step that, say, Verizon has never taken. If you want to conspire to something illegal on Verizon, they won't stop you or even try to stop you; if the FBI finds out about it, they may get a warrant to listen in on your calls, but Verizon doesn't do anything but comply with the terms of the warrant. Facebook and Twitter have now taken a step beyond that, and on their own responsibility, have begun limiting what Trump can say, banning his use of their means of transmission. By doing that, it seems to be they have asserted not only a responsibility but a right. And if they have the right to do that, it seems to me that they have now abandoned the pretense (which is all it was) of being purely a means of transmission, and are now more the equivalent of a newspaper...and so could be sued for things like libelous statements carried on their electronic pages.

If social media companies were to create or request original content like an editorial or news story, they would face the same liability for that content as an online news site. Like social media companies, online news sites are protected from liability for online user comments. Like social media companies, online news sites can and do set standards for what is acceptable in user comments and can limit or block user content they find unacceptable. Like phone companies and ISPs, social media companies can be served with subpoenas related to use of their services in a criminal investigation.

https://coralproject.net/blog/internet-comments-and-the-law/

In the United States, at least, there is substantial legal protection for those who attempt to moderate or curate user commentary to present a pleasant online experience.

There is nothing that requires your comment section to be a sewer, and in fact a completely hands-off approach may not even be the safest approach. There is always the possibility that user content, if left to run rampant, might cross a serious line — such as violations of federal criminal law — and drag the website into a legal thicket.

[jeremyrh]

In my view the bigger issue is not what people write on twitter or Facebook, it's how Facebook uses that information to then sell advertising. Have a look at the Ted Talk video I linked above. Essentially fb can identify a specific demographic and then sell adverts to anyone - Russians, drug dealers, whoever, and allow misinformation to be targeted at key groups.

[Chris Kern]

In my view the bigger issue is not what people write on twitter or Facebook, it's how Facebook uses that information to then sell advertising.

That's the most innocent aspect of how Facebook uses the information it collects about its "customers."*

———
*Actually, if you have a Facebook account, you're not the customer; you're the product.

[TechTalk]

I share that concern as well. As another example, Cambridge Analytica used a huge Facebook data harvest to build voter profiles for the Trump campaign in 2016, creating a scandal for Facebook and the campaign.

https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-cambridge-analytica-data-mining-and-trump-what-you-need-to-know/

[Alan Klein]

There is a complicated thing going on here -- the social media companies argue on one hand that they're not responsible for what their users say, that they're just a means of transmission, but on the other hand, they do take *some* responsibility -- they ban Trump. They have taken a step that, say, Verizon has never taken. If you want to conspire to something illegal on Verizon, they won't stop you or even try to stop you; if the FBI finds out about it, they may get a warrant to listen in on your calls, but Verizon doesn't do anything but comply with the terms of the warrant. Facebook and Twitter have now taken a step beyond that, and on their own responsibility, have begun limiting what Trump can say, banning his use of their means of transmission. By doing that, it seems to be they have asserted not only a responsibility but a right. And if they have the right to do that, it seems to me that they have now abandoned the pretense (which is all it was) of being purely a means of transmission, and are now more the equivalent of a newspaper...and so could be sued for things like libelous statements carried on their electronic pages. 

Which is why protection against lawsuits granted by Congress should be eliminated.  This was given to them so they wouldn't have to worry about what anyone was saying.  Now their limitation of speech has gone beyond "dangerous" speech.  They are penalizing speech on the right supporting political positions they agree with.  They are taking political sides like CNN and Fox and the NY Times.   They can't have it both ways.   

I don't think the Democrats will support any changes in their protection. Right now the social media is on their side politically.  But that would be short-sighted.  What goes around comes around, eventually. What could be interesting is the free market operating.  Another twitter could pop up.  Twitter will lose customers, and its stock price will sink.  Stockholders will complain and they may change their procedures.  I hate monopolies whether its social media or with computer programs.  Competition is the best freshener you can have to clear the air.

[Alan Klein]

The poorly informed only read snippets and headlines that fit their political bias. Complete stories, full context, and opposing points of view are of little to no interest to the poorly informed.

Unfortunately, the poorly informed vote.

[Alan Klein]

If social media companies were to create or request original content like an editorial or news story, they would face the same liability for that content as an online news site. Like social media companies, online news sites are protected from liability for online user comments. Like social media companies, online news sites can and do set standards for what is acceptable in user comments and can limit or block user content they find unacceptable. Like phone companies and ISPs, social media companies can be served with subpoenas related to use of their services in a criminal investigation.

https://coralproject.net/blog/internet-comments-and-the-law/

In the United States, at least, there is substantial legal protection for those who attempt to moderate or curate user commentary to present a pleasant online experience.

There is nothing that requires your comment section to be a sewer, and in fact a completely hands-off approach may not even be the safest approach. There is always the possibility that user content, if left to run rampant, might cross a serious line — such as violations of federal criminal law — and drag the website into a legal thicket.

Congress gave these sites legal protection from lawsuits to encourage the free interchange of ideas open to all political thought.  If they're going to decide which political thought is acceptable and which can be censored by them, then they should lose that protection.  They passed the point of limiting sewer language and have become players in the political arena. 

[Alan Klein]

Biden decided to release all vaccines being reserved for second doses to be used as the first dose hoping that production would make up the difference.
Effectively he's overruling Fauci who was opposed to this procedure.  But now that Fauci was asked to stay on, I suppose he'll change his mind.  So with all the complaints of Trump not following his expert's advice, Biden, who hasn't even become president yet, is the one not listening.  Of course, the biased press will protect Biden and downplay the whole thing.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/02/dr-anthony-fauci-says-us-will-not-delay-second-doses-of-covid-vaccine
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/01/08/955034989/bidens-plan-to-release-more-vaccine-is-a-gamble-is-it-worth-the-risk

[LesPalenik]

Which is why protection against lawsuits granted by Congress should be eliminated.  This was given to them so they wouldn't have to worry about what anyone was saying.  Now their limitation of speech has gone beyond "dangerous" speech.  They are penalizing speech on the right supporting political positions they agree with.  They are taking political sides like CNN and Fox and the NY Times.   They can't have it both ways.   

I don't think the Democrats will support any changes in their protection. Right now the social media is on their side politically.  But that would be short-sighted.  What goes around comes around, eventually. What could be interesting is the free market operating.  Another twitter could pop up.  Twitter will lose customers, and its stock price will sink.  Stockholders will complain and they may change their procedures.  I hate monopolies whether its social media or with computer programs.  Competition is the best freshener you can have to clear the air.

I doubt that Twitter will notice any reduction in number of tweets. Instead of Trump's tweets, there will be new political discussions and as the spring approaches people will share their gardening and cooking tips. If the covid numbers start subsiding and people start travelling again, Twitter will be inundated with travel snapshots. If the covid infections get worse, we'll see pictures of scantily dressed people in hospitals.

[LesPalenik]

Biden decided to release all vaccines being reserved for second doses to be used as the first dose hoping that production would make up the difference.
Effectively he's overruling Fauci who was opposed to this procedure.  But now that Fauci was asked to stay on, I suppose he'll change his mind.  So with all the complaints of Trump not following his expert's advice, Biden, who hasn't even become president yet, is the one not listening.  Of course, the biased press will protect Biden and downplay the whole thing.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/02/dr-anthony-fauci-says-us-will-not-delay-second-doses-of-covid-vaccine
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/01/08/955034989/bidens-plan-to-release-more-vaccine-is-a-gamble-is-it-worth-the-risk

Anticipating new shipments of vaccines in the coming months, the new vaccination policy actually makes a lot of sense, while reducing the "2nd phase inventory" with old vaccines and replacing them at the vaccination time with fresh shipments. Besides, I don't think it was Biden's idea. He got the advice from the experts and went with it. Smart move!

[Alan Klein]

I doubt that Twitter will notice any reduction in number of tweets. Instead of Trump's tweets, there will be new political discussions and as the spring approaches people will share their gardening and cooking tips. If the covid numbers start subsiding and people start travelling again, Twitter will be inundated with travel snapshots. If the covid infections get worse, we'll see pictures of scantily dressed people in hospitals.

I don't use Twitter so I'm not familiar with how it works.  But how difficult is it to set up a competitive site? If people become afraid that their account might be shut down, or their messages censored, they could switch to a competitor who could guarantee complete freedom.  Also, if you're new, and have a choice, many people would pick the site that offers complete freedom from harassment.  Wouldn't you?

[Alan Klein]

Anticipating new shipments of vaccines in the coming months, the new vaccination policy actually makes a lot of sense, while reducing the "2nd phase inventory" with old vaccines and replacing them at the vaccination time with fresh shipments. Besides, I don't think it was Biden's idea. He got the advice from the experts and went with it. Smart move!

MY point is that he went against Fauci's advice who's the chief guy at the CDC regarding viruses.  If Trump had done it, he would have been castigated by the press.  But the press says nothing with Biden.  This double standard and "fake news" is why 47% of Americans voted for Trump. Why so many Americans are tired of the BS press and phony political bureaucracy.  So now we're back to same-o same-o.  We're being lied to and BS'd.  Even if you don't get Trump, do you get my point?

[jeremyrh]

I don't think the Democrats will support any changes in their protection. Right now the social media is on their side politically. 

Fantasy land. We have given you examples of how fb helped Trump and Twitter has been his mouthpiece for as long as he was politically relevant.

[LesPalenik]

MY point is that he went against Fauci's advice who's the chief guy at the CDC regarding viruses.  If Trump had done it, he would have been castigated by the press.  But the press says nothing with Biden.  This double standard and "fake news" is why 47% of Americans voted for Trump. Why so many Americans are tired of the BS press and phony political bureaucracy.  So now we're back to same-o same-o.  We're being lied to and BS'd.  Even if you don't get Trump, do you get my point?

Alan, what I got from your point is that you are diverting the attention from one thing to another.
I don't know if Fauci ever made that recommendation. Even if he did, maybe he made that recommendation some time ago when they were just preparing for the vaccination.
Maybe he changed his mind and now he is advocating the new and more effective vaccination method. This is not a big deal, and if anything, we should be happy for the fine tuning of the vaccination process. That's what counts, taking care of the population and preventing infections.

Anyway, Trump is done and soon gone, and Biden will start making America great again.