Time to regulate and split up big tech (google, facebook etc.)

[Kragar]

53 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

Okay, this has bothered me.  They censor hate speech.

That the hate is coming from well known conservative media names is on the conservative media names.

This is not discriminating against conservatives, it is discriminating against discrimination.

If a baker can refuse to serve someone because they think they are gay, I am comfortable with facebook or google not allowing hate speech on their platform because they find it morally reprehensible. 

But what standards are they using to determine whether something is hate speech, and, is it consistently applied.

 

Shouldn't the government be the ones to judge?

[Ghostsof1915]

1 hour ago, DrJockitch said:

Okay, this has bothered me.  They censor hate speech.

That the hate is coming from well known conservative media names is on the conservative media names.

This is not discriminating against conservatives, it is discriminating against discrimination.

If a baker can refuse to serve someone because they think they are gay, I am comfortable with facebook or google not allowing hate speech on their platform because they find it morally reprehensible. 

So are you against hate speech but ok with censorship? Or are you ok with hate speech but hate censorship? 

[Ronaldoescobar]

Bizzare LOL!

[CBH1926]

That is why I still use AOL and dial up internet.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

 

4 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Then let's break up oil companies, car companies, Airbus, and Boeing. 

And bring back Netscape!

 

 

Let's break-up the monopoly Jeremy Jacobs has over the rest of the NHL.

 

[bishopshodan]

 

[Lancaster]

3 hours ago, Kragar said:

But what standards are they using to determine whether something is hate speech, and, is it consistently applied.

 

Shouldn't the government be the ones to judge?

The problem is that some people equate "I hate it" as a qualifier for hate speech.  

[Heretic]

My 1st beef against Google:

"

Back in January, Google announced a proposed change to Chrome’s extensions system, called Manifest V3, that would stop current ad blockers from working efficiently. In a response to the overwhelming negative feedback, Google is standing firm on Chrome’s ad blocking changes, sharing that current ad blocking capabilities will be restricted to enterprise users.

 

Manifest V3 comprises a major change to Chrome’s extensions system, including a revamp to the permissions system and a fundamental change to the way ad blockers operate. In particular, modern ad blockers, like uBlock Origin and Ghostery, use Chrome’s webRequest API to block ads before they’re even downloaded.

With the Manifest V3 proposal, Google deprecates the webRequest API’s ability to block a particular request before it’s loaded. As you would expect, power users and extension developers alike criticized Google’s proposal for limiting the user’s ability to browse the web as they see fit.

Now, months later, Google has responded to some of the various issues raised by the community, sharing more details on the changes to permissions and more. The most notable aspect of their response, however, is a single sentence buried in the text, clarifying their changes to ad blocking and privacy blocking extensions.

Chrome is deprecating the blocking capabilities of the webRequest API in Manifest V3, not the entire webRequest API (though blocking will still be available to enterprise deployments).
"

https://9to5google.com/2019/05/29/chrome-ad-blocking-enterprise-manifest-v3/

 

They can kiss my bleep.

 

Just installed Firefox for the first time in over 5 years - I for one, will be dumping Chrome as I use uBlock Origin.   

[gttxc]

I think it is worth mentioning this partly an honest attempt at stifling bigotry and misinformation.  

 

We we are entering a new era where there is huge opertunity to manipulate people.  This happens through censorship, populism and hate speech.

 

Im not sure platforms,that are intrinsic to our society, should be able to censor or control the content but I’m not sure how you free the internet from it.  You have open source platforms but it will never compete a company that actually pays.  So it would never be used en mass.  

 

It it is very easy to complain about these things.  Let’s hear some actual ideas to fix this.  We know the terrible things misinformation and populism cause.  We also know what a slippery slope censorship is.  How do you regulate this without the regulation threating the intention of the regulation?

 

iIm hoping that carefully crafted AI can help with this unbiasedly. Humans have always done this.  From executing heretics to censoring World War One to burning books.  Our humanity needs to be stripped from some things.

 

AND this certainly has the tone of self victimization.  I’m sick of this crap.  No one is censoring good conservative ideas or good liberal ideas.  I hate using those words, by the way.  I feel/hope most people dont align perfectly with one or the other(in the contemporary, divisive use of these terms).  It just simplified things.

[gttxc]

https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html

 

i thought this was a good article from the OP’s point of view

[canuckistani]

16 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Then let's break up oil companies, car companies, Airbus, and Boeing. 

And bring back Netscape!

 

 

Do you undestand what a monopoly is ??

[canuckistani]

18 hours ago, MJDDawg said:

You've yet to make a single point to actually support this. 

 

You're on here right now because these companies are BIG BUSINESS! And quite frankly, without these businesses, you'd still be typing your anti-capitalistic ramblings on a Commodore 64 right now. It takes money, lots of it, to push ahead with the technology dreams that originate in the basement or garage of visionaries. Otherwise those ideas would never see the light of day.

 

The bottom line is these are businesses that yes have a huge amount of control of the internet, but hey kudos to them for having founders with the vision to create something that could transform the world. Should there be more regulation? Maybe, but that's not necessarily their issues to deal with.

 

Monopolies universally seen as negative? Maybe in those countries where the average person doesn't get the chance to share the wealth and can't own shares in pension funds or RSP's like we can here. In those countries, they're referred to as oligopolies, owned by friends and family of whoever is leading those countries. So it's not working there either.

 

At least in our capitalistic society, the market will always sort itself out (see Sears, Chrysler...etc). It may not be a quick as you'd want, but it will happen.

 

This is a whole bunch of nonsense. Innovation leads to monopolies, which leads to breakup of monopolies. Has happened multiple times in the last two centuries FYI. Oil baronies, Coal baronies, etc. 
As for monopolies not being seen as negative- show me one monopoly that enjoys favorable public opinion or favorable competetive pricing outside of necessities like healthcare and public education. The most hated company in this province is ICBC,  a monopoly. 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, canuckistani said:

Do you undestand what a monopoly is ??

Owning Boardwalk and Park Place? 

[ItsAllOursBoys]

19 hours ago, Shift-4 said:

Pretty sure Bing has   

Actually, Bing holds a 33% market share in the US market (5 Billion searches per month) and 9% worldwide, which amounts to a total 12 Billion search volume per month. With Google's apparent suppression of certain voices and their content, I'm not surprised by these numbers

 

 

[JM_]

16 hours ago, Kragar said:

But what standards are they using to determine whether something is hate speech, and, is it consistently applied.

 

Shouldn't the government be the ones to judge?

we don't need to reinvent the law, one's already in place for hate speech. 

 

you also agreed to the terms of use when you sign up for face tube, so you've agreed that they can remove posts at their discretion. 

 

no new judging is needed. 

[ItsAllOursBoys]

16 hours ago, DrJockitch said:

Okay, this has bothered me.  They censor hate speech.

That the hate is coming from well known conservative media names is on the conservative media names.

This is not discriminating against conservatives, it is discriminating against discrimination.

If a baker can refuse to serve someone because they think they are gay, I am comfortable with facebook or google not allowing hate speech on their platform because they find it morally reprehensible. 

 

I agree that everyone, no matter their age, sex, race, religion or sexual orientation has the right to safety, dignity, and respect, but unfortunately, in today's world, people can't tell the difference between hate directed towards a person and hate directed towards their actions.

 

This is what happens when a society moves from being "free" (where everyone has the liberty to voice their opinion, and everyone is at liberty to disagree with said opinions) to a socially totalitarian state where free speech is criminalized and the voice of the minority or ruling party is legislated into law. Lenin, Stalin, Pol pot, Hitler, etc... all criminalized the free expression of thought and speech by labeling it "hate," then used their version of social justice warriors to report violations and enforce such laws.

 

Like a frog being slowly boiled alive in water, this is the new world they're creating for us and the "useful idiots" are helping them build it. The modern concept of criminal "hate speech" is a new tool in the war arsenal building what George Orwell called the "ministry of truth." Say goodbye to the free expression of thought and individuality and say hello to the legislated borg-hive mentality.

[bishopshodan]

I have never understood the attraction to using Facebook.

 

I have never used it but it seems like everyone is always in everyone else's business.

 

Why do people want that? 

 

The terminology has always turned me off in these modern platforms too..

I pick my friends carefully and don't call you one because I just know you, I might want to up-vote you but I might not like what you are posting and I really don't follow anyone.

[Rob_Zepp]

16 hours ago, CBH1926 said:

That is why I still use AOL and dial up internet.

Is that what they call getting "on the line"?    This interweb thingy is confusing.

 

[sam13371337]

people are seriously underestimating the problems associated with arbitrary censorship and thought police.   just because you personally agree with the censorship is irrelevant. 

 

its the act that's important.  If there was an all powerful monopolistic entity like google that was dominating the internet, while enjoying the legal protections of the a platform and censoring leftists voices. id be equally against that. 

 

Why was google allowed to purchase youtube?  youtube got to grow by appealing to independent creators.  they got independent creators to choose their platform by offering to pay them.  but as soon as they became big enough and google came in with their billions.  now they turned corporate big tech and no longer need the independent creators. 

 

in no other industry can large behemoths just purchase another one to create a monopoly without drawing all sorts of anti-trust and government laws and lawsuits.  why is google allowed to do this? why are they exempt from anti-trust laws when they clearly are partisan company with an agenda? 

 

im really happy to see government starting to take serious action on this.  simply put,  google needs to reform or be split up. 

[Kragar]

4 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

we don't need to reinvent the law, one's already in place for hate speech. 

 

you also agreed to the terms of use when you sign up for face tube, so you've agreed that they can remove posts at their discretion. 

 

no new judging is needed. 

You're right, it doesn't need to be reinvented.  Just enforced by suitable people.

 

Why would they need to remove posts, when a poster is solely responsible for their content.  I could see temporarily removing something, for fear that it would not be acceptable, but the content owner should be notified so that they can defend whether their content belongs.  So, I could see the platform keeping an eye out for crap like people posting their own violence and illegal activities, or even legitimate hate speech, but then have it reviewed by a third party, likely someone involved with the judicial system.  Punish the wrongdoers, but also punish the platform who censors when no censoring should take place.  If the platform holds no responsibility for the content, then they should ultimately have no grounds for censorship.

 

Also, if the service really is a platform as they claim, they should not be able to decide who gets paid and who doesn't.  Barring banned content, traffic should be the only thing that drives monetization.