Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

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


sam13371337

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Kragar said:

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.

who's going to pay for all of that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

who's going to pay for all of that? 

 

2 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Why not a tax on the platforms.  Tax the rich, right?

Ok, a less flippant answer this time: if the platforms get punished for incorrectly censoring, they will learn to censor what really should be removed, and keep their political bias out of the equation.  Which is what should be happening, since they are a platform and not a publisher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

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

The way i look at it, is that censoring people makes it harder for me to pinpoint who the dee bags are.

 

You wanna go on a rant about sexual preference? Peace out. 

 

You wanna go and start a march promoting racism? Not interested. 

 

You believe the world is flat? Well you are just....misinformed. 

 

Stupid views and ideas, (and people) phase themselves out quicker if you leave them to their devices. 

 

Its like taking the warning label off bleach. 

 

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Kragar said:

 

Ok, a less flippant answer this time: if the platforms get punished for incorrectly censoring, they will learn to censor what really should be removed, and keep their political bias out of the equation.  Which is what should be happening, since they are a platform and not a publisher.

"punished for incorrectly censoring" - thats an interesting concept. How does that square up with the fact that you gave away your rights to the material you post when you agreed to use the service? You call it political bias, they don't have to, they can nuke whatever post they want to. 

 

You're asking a free service, that you agreed to the terms of, to police it just how you like it. Good luck with that. 

 

What should be happening is exactly whats happening. You agreed to the terms of service. Your recourse is to not use the product if you're not happy. It was free. 

Edited by Jimmy McGill
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

"punished for incorrectly censoring" - thats an interesting concept. How does that square up with the fact that you gave away your rights to the material you post when you agreed to use the service? You call it political bias, they don't have to, they can nuke whatever post they want to. 

 

You're asking a free service, that you agreed to the terms of, to police it just how you like it. Good luck with that. 

 

What should be happening is exactly whats happening. You agreed to the terms of service. Your recourse is to not use the product if you're not happy. It was free. 

 

what an absurd comment.  

 

that's exactly the problem with a monopoly.  people simply don't have any choice and the company can ask for an arm and a  leg and get it.  That's why monopolies are considered the biggest threat to free markets, to consumers and to everything that makes an economy work. 

 

there is no place for thuggish cartel practices.  This is the practise google and other big tech monopolies engage in.   They are so big they can easily buy up a potential competitior, or drive them to the ground by undercutting them.  They can create a similar service, invest enormous funds into it with little regard for profit/loss. with the sole intention of driving the competitor out of business

 

is the concept of a monopoly something you simply cannot register? google can do whatever it wants (or more specially whatever it can get away it)  that's where the government needs to step in and stop the monopoly to protect the consumer.  and that's exactly whats happening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sam13371337 said:

 

what an absurd comment.  

 

that's exactly the problem with a monopoly.  people simply don't have any choice and the company can ask for an arm and a  leg and get it.  That's why monopolies are considered the biggest threat to free markets, to consumers and to everything that makes an economy work. 

 

there is no place for thuggish cartel practices.  This is the practise google and other big tech monopolies engage in.   They are so big they can easily buy up a potential competitior, or drive them to the ground by undercutting them.  They can create a similar service, invest enormous funds into it with little regard for profit/loss. with the sole intention of driving the competitor out of business

 

is the concept of a monopoly something you simply cannot register? google can do whatever it wants (or more specially whatever it can get away it)  that's where the government needs to step in and stop the monopoly to protect the consumer.  and that's exactly whats happening. 

what part are you not understanding? 

 

How much did you pay to use Facebook or Google? when you agreed to the terms of use for Facebook, did you bother to read it? did you ever notice the word "terms" down in the corner of the screen when you use Google?

 

you're complaining about monopolies, which is laughable, it was 1) free and 2) you can use something else.  

 

And its not censorship when you agree to the terms.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, MystifyNCrucify said:

Stupid views and ideas, (and people) phase themselves out quicker if you leave them to their devices. 

 

Its like taking the warning label off bleach. 

 

680737692_giphy(1).gif.5443b8a279172e02a3bf4ab7637cae2d.gif

 

I'd like to think like you do, but it seems a lot of people are finding bleach delicious these days.

 

That said, I am against censorship but obviously people don't have to support these platforms. They have the choice not to use them. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

"punished for incorrectly censoring" - thats an interesting concept. How does that square up with the fact that you gave away your rights to the material you post when you agreed to use the service? You call it political bias, they don't have to, they can nuke whatever post they want to. 

 

You're asking a free service, that you agreed to the terms of, to police it just how you like it. Good luck with that. 

 

What should be happening is exactly whats happening. You agreed to the terms of service. Your recourse is to not use the product if you're not happy. It was free. 

All I'm asking is that it be policed consistently.  I don't actually like the idea I posted earlier, since ideally it should be handled outside of government, but when companies are behaving in unfettered, unfair practices, sometimes the government needs to step in.  This is looking like one of those times.

 

I didn't hear anything from you trying to protect the banks from regulation demanding they treat everyone fairly.

 

And, you know as well as I do how "free" it is.

 

Consumers can choose to not go there, but it is not feasible for the majority of content owners to do something else. Due to the monopoly in place, there are no other options, and trying to create a competitive alternative is laughable.  The majority of content is not political in nature. It's people having fun, sharing artistic projects, and expressing themselves to anyone in the world interested in what they have to say.  For any fairer alternatives to exist, they would first need to compete at an artistic level, and somehow be prevented from being absorbed by the monopoly. Good luck with that.

 

Either they are platforms or publishers.  If they want ultimate control over content, then they must be ultimately responsible for it.  IMO, they should leave the content owners be, and leave policing to the government to prosecute any hate crimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

save us, big government, from all these liberal ideas of decency!!

 

big government, please control us all so i don't have to be upset by everyone else being upset over the things that upset me!!!!

 

HELP ME GOVERNMENT, HELP MEEEEE

  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Kragar said:

All I'm asking is that it be policed consistently.  I don't actually like the idea I posted earlier, since ideally it should be handled outside of government, but when companies are behaving in unfettered, unfair practices, sometimes the government needs to step in.  This is looking like one of those times.

 

I didn't hear anything from you trying to protect the banks from regulation demanding they treat everyone fairly.

 

And, you know as well as I do how "free" it is.

 

Consumers can choose to not go there, but it is not feasible for the majority of content owners to do something else. Due to the monopoly in place, there are no other options, and trying to create a competitive alternative is laughable.  The majority of content is not political in nature. It's people having fun, sharing artistic projects, and expressing themselves to anyone in the world interested in what they have to say.  For any fairer alternatives to exist, they would first need to compete at an artistic level, and somehow be prevented from being absorbed by the monopoly. Good luck with that.

 

Either they are platforms or publishers.  If they want ultimate control over content, then they must be ultimately responsible for it.  IMO, they should leave the content owners be, and leave policing to the government to prosecute any hate crimes.

who's saying its not consistent? the alt-right complainers? 

 

you agree to be bound to a community standard set of rules with FB (not unlike CDC). Its the community that decides. That means outliers likely won't be happy. It is what it is, you agreed to it.

 

as far as google goes, I use a VPN. They can't track me. I also use adblocker, which usually blocks about 50 ads every time I use CDC.

 

There are alternatives, from a user pov at least. I don't know why advertisers would care that alt-right posters were blocked. 

 

They don't have to decide if they are publishers, they state clearly they are not. YOU give them the right to reproduce what YOU publish. They don't have to be responsible for the content from a production pov, but they have every right to block it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

who's saying its not consistent? the alt-right complainers? 

 

you agree to be bound to a community standard set of rules with FB (not unlike CDC). Its the community that decides. That means outliers likely won't be happy. It is what it is, you agreed to it.

 

as far as google goes, I use a VPN. They can't track me. I also use adblocker, which usually blocks about 50 ads every time I use CDC.

 

There are alternatives, from a user pov at least. I don't know why advertisers would care that alt-right posters were blocked. 

 

They don't have to decide if they are publishers, they state clearly they are not. YOU give them the right to reproduce what YOU publish. They don't have to be responsible for the content from a production pov, but they have every right to block it. 

No, not just the alt-right complaining, nor just them being censored.  Conservatives have been attacked by the platforms for some time now.  Steven Crowder and Dennis Prager have both had their content attacked by their respective platforms.

Edited by Kragar
incorrect statement
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, bishopshodan said:

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.

It's akin to recording names in your address book.  

 

It is also useful if you have contacts overseas.  Sometimes just reviewing your itineraries on your travels, you may realize you might know someone there.  It's a good way to have a guide to show your a off-beaten path.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Kragar said:

No, not just the alt-right complaining, nor just them being censored.  Conservatives have been attacked by the platforms for some time now.  Steven Crowder and Dennis Prager have both had their content attacked by their respective platforms.

 

These platforms claim to be open forums.  They should be acting as such. Or, they should be responsible for the content they allow.

they don't claim that at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Breaking up monopolies has been historically good for the economy and drives innovation.  Everything from Standard Oil to Bell System (Ma Bell). 

 

The resulting companies end up being worth more separately than they were as a whole and often grow up into giants like Chevron and At&t (which itself was eventually forced by the gov't to divest).

 

That said, breaking up companies is easier said than done.  Google however is starting to make it personal with the Republican party with their policies especially on YouTube. 

 

The funny thing about that is that YouTube is still unprofitable after all these years and could end up being the main driver of their dissolution as a single company.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

remember how out of touch techies were telling laid off coal workers to "learn to code" and everything will be fine? 

 

remember how leftists environmentalist (parasites) ' journalists'  were telling people losing their livelihoods and ways of life to "learn to code" and everything will be fine??

 

isn't karma just the greatest thing?? every single laid off journalist and google parasite should make sure they learn to code.

 

Google whistleblower just exposed googles plan to manipulate the 2020 elections, and youtube is removing videos on it. and every media (except fox news) is stunningly silent on it. 

 

google needs to burn to the ground yesterday. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, sam13371337 said:

remember how out of touch techies were telling laid off coal workers to "learn to code" and everything will be fine? 

 

remember how leftists environmentalist (parasites) ' journalists'  were telling people losing their livelihoods and ways of life to "learn to code" and everything will be fine??

 

isn't karma just the greatest thing?? every single laid off journalist and google parasite should make sure they learn to code.

 

Google whistleblower just exposed googles plan to manipulate the 2020 elections, and youtube is removing videos on it. and every media (except fox news) is stunningly silent on it. 

 

google needs to burn to the ground yesterday. 

I think i saw it on project veritas.... LOL

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...