Google, Facebook and Twitter control something like 90% of the news that people consume. It obviously matters that so many people want these companies to be the arbiters of truth, while keeping their algorithms and practices secret.
You actually think the big tech companies operate in a transparent fashion? Thatâs pretty funny actually. Who knew a bunch of liberals would be such stalwart defenders of some of the biggest and most powerful businesses on the planet.
Who knew Keeeeeed and Greenwald would be such stalwart defenders of some of the biggest (fattest) and shittiest fascist Presidents on the planet.
1 Like
yawn
GG: the purpose of journalism is to hold powerful people to account
Also GG: the greatest issue of 2017 to 2020 is people improperly speculating as to precisely how the two most powerful men on the planet conspired to help each other and impose their will on the world
3 Likes
People in this thread are advocating for the tech companies to act as censors. Theyâre literally saying they should censor untruths, after the tech companies themselves determine what is true and what is false. I point out that these tech companiesâ algorithms and business practices are opaque and you hilariously link to some dumb terms of service.
So if youâre not actually on the tech companies side and think their businesses are problematic, monopolistic, and ought to be regulated, why in the world wouldnât their censorship be problematic and why shouldnât it be regulated?
And I obviously havenât defended Trump in any way throughout this conversation. What nonsense.
Strong consensus that social media companies need to be regulated⌠just in the exact opposite way being proposed by the scam artist clickbait fascist wannabe jackassses that Greedy Glenn is white knighting forâŚ
1 Like
And the tech companies decide what is hate speech, the tech companies decide what is a lie. Unelected, unaccountable technocrats making these decisions in secret, without transparency. Sounds like a good system.
2 Likes
Put the most dishonest man in the country in charge of everything, including âregulatingâ (aka blackmailing them to prioritize his speech) these tech companies. Sounds like a great system.
Yet this is what Greedy Glenn advocated forâŚ
1 Like
Do you have any other companies you want the government to control? Like if a fan at basketball game is screaming hate speech should the government disallow the teams from removing them?
1 Like
Does the basketball team control 90% of the news that people read?
Ok so that is a no. They will just control Facebook and google and twitter.
Right. If the âstart your own facebook/twitter/googleâ argument worked there would be less or perhaps no need for regulation. But it seems like each of these companies is a natural monopoly. Itâs possible to start a new facebook (facebook did), but the success of the new one will lead to the collapse of the old one because of the network effect. Google has less network effect arguments but seems to use some pretty severe anti-competitive practices to keep its dominant market share.
Meh you are not making sense. Them banning or not banning hate speech is separate from news and determining truth. They are two different issues.
You think they should not be able to control content they see as hateful but are ok if Walmart and all other companies do.
How big does parler need to get before the gov stops them from banning libs?
1 Like
Well letâs back up for a second. Do you agree that Twitter and Facebook are monopolies?
When you skate around my questions constantly you do get to ask them.
I didnât skate around your questions. Facebook and Twitter should be regulated because theyâre monopolies. Companies that arenât monopolies donât need that sort of regulation.
Sure you have. Just about every one.
Not allowing twitter to ban hate speech will turn it into stormfrount. Well more than it already is.
Theyâre not lol
What are facebookâs direct competitors?