Human Population Through Time

[Jalpha]

Access to information.

[Potjeh]

That's not gonna last though. Look at the tech giants suppressing independent political commentators these days.

[MagicManICT]

That's not gonna last though. Look at the tech giants suppressing independent political commentators these days.

"Independent political commentators" can't seem to follow the rules of the sites and when they get called out on it...

Bigger question is the failure of, yet again, forming monopolies... There's a reason the modern world tries to regulate these. Despite alternatives, there are only 3 or 4 major social media outlets: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google (YouTube). Many others exist, but do they have any relevance to influence anything? Do they provide any balance to those four? Some would argue that those four are the reason none are a monopoly, but each has it's own purpose and doesn't compete with each other, much like cable television was completely separate from telecommunications in decades past. Given the penchant for mergers and acquisitions, how much longer will this "status quo of minimal competition" remain? Will they maintain it just to avoid being regulated as monopolies? Isn't it up to us consumers to change this?

Then there's the simple fact that any of these people can open their own website. Of course, using Facebook or Twitter can be argued and compared to posting a blog on a site like Wordpress. Those are all services with a user agreement that can be quite stringent on the content posted, with clearly stated limitations on what kind of content you can post (if you're a lawyer). By opening your own site, it's your URL that is visible, even if the hosting ISP can be found with a simple search. ISPs tend not to have such severe content limitations. Some do, but it's usually laid out in the contract.

Just to note that there's not any difference between asshat alt-right conspiracy theorists getting kicked off Facebook as some troll getting kicked off Blizzard's forums. If you can't kick Jones et al. off Facebook, you can't kick DumbAssLarry off the forums for doing something that is damaging to the community. Extending that into the real world, you have every right (at least in the US) to kick someone off your property if you own a business. There are always consequences for each choice you make.

[Potjeh]

These things are natural monopolies. You know, the thing that free market worshipers claim doesn't exist. Government needs to regulate.

And Alex Jones was just the pretext they needed for a lot wider crackdown. They've been using this and the Russia collusion BS to ban thousands of Palestinian FB accounts (Zuckerberg is basically bending over backwards to serve Israel and Saudi Arabia), they've banned people like TJ Kirk from Twitter, Abby Martin's Empire Files got banned on FB, YouTube has demonetized pretty much every news video that doesn't come from corporate media.

[Jalpha]

Not really what I was talking about but...

You can't complain when the money is withdrawn by parties with conflicting interests to the opinions or information being provided.

If you cared enough you would take control yourself and fund those entities which you believe in. You just can't expect advertisers to do the right thing.

[MagicManICT]

If you cared enough you would take control yourself and fund those entities which you believe in. You just can't expect advertisers to do the right thing.

Kicker here is there are alternatives to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube. I bet you've never heard of any of them unless you run in one of those circles that use it for their "alternative view" agenda--white supremacists, radical religious group, conspiracy theorists, etc. I can't remember where I saw it at, but I was just reading or watching something on this a week or two ago discussing how getting kicked off one of these major platforms marginalizes discussions. A lot of the sites these "alternative view" groups use were set up purely with free speech in mind, but nobody else wanted to use them (cause trolls or just plain lack of visibility), and they just slowly turned into the unofficial platform for "My personal issue I share wiht a small social group, but that everyone else hates."

And Alex Jones was just the pretext they needed for a lot wider crackdown.

Why do we have a ratings system for movies, television, etc? Because people revolted and threatened civil actions or governmental intervention. It was needed, IMO, not "because censorship," but because these are supposed to be public forums for discussion, not a way to worm your batshit crazy idea into the public view. If they hadn't, you'd have seen a populist revolt. People are still leaving Facebook because it's a shit company run by a shit CEO who is nothing more than a thief of intellectual property. Still... so many families and interconnected friends are on it it's going to be a generation before you see Facebook completely die, if ever.

And it's not like you don't have search engines that can find the information for you. Google has been accused of feeding some of the "alternative view" conspiracy theories and fake news crap because of their search algorithm.

[Potjeh]

Google is censoring their search engine for Chinese market. Who's to say they won't do that for other markets, or that they're in fact not doing that already?

And yeah, AJ is obviously peddling BS, but I'm worried who gets to decide what is BS.

[Jalpha]

Search engines have been censored since the 90s. The issue for me has been sifting through sites which are advertisements to get to any actual information. Companies pay search engines to give their pages priority in the search result list. I've often wondered if I could have my search results filter out sites which have paid to appear higher in the list.

[MagicManICT]

Google is censoring their search engine for Chinese market. Who's to say they won't do that for other markets, or that they're in fact not doing that already?

Good ol' Great Firewall of China...

As far as them censoring elsewhere, yes, they do. I'd make some suggestions on how to figure this out, but it might tread into quasi-legal grounds or involve actual commission of a crime. There might be lists of what Google (and other search engines) censor in various countries.

And yeah, AJ is obviously peddling BS, but I'm worried who gets to decide what is BS.

Well, if the alt right and other "free thinkers" follow the rules of the service, then anyone that wants to look at their material. If they can't follow the corporate rules... I don't know what to say. Should there be rules? The idealist in me says "No! we can all learn to get along just fine." The realist in me just says... well, you know. We all know that answer if we don't have our heads stuck in the sand.