Opinion POTWR 2019 Vol 7: Change My Mind That The Word "Platform" Is Orwellian

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it’s also been proven time and again that free speech does not make for good civil discourse or worse yet just plain shiposting. Source: sherdog warroom.

How many accounts are on your ignore list? Why are you here if you don't enjoy the discourse?
 
They are selling access to users. Market penetration drives revenue. No different than in print media where circulation greatly influences what an advertiser will pay. It's simply a matter of the ability of advertisers to control the content they're associated with. That should already be pretty advanced since the word is it's all our personal info that allows for the targeted advertising.

I get what you are saying. I just think they don't care if they lose a million users over this. There is a certain amount of loss here they are willing to accept to appease advertisers, and special interest groups.

Of course they can't completely disregard the need for users, but that doesn't mean they can't rob Peter to pay Paul.
 
This is why you use the word platform.

It shifts the conversation to the private corporations rights, and away from their responsibility to uphold our shared values, and avoid the backlash and cost of that decision.

As the law stands now, with social media and telecoms not being treated as utilities, those corporations have a legal right to do this.

It doesn't mean they should have no backlash for choosing to silence speech on behalf of people who are not being compelled to consume that speech.

I would be very leery if not opposed to treating Facebook as a utility. That places and incredible measure of control over the flow of information to a corporate entity. Or at the very least a measure of undeserved public anointing of a conveyor of free speech. I would prefer if those unhappy with Facebooks services to go elsewhere.
 
How many accounts are on your ignore list? Why are you here if you don't enjoy the discourse?

None on my ignore. I’m here cause I enjoy the discourse even the shit posting. My point was even sherdog is not true free speech cause of the shitposting
 
I get what you are saying. I just think they don't care if they lose a million users over this. There is a certain amount of loss here they are willing to accept to appease advertisers, and special interest groups.

Of course they can't completely disregard the need for users, but that doesn't mean they can't rob Peter to pay Paul.

What's worth advertisers shunning the FB reach? Even if they do, so? It's like if a country announces they'll no longer do business with the US.


giphy.gif
 
I would be very leery if not opposed to treating Facebook as a utility. That places and incredible measure of control over the flow of information to a corporate entity. Or at the very least a measure of undeserved public anointing of a conveyor of free speech. I would prefer if those unhappy with Facebooks services to go elsewhere.

I agree going elsewhere is a solution if we start trust busting.

Give Facebook the Ma Bell, or Standard oil treatment, and I am open to that as a solution.
 
What's worth advertisers shunning the FB reach? Even if they do, so? It's like if a country announces they'll no longer do business with the US.


giphy.gif

Sure, that would be the good long road view, and absolutely makes more sense.

The quarterly view is different.
 
I agree going elsewhere is a solution if we start trust busting.

Give Facebook the Ma Bell, or Standard oil treatment, and I am open to that as a solution.

The true battles there were with net neutrality and control of our personal information. The public lost in my opinion.
 
The true battles there were with net neutrality and control of our personal information. The public lost in my opinion.

The sad part is watching both parties with selective amnesia as R's are supported by the telecoms, and D's are supported by the social media platforms, and watching them flip positions based on where there funding is coming from.

Telecoms are a utility or needs to be regulated.
Dems, yep.
Reps, muh free market.

Social media is a utility or needs to be regulated.
Dems, muh free market.
Reps, yep.
 
Sure, that would be the good long road view, and absolutely makes more sense.

The quarterly view is different.

Which is why I'm for a public option. 475 billion market cap for Facebook.

https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/market_cap

Buy controlling interest and let them run privately in accordance with the laws of each country, refrain from voting the government shares, profit!


<13>
 
I'll say the thing that the War Room is going to hate the most:

A lot of people are just not capable of handling true 'free speech'. We see time and time again that communities form and despite the abundance of free speech around them they radicalize and become left wing or right wing fanatics.

It feels like the problem is only getting worse, and bizarrely, at a time when speech has been the most free. Never has there been more a time than now that you can shout your ideas from the soapbox of the internet and be heard.

So is free speech at its purist the cure? Right now, it doesn't seem so.

I think the balkanization of American politics is being driven by the political parties, and media, not from the ground up.

That divide is being driven by the top down.

I guess you could point to the alt-right or antifa, but I have yet to be convinced these people are anything but a very small LARP'ing community.
 
Kind of waters down what it means to be Orwellian. Not exactly destructive to the welfare of a free and open society.
 
I posted something the other day that seems relevant to this conversation.

Today's media outlets, particularly social media, are now weaponized Information Systems. They are the tools in a culture war. The left is completely dominating this domain. The right has done nothing other than master memes. Almost all major "news" outlets combined with companies like Google, YouTube, Yahoo, etc are able to shape the information that the population receives; they won the war already.
 
This is why you use the word platform.

It shifts the conversation to the private corporations rights, and away from their responsibility to uphold our shared values, and avoid the backlash and cost of that decision.

There's a rich discussion to be had on the issue generally, but the term "platform" is accurate and distinct from other terms. It would naturally occur to anyone discussing the platforms and isn't some kind of trick.

It's true that speech can be limited by private actors as well as the gov't (like all rights, BTW), but the nature of the limitation matters. Not giving someone a platform is not the same as preventing them from saying what they want to say or punishing them for saying it.

Also, I think a lot of people have forgotten *why* liberals value free speech in the first place. The idea was to create a gov't based not on religious authority or birthright or something but on reason and truth. And a gov't that values those things has to create an environment where people are free to tell the truth the best of their ability (obviously error is part of that). And it has to be above the gov't, because authority will often not want people to be able to tell the truth to the best of their ability. There's no right to lie, though. It's only because it's hard to distinguish between honest mistakes and dishonest ones that we have to tolerate lies that don't cause material harm. Even aside from the state vs. private actor issue, just focusing on free-speech values, Jones admittedly says stuff that isn't true (whether it's "entertainment" or "psychosis" or whatever excuse he's making), and thus doesn't deserve attention.

I think the balkanization of American politics is being driven by the political parties, and media, not from the ground up.

That divide is being driven by the top down.

What are you basing this belief on? Seems obviously false to me, but I'll read the studies you're alluding to.
 
It's true that speech can be limited by private actors as well as the gov't (like all rights, BTW), but the nature of the limitation matters. Not giving someone a platform is not the same as preventing them from saying what they want to say or punishing them for saying it.
Indeed, I think since there really is no barrier to entry, it's worlds apart from silencing someone.
 
Last edited:
I reject the entire framing of the argument outright.

Forced platforming is compelled speech. The only body subject to compelled speech is the U.S. government as we volunteer to serve it, and as we the people perform its essential functions.

Good reasons to go against this principle include: Enforcing non-discrimination over protected classes in public accommodation.
They do not include: Forcing YouTube and its advertisers to support 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
 
Oath-taking, complying with regulations, informing people of their rights, testifying in matters of criminal or civil law, that sort of thing.

Thanks.

With something like facebook, is it compelled speech in question or equal opportunity? Allowing something and promoting it aren't the same thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top