News:

Willkommen im Notebookcheck.com Forum! Hier können sie über alle unsere Artikel und allgemein über Notebook relevante Dinge disuktieren. Viel Spass!

Main Menu

Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:

Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by _MT_
 - April 10, 2022, 20:04:40
Quote from: ET on April 06, 2022, 01:41:57
I disagree. I believe just like any position in any company or organisation you have been in, the more influence you have the more you have to be a good role model and set an example.
Of course you don't have to, you can lie out your a** and coherse the million out there to believe your bullshit and follow your broken agenda.
And this is why there must be some liability to your actions.

Don't any of you find it scarey the richest man in the world is potentially buying out one of the biggest communication mediums of the world citing the need for more unrestricted free speech???
But why do those influential people have influence? We give power, we give influence. We make the difference. We also give them the money. Their money came from us. It didn't just appear out of thin air. Our decisions have consequences.

Yes, media should be regulated. In the context of social networks, that's the individuals or organisations that publish information. Reach determining the amount of regulation. If you're addressing ten people, there is no need to regulate you. If you're addressing millions of people, you're at the level of a broadcaster and you should face similar regulation. Not the platform itself as long as it stays neutral. Once it starts messing around with what is promoted and what is not, especially when it comes to showing different things to different people, it's no longer neutral. This isn't exactly a new problem, the difference lies in accessibility. Websites have existed for ages and the tool of discovery was a search engine. But back then, cost of entry was much higher (fewer idiots) and search engines were dumber (less manipulation). I recall those times with fondness.

Ultimately, it really comes down to our ability to decide what to believe in. Where do you get information, how do you verify and validate it, what can you really trust. It's a hard problem, very hard. This would give you resilience to charlatans. Let's name the problem properly. The problem isn't nonsense being spewed, the problem is people buying into nonsense. Solving it by deciding for people what they should believe in, what ideas are safe for them to be exposed to, is a road to hell. As I wrote, this is all rooted in distrust. You do not trust others to reject harmful ideas on their own, you feel threatened, so you seek to constrain them, to manipulate them to make things go your way. And I'm not referring to you in particular so don't take it personally. Such motives are hardly democratic. And I'm saying that as someone who thinks rather lowly of the average human. I do not trust people. But I would like to live in such a society. One thing is the reality you live in and another in which direction you want to move. So, I want us to develop skills that help build a better society. Censorship and thought police isn't it.
Posted by Anonymousgg
 - April 06, 2022, 10:25:22
Quote from: ET on April 06, 2022, 01:41:57
Don't any of you find it scarey the richest man in the world is potentially buying out one of the biggest communication mediums of the world citing the need for more unrestricted free speech???

It's a private company, bro. Cuts both ways.

And no, I don't find more unrestricted free speech scarey. Although it remains to be seen if he will make any significant changes on that front or simply lose interest.
Posted by ET
 - April 06, 2022, 01:41:57
Quote from: _MT_ on April 05, 2022, 16:58:02
Quote from: Ayoh on April 05, 2022, 03:58:20
Trump was lying and abusive asshole who violated the civilised norms of discourse and the use policy of the platform. More that deserved to be banned and the world is a better place for it. Free speech doesn't mean there are no absolutely no limits or consequences to what you say
The problem is that it's a slippery slope. Nobody should have the power to decide what can be said and what can't. Free speech means we all get the opportunity to make up our own mind. Instead of someone deciding for us. The real problem isn't the few loud bastards, it's the gullible millions. And the resulting distrust in the society at large. That's what this is about. It wouldn't be a problem if nobody listened to those people. Democracy stands on individual's ability to make decisions and take ownership of them. A country where you lose trust in the people, you're afraid of the people, isn't going to be a good democracy. That's the weakness of democracy. It takes first rate humans. Your only defence is ensuring that people are educated, smart, critical thinkers. Platforms like Twitter allow us to reach people in ways that we couldn't before. Radio and television have done something similar before. And as a result, they became huge tools of propaganda. They simply expose weaknesses in the society, in us. We haven't evolved to live in groups of tens or hundreds of millions. But we do have technology that makes the world sometimes feel like a village. But instead of getting ten angry villagers, you get ten million of them. It's part of our make up that helps us to pull together in a time of need. In short, the problem is humans. We have powerful tools and we have to grow up to use them responsibly.

I disagree. I believe just like any position in any company or organisation you have been in, the more influence you have the more you have to be a good role model and set an example.
Of course you don't have to, you can lie out your a** and coherse the million out there to believe your bullshit and follow your broken agenda.
And this is why there must be some liability to your actions.

Don't any of you find it scarey the richest man in the world is potentially buying out one of the biggest communication mediums of the world citing the need for more unrestricted free speech???
Posted by _MT_
 - April 05, 2022, 17:30:41
Now Facebook, that's a different story. Greed is a well known problem. But grooming information to sow conflict for profit, if that's not beyond a red line, I don't know what is. Such practice should be a very serious crime, at the level of a crime against humanity I would say at such a scale. Such a thing should not be tolerated as it's very dangerous. It's a weapon of mass destruction. It can disintegrate a society. It's one thing to give people a platform, it's entirely another to manipulate what they see (thereby impacting their ability to make up a mind). Even if the original intention was good. As we all know, a road to hell is paved with good intentions. Unfortunately, people sometimes forget that lesson. Even the best of intentions can have disastrous consequences.
Posted by _MT_
 - April 05, 2022, 16:58:02
Quote from: Ayoh on April 05, 2022, 03:58:20
Trump was lying and abusive asshole who violated the civilised norms of discourse and the use policy of the platform. More that deserved to be banned and the world is a better place for it. Free speech doesn't mean there are no absolutely no limits or consequences to what you say
The problem is that it's a slippery slope. Nobody should have the power to decide what can be said and what can't. Free speech means we all get the opportunity to make up our own mind. Instead of someone deciding for us. The real problem isn't the few loud bastards, it's the gullible millions. And the resulting distrust in the society at large. That's what this is about. It wouldn't be a problem if nobody listened to those people. Democracy stands on individual's ability to make decisions and take ownership of them. A country where you lose trust in the people, you're afraid of the people, isn't going to be a good democracy. That's the weakness of democracy. It takes first rate humans. Your only defence is ensuring that people are educated, smart, critical thinkers. Platforms like Twitter allow us to reach people in ways that we couldn't before. Radio and television have done something similar before. And as a result, they became huge tools of propaganda. They simply expose weaknesses in the society, in us. We haven't evolved to live in groups of tens or hundreds of millions. But we do have technology that makes the world sometimes feel like a village. But instead of getting ten angry villagers, you get ten million of them. It's part of our make up that helps us to pull together in a time of need. In short, the problem is humans. We have powerful tools and we have to grow up to use them responsibly.
Posted by Ayoh
 - April 05, 2022, 03:58:20
Trump was lying and abusive asshole who violated the civilised norms of discourse and the use policy of the platform. More that deserved to be banned and the world is a better place for it. Free speech doesn't mean there are no absolutely no limits or consequences to what you say
Posted by kek
 - April 04, 2022, 19:10:15
that Jack guy is doing damage control. He knew this and yet acted like he had nothing to do with it. Trump getting censored by all of them was what opened people's eye about these platforms.
Posted by Redaktion
 - April 04, 2022, 14:19:06
Elon Musk has bought at least a 9.2% ownership in Twitter via the acquisition of 73,486,938 common shares, effecting rumors of a buyout and sending Twitter stock 25% up in premarket trading. Tesla's CEO recently mentioned that a 'new platform' is needed about the state of free speech on Twitter.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Elon-Musk-buys-a-multibillion-stake-in-Twitter-as-Jack-Dorsey-admits-he-s-partially-to-blame-for-the-state-of-online-speech.611856.0.html