One of the main bones of contention to my ears seems to be platform vs. publisher. I know facebook likes to have it both ways: Is Facebook a publisher? In public it says no, but in court it says yes
One of the main bones of contention to my ears seems to be platform vs. publisher. I know facebook likes to have it both ways:
The Algorithm™ suggested I watch a Hank Green video (I thought he only did those history videos) that I found somewhat interesting and nuanced. He kind of talks about how these tech companies who...
The Algorithm™ suggested I watch a Hank Green video (I thought he only did those history videos) that I found somewhat interesting and nuanced. He kind of talks about how these tech companies who actually act as publishers act somewhat as governments of social spaces, and have a great deal of power with respect to what we can read.
This is so typical of what these "platform publishers" peddle: Our rules say X so we won't do y Completely ignoring that they have total control over their rules and stand accountable for their...
We know that's hard for many but the reason is simple: he hasn't violated our rules. We'll enforce if he does," Dorsey tweeted Tuesday. "And we'll continue to promote a healthy conversational environment by ensuring tweets aren't artificially amplified."
This is so typical of what these "platform publishers" peddle:
Our rules say X so we won't do y
Completely ignoring that they have total control over their rules and stand accountable for their effects and consequences.
And as editors of their platform, they have complete control of those rules, and their applications, consequences or lack thereof.
If the rules lead to the wrong end result, do you stick to your rules maintaining the wrong end result and defend them, or do you change the rules?
apparently neither, you just point to the rules and hope (somewhat correctly) that people just accept that and stop. It's like saying "It's the law." as a conversation-ender when you're a lawmaker who can unilaterally change the law at will.
And their terms of service agreements allow them to shutter anyone's account at any time for any reason with no recourse. They just hide behind "da rulez" because they see his followers as dollar...
And as editors of their platform, they have complete control of those rules, and their applications, consequences or lack thereof.
And their terms of service agreements allow them to shutter anyone's account at any time for any reason with no recourse. They just hide behind "da rulez" because they see his followers as dollar signs instead of how a man spewing conspiracy theories can create a hostile environment when his followers start harassing alleged crisis actors.
People don't see that the vagueness and lack of evenhandedness in the application of their TOS is what gives them their power, and they feign ignorance while the bias is baked in the cake. They...
People don't see that the vagueness and lack of evenhandedness in the application of their TOS is what gives them their power, and they feign ignorance while the bias is baked in the cake.
They burned through angel investor money for years not turning a profit to widen their scope of influence/market share. Now they have effectively become the "public commons" and when people point out the bias they whine about, "but we're a private corporation - the first amendment doesn't apply".
Then they react to the demands of their mob userbase effectively quashing the minority viewpoints that the amendment is there to protect. Do we have one America with one set of rules or as many different fiefdoms as the Nasdaq will allow?
Since when did empirical fact become a personal view?
Postmodernist philosophers in general argue that truth is always contingent on historical and social context rather than being absolute and universal and that truth is always partial and "at issue" rather than being complete and certain. - Postmodern Philosophy - wikipedia
Thats an incredibly dangerous way of thinking. Rules that govern the universe at basic levels mandate that there must be absolutes. Truth- not perceived truth, but real truth - must be fixed and...
Thats an incredibly dangerous way of thinking. Rules that govern the universe at basic levels mandate that there must be absolutes. Truth- not perceived truth, but real truth - must be fixed and aboslute.
I'm not defending it just answering the articles faux rhetorical question. Postmodern philosophy and politics based upon it are very widespread. There are several promoters of the differences...
I'm not defending it just answering the articles faux rhetorical question.
Postmodern philosophy and politics based upon it are very widespread. There are several promoters of the differences between 'punching up' vs 'punching down' on Tildes which is at it's heart a belief in the subjective nature of who it's appropriate to be shitty to.
"Delete your accounts." Yes!
"Go outdoors." Never!
One of the main bones of contention to my ears seems to be platform vs. publisher. I know facebook likes to have it both ways:
Is Facebook a publisher? In public it says no, but in court it says yes
The Algorithm™ suggested I watch a Hank Green video (I thought he only did those history videos) that I found somewhat interesting and nuanced. He kind of talks about how these tech companies who actually act as publishers act somewhat as governments of social spaces, and have a great deal of power with respect to what we can read.
Jack Dorsey (Twitter's CEO) also did an interview on Sean Hannity's radio show today.
This is so typical of what these "platform publishers" peddle:
Completely ignoring that they have total control over their rules and stand accountable for their effects and consequences.
And as editors of their platform, they have complete control of those rules, and their applications, consequences or lack thereof.
If the rules lead to the wrong end result, do you stick to your rules maintaining the wrong end result and defend them, or do you change the rules?
apparently neither, you just point to the rules and hope (somewhat correctly) that people just accept that and stop. It's like saying "It's the law." as a conversation-ender when you're a lawmaker who can unilaterally change the law at will.
It's almost musing to watch how far he'll twist to say he's not insulating bad actors.
And their terms of service agreements allow them to shutter anyone's account at any time for any reason with no recourse. They just hide behind "da rulez" because they see his followers as dollar signs instead of how a man spewing conspiracy theories can create a hostile environment when his followers start harassing alleged crisis actors.
"Valuable discussion" 2.0
People don't see that the vagueness and lack of evenhandedness in the application of their TOS is what gives them their power, and they feign ignorance while the bias is baked in the cake.
They burned through angel investor money for years not turning a profit to widen their scope of influence/market share. Now they have effectively become the "public commons" and when people point out the bias they whine about, "but we're a private corporation - the first amendment doesn't apply".
Then they react to the demands of their mob userbase effectively quashing the minority viewpoints that the amendment is there to protect. Do we have one America with one set of rules or as many different fiefdoms as the Nasdaq will allow?
About then I'd say.
Thats an incredibly dangerous way of thinking. Rules that govern the universe at basic levels mandate that there must be absolutes. Truth- not perceived truth, but real truth - must be fixed and aboslute.
I'm not defending it just answering the articles faux rhetorical question.
Postmodern philosophy and politics based upon it are very widespread. There are several promoters of the differences between 'punching up' vs 'punching down' on Tildes which is at it's heart a belief in the subjective nature of who it's appropriate to be shitty to.