i use FB to post pictures of my family. i don't get on there or on Twitter and threaten to annihilate other countries or tell lies about why i don't get to poop in the private residence of the WH anymore. if i want to get all political and stuff, i come here. i don't violate the rules of a social media site. works great. if any site decides that it doesn't want me around anymore, i have tons of other options.
And the first thing I think has to go is the anonymity. So that people like the one behind Q doesn't recieve the kind off attention from people who kind of live in alternative worlds. I mean with the anonymity gone, he could no longer claim to have "the highest security level" and things like that and he would fall to the ground. It would also make it difficult for other states to influence elections.
Helix:
Who should make these rules which you willingly follow on a social media site? Should it be the owners and managers of the company owning/operating the platform/site, the advertisers paying for eye-balls, the users like you who generate the social interactions and the revenue stream supporting the site, both in conjunction with each other or the state?
Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
Line of the day. Well said.As for Bernie Sanders, he is lost in the political climate of left wing authoritarianism and lazy liberalism.
I like anonymity as much as any other but at the end of the day: What you can't stand up for you shouldn't say. We have only had Social media for about 10 years. Before that. One of the very first platforms where you as an individual could be active was GeoCities, which was launched in 1995. Before that the capability to publicly say just about anything or claim anything didn't exist. People did still do political speeches and free speech worked just fine. Face it: Anonymity is a free card from liability and ask yourself: If the russian think tanks hadn't spread rumers and character like Q invented conspirity theories, would Donald Trump have had the same impact?eliminating anonymity could do more to crush political speech than almost anything else. it's a terrible idea. politically motivated employers could easily track every political and social opinion that you hold, and many would. one's online enemies could track them down even more effectively and bring flamewars into RL.
no thanks.
I like anonymity as much as any other but at the end of the day: What you can't stand up for you shouldn't say. We have only had Social media for about 10 years. Before that. One of the very first platforms where you as an individual could be active was GeoCities, which was launched in 1995. Before that the capability to publicly say just about anything or claim anything didn't exist. People did still do political speeches and free speech worked just fine. Face it: Anonymity is a free card from liability and ask yourself: If the russian think tanks hadn't spread rumers and character like Q invented conspirity theories, would Donald Trump have had the same impact?
A hypothetical: what if the major internet service providers got together and decided they would not allow Donald Trump to connect to the internet? (For the sake of discussion, put aside the logistical issues with accomplishing that; just assume they could.) Should we allow private organizations to do that?
I know, there is a cost. We have to go back to freely speaking without consequenses with our loveones and freinds and only post things we can stand behind online. It is a cost for us who in general doesn't post to influence others but the question is what cost is the biggest one?i take it that you don't live in a right to work / fire at will state. if i had to put my name next to everything i post, one would only see the occasional pic of my kid doing something cute. while i enjoy doing political speech online would be crushed. most people on here don't post under their full names, as they don't want the IRL blowback for expressing their full opinions. that's something that i support. i don't even use the same anonymous handle between websites.
I know, there is a cost. We have to go back to freely speaking without consequenses with our loveones and freinds and only post things we can stand behind online. It is a cost for us who in general doesn't post to influence others but the question is what cost is the biggest one?
Thing is: Just 10 or 15 years ago, that is how it was.
social media moderators and admins generally make the rules. FB is looking at a SCOTUS type system. either way, there's no right to do anything one wants to do on some else's platform any more than there's a right for me to go into someone's business and demand that the TV be switched to Cop Rock.
Since Twitter and Facebook basically banned Trump and his followers....they will now move to another site
Could this be what Bernie is afraid of?
A site not controlled by the left, but by Trump and his minions....spreading whatever information they want to spread
TO millions of people....unchecked by the editors of those sites
And to those of you who say so what....i bet the thought of losing MILLIONS of customers, posters, and advertisers is no longer looking as rosy to the board of directors at either company
You wanted them to go away....go away they did.....only now they will get to do the same damn thing to every leftist who tries to post on his site
Helix:
I asked who should make the rules, not who does. Since the people reading and posting are the real drivers of any social media platform, should they be included or even be dominant in the decision making process for a business they do so much to generate? Should the sheep have any say in the shearing process?
Cheers and be well.
Arab.
They're involved in the rules. If they don't like them, they generally quit. If they do like them, they bring in others.
LMAO.... Millions and millions... They already had Gab, Parler and Telegram to run away to and it didn't seem to affect those companies at all...
Helix:
I meant a more cooperative and proactive role rather than a "take it or leave it", contract of adhesion paradigm.
Cheer and be well.
Evilroddy.
I see people banned here all the time.
I think everyone who refuses to condemn the January 6 terrorist attack should be banned.
Instead, Republicans have launched a national effort to overturn elections state by state, with a committee to identify how to do it made of 24 Republican Congressmen who supported overturning the election and deny that Biden won. See my Rachel Maddow thread tonight.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?