news Tech companies declaring "war" and Stop signs + Self Driving Cars

[ivan134]

6 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

Excuse me . If you've ever read say , a tabloid , you'd know that this statement is completely false.

 

It's hilarious watching these people perform all kinds of mental gymnastics

[Coaxialgamer]

Just now, ivan134 said:

It's hilarious watching these people perform all kinds of mental gymnastics

Apparently  , you can't talk about about anything in europe because it's illegal and you'll be prosecuted by the EU /s

[ivan134]

5 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

Apparently  , you can't talk about about anything in europe because it's illegal and you'll be prosecuted by the EU /s

One day they'll figure that figure of speech =/= freedom from consequences. Also, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how white supremacy is "just an opposing view point that should be discussed".

[Notional]

9 hours ago, CakeArmy_Max said:

So apparently people don't understand what freedom of speech means. It means the government will not prosecute you for saying whatever you want. That ONLY applies to the government, not companies. LTT can do whatever they want. If I went on youtube and made a video about why a certain race should die off, they have the right to remove it. It is not censorship.

So what happens, as private companies through technology take over all platforms of communication? I don't understand why people support private companies right to oppress their rights. What kind of masochistic nonsense is that?

I get that private companies aren't public, but social media serves as primary communication platforms, and as such has a VERY widened responsibility. If not, then have fun not being able to send a message to your friend on your phone, because you are using a private company's communication platform. And yes you are giving them the right to censor that.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

4 hours ago, matrix07012 said:

Just because you can do something, that doesn't make it right. Companies shouldn't play moral busy bodies.

And their censorship is inconsistent and for example Twitter has a clear political bias.

So does the New York Times, so does Fox News. Private media companies are entitled to have their own political bias. 

Twitter, YouTube, Facebook are all private media companies. Just because instead of paid journalists they have an army of people willing to provide content for free doesn't change that it is ultimately their content and their editorial choice, same as in my previous examples (check their terms and conditions). The problem is that often people don't understand their position as free laboe in these Internet companies. 

Plurality isn't achieved by forcing media company to represent all views, but by letting everyone to present their own views, through their own media company or otherwise. 

 

YouTube or Twitter don't have an obligation to keep anyone in any more than Fox News has the obligation to keep a John Oliver wannabe in its roster. 

[Prysin]

9 hours ago, Windows7ge said:

I'm amazed that people allow themselves to get triggered by things like this. It makes sense. YouTube is a company. If they don't like something you post. They can remove it. If you want to promote your opinion which may or may not meet the guidelines of YouTube, the LTT forum, Vimeo, or social media platforms like Facebook & Twitter. Buy a domain, and buy a server. Run your own server promoting your controversial opinion. Then unless you REALLY push your luck like by threatening the government or something else crazy then you can have your free speech online.

 

On a less controversial note. Click bate is dumb. It statistically works which shows the level of intelligence of most of the world which is all the more reason I dislike it and if the self driving car thing is true it would kind of make sense. If you obstruct the stop sign with something then the car sensor won't recognise it. Self driving cars have a ways to go.

people allow themselves to be triggered, because whilst Google isnt a government agency, the power and reach of the company is so deep, and SO BIG, that they effectively is a bigger threat to society then the US government is.

 

Think about it. If google wants to fuck you up, you have NOTHING defending you against it.

If a government tried to fuck you up, there would be condemnations from the UN, EU, China, countless charities and think tanks...

 

Google can make you vanish, it can make articles about your vanishing "vanish". Google, through youtube and ANDROID, can do more damage to your personal life with LESS evidence of foul play then most governments can without being caught..

 

 

 

The same applies to facebook, amazon etc... these companies has no real governance, yet their reach and importance in day to day life is so severe, that for many humans, losing access to these services would be akin to cutting gas and electricity from their houses. Their life would become unbearable.

 

 

And since these companies is heavily left leaning, it means that a HUGE portion of the world, GLOBALLY, risk being censored, and with little to no real way of appealing or reversing this decision.

 

 

Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo etc... their reach is so deep, and their dependency so high, they are effectively public services on government levels and thus should have the same laws and rights applied to them

[ivan134]

7 minutes ago, Notional said:

So what happens, as private companies through technology take over all platforms of communication? I don't understand why people support private companies right to oppress their rights. What kind of masochistic nonsense is that?

I get that private companies aren't public, but social media serves as primary communication platforms, and as such has a VERY widened responsibility. If not, then have fun not being able to send a message to your friend on your phone, because you are using a private company's communication platform. And yes you are giving them the right to censor that.

That's quite the oxymoron 

[Windows7ge]

7 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Regargless of the type of intelligence you mean, you will notice clickbait titles first. If you then refuse to click them that's another matter entirely, but eventually you'll run out of sources if you do that.

Clickbate will never go away and will probably steadily increase with the new generation but I don't believe we will be 100% overrun and sourcing articles or entertainment should still be easy for many many years to come without resorting to clicking on clickbait.

[ivan134]

8 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

So does the New York Times, so does Fox News. Private media companies are entitled to have their own political bias. 

Twitter, YouTube, Facebook are all private media companies. Just because instead of paid journalists they have an army of people willing to provide content for free doesn't change that it is ultimately their content and their editorial choice, same as in my previous examples (check their terms and conditions). The problem is that often people don't understand their position as free laboe in these Internet companies. 

Plurality isn't achieved by forcing media company to represent all views, but by letting everyone to present their own views, through their own media company or otherwise. 

 

YouTube or Twitter don't have an obligation to keep anyone in any more than Fox News has the obligation to keep a John Oliver wannabe in its roster. 

 

Why do such obvious things need to be explained? . Especially to people who claim to champion freedom of speech over the rest of us

[Prysin]

2 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

 

Why do such obvious things need to be explained? . Especially to people who claim to champion freedom of speech over the rest of us

protecting Silicon Valleys right to illegally oppress people globally just because you happen to have the same political views just make you seem like a joke.

[ivan134]

5 minutes ago, Prysin said:

protecting Silicon Valleys right to illegally oppress people globally just because you happen to have the same political views just make you seem like a joke.

[Coaxialgamer]

8 minutes ago, Prysin said:

people allow themselves to be triggered, because whilst Google isnt a government agency, the power and reach of the company is so deep, and SO BIG, that they effectively is a bigger threat to society then the US government is.

Think about it. If google wants to fuck you up, you have NOTHING defending you against it.

If a government tried to fuck you up, there would be condemnations from the UN, EU, China, countless charities and think tanks...

Google can make you vanish, it can make articles about your vanishing "vanish". Google, through youtube and ANDROID, can do more damage to your personal life with LESS evidence of foul play then most governments can without being caught..

The same applies to facebook, amazon etc... these companies has no real governance, yet their reach and importance in day to day life is so severe, that for many humans, losing access to these services would be akin to cutting gas and electricity from their houses. Their life would become unbearable.

And since these companies is heavily left leaning, it means that a HUGE portion of the world, GLOBALLY, risk being censored, and with little to no real way of appealing or reversing this decision.

Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo etc... their reach is so deep, and their dependency so high, they are effectively public services on government levels and thus should have the same laws and rights applied to them

And that's why we should try to stop google from being the monopoly that it is . As you said , they have too much power.

If they indeed have the power to influence public opinion in all aspects , then youtube trying to limit of the reach of offensive content is the least of our problem. Trying to govern their CoC isn't the solution.

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

One day they'll figure that figure of speech =/= freedom from consequences. Also, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how white supremacy is "just an opposing view point that should be discussed".

It's mostly a bunch of people who've been told they're assholes and prefer to think their freedom of speech is being violated rather than face the fact that they are, in fact, assholes.

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

people allow themselves to be triggered, because whilst Google isnt a government agency, the power and reach of the company is so deep, and SO BIG, that they effectively is a bigger threat to society then the US government is.

Then perhaps the US needs better anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws, but whenever someone proposes that people call them communists and need to hug a rifle to feel 'murican again. You know who else has even more power than Google on US citizens and their presence on the internet? ISPs. And guess which government is trying desperately to give them more power and fuel their monopoly...

 

But noooo, it's the left leaning Google that's to be blamed! Also I love how just a couple of months ago they were being accused of being alt-right mysoginists by the other side of the fence. I guess it's easy to just slap on an opposing political label on an entity we disagree with.

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

protecting Silicon Valleys right to illegally oppress people globally just because you happen to have the same political views just make you seem like a joke.

Show me the law that makes removing things from their privately owned servers illegal.

[Prysin]

Just now, Coaxialgamer said:

And that's why we should try to stop google from being the monopoly that it is . As you said , they have too much power.

If they indeed have the power to influence public opinion in all aspects , then youtube trying to limit of the reach of offensive content is the least of our problem.

its getting worse..

 

Apple wallet/google wallet... they are also entering "banking".

 

How long do you think it will take before these companies make themselves so essential that they effectively RUN your daily life.

 

They are entering self driving cars, they are entering banking, they are dominating most forms of communications and web traffic. They dominate the news. They dominate information flow.

 

 

[matrix07012]

1 minute ago, Coaxialgamer said:

And that's why we should try to stop google from being the monopoly that it is . As you said , they have too much power.

If they indeed have the power to influence public opinion in all aspects , then youtube trying to limit of the reach of offensive content is the least of our problem.

YouTube/Google can mark anything as hate speech and as offensive.

People should stop completely using Google's services.

[Windows7ge]

5 minutes ago, Prysin said:

people allow themselves to be triggered, because whilst Google isnt a government agency, the power and reach of the company is so deep, and SO BIG, that they effectively is a bigger threat to society then the US government is.

 

Think about it. If google wants to fuck you up, you have NOTHING defending you against it.

If a government tried to fuck you up, there would be condemnations from the UN, EU, China, countless charities and think tanks...

 

Google can make you vanish, it can make articles about your vanishing "vanish". Google, through youtube and ANDROID, can do more damage to your personal life with LESS evidence of foul play then most governments can without being caught..

 

 

 

The same applies to facebook, amazon etc... these companies has no real governance, yet their reach and importance in day to day life is so severe, that for many humans, losing access to these services would be akin to cutting gas and electricity from their houses. Their life would become unbearable.

 

 

And since these companies is heavily left leaning, it means that a HUGE portion of the world, GLOBALLY, risk being censored, and with little to no real way of appealing or reversing this decision.

 

 

Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo etc... their reach is so deep, and their dependency so high, they are effectively public services on government levels and thus should have the same laws and rights applied to them

With enough money and the right connections you can make anything happen. Large companies wouldn't risk hurting their imagine for the sake of making one person disappear or ruin their life. You're right though. If they really wanted to they could, easily but I tend not to think about these things because it's not worth worrying about something that has less than a 0.001% chance of happening (of course unless you're a radicalist and you're deliberately slandering a company because of personal issues...then it might be worth being concerned about.)

[ivan134]

5 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

YouTube/Google can mark anything as hate speech and as offensive.

People should stop completely using Google's services.

1st sensible thing anyone of you has said 

[matrix07012]

Just now, ivan134 said:

1st sensible thing anyone of you has said 

I will also add: stop using Facebook and Twitter.

[Sauron]

Just now, matrix07012 said:

YouTube/Google can mark anything as hate speech and as offensive.

People should stop completely using Google's services.

That would be a reasonable response if you feel strongly against their policies, but I guess people don't feel like going through the inconvenience... much easier to claim censorship I guess.

 

2 minutes ago, Windows7ge said:

With enough money and the right connections you can make anything happen. Large companies wouldn't risk hurting their imagine for the sake of making one person disappear or ruin their life. You're right though. If they really wanted to they could, easily but I tend not to think about these things because it's not worth worrying about something that has less than a 0.001% chance of happening (of course unless you're a radicalist and you're deliberately slandering a company because of personal issues...then it might be worth being concerned about.)

Even then, that would legitimately be illegal. On the other hand, having a terms of service statement and a contract that states what you can and cannot write on their services is not. If they do something illegal, you can sure them (sure, the justice system is problematic, but that's another issue that has nothing to do with this).

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

It's mostly a bunch of people who've been told they're assholes and prefer to think their freedom of speech is being violated rather than face the fact that they are, in fact, assholes.

Then perhaps the US needs better anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws, but whenever someone proposes that people call them communists and need to hug a rifle to feel 'murican again. You know who else has even more power than Google on US citizens and their presence on the internet? ISPs. And guess which government is trying desperately to give them more power and fuel their monopoly...

 

But noooo, it's the left leaning Google that's to be blamed! Also I love how just a couple of months ago they were being accused of being alt-right mysoginists by the other side of the fence. I guess it's easy to just slap on an opposing political label on an entity we disagree with.

Show me the law that makes removing things from their privately owned servers illegal.

Oh, im not saying THEY DONT HAVE THE RIGHT.

 

I am however, able to look at the situation through a philosophical lens and ask the question:

Given their importance in day to day life, how are these companies any different from the government?

 

The answer is: Not very

The long answer is: They do not directly collect taxes from your earnings, but they do collect and trade your information. Whether you like it or not. These companies are embedded even in places where they have no direct ownership, yet they still collect information (Facebook comments plugins and google ad-sense collect data on where their users visit and use that for meta-data mining and profile building. It is one of the reasons why google makes so much money from ads)

 

 

HOWEVER THIS IS A MORAL ISSUE, NOT A RIGHTS ISSUE

 

Should a company, that is so essential in day to day life that its services carries the same magnitude of effect as many government programs be exempt from civil rights and accountability laws?

 

Private companies are allowed to discriminate based on race, religion and political views, with no accountability in their decision. ANd given their sheer size and reach, any viral protest reaction to such actions, would have NEAR ZERO IMPACT. Think about it.

 

 

[matrix07012]

9 minutes ago, Sauron said:

That would be a reasonable response if you feel strongly against their policies, but I guess people don't feel like going through the inconvenience... much easier to claim censorship I guess.

 

It's censorship.

Quote

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information that may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

 

[Mihle]

Denying people having adds on some type of videos =/= Removing the videos.

 

Removing adds on something is not censorship.

The fact is, t isn JUST youtube/google that decides that some videos shouldnt have adds, its the companies that pay for the adds too. Those companies pressure youtube to do it.

I think the line should be drawn where if people dont encourage to something criminal, its fine, but if they do, its illegal. Aka videos where someone tell people to steal or rape or kill someone, no matter who it is, should be removed.
I also think that its the people that pays for the adds that should decide what kind of videos their adds come on. No one else.

[Windows7ge]

16 minutes ago, Sauron said:

That would be a reasonable response if you feel strongly against their policies, but I guess people don't feel like going through the inconvenience... much easier to claim censorship I guess.

 

Even then, that would legitimately be illegal. On the other hand, having a terms of service statement and a contract that states what you can and cannot write on their services is not. If they do something illegal, you can sure them (sure, the justice system is problematic, but that's another issue that has nothing to do with this).

I'd also rather not go on an off topic tangent but I would like to say this much. I think there should be qualifications and requirements met before you can sue someone. I have heard of many people being sued over very dumb things.

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, Prysin said:

Oh, im not saying THEY DONT HAVE THE RIGHT.

 

I am however, able to look at the situation through a philosophical lens and ask the question:

Given their importance in day to day life, how are these companies any different from the government?

 

The answer is: Not very

The long answer is: They do not directly collect taxes from your earnings, but they do collect and trade your information. Whether you like it or not. These companies are embedded even in places where they have no direct ownership, yet they still collect information (Facebook comments plugins and google ad-sense collect data on where their users visit and use that for meta-data mining and profile building. It is one of the reasons why google makes so much money from ads)

 

HOWEVER THIS IS A MORAL ISSUE, NOT A RIGHTS ISSUE

 

Should a company, that is so essential in day to day life that its services carries the same magnitude of effect as many government programs be exempt from civil rights and accountability laws?

 

Private companies are allowed to discriminate based on race, religion and political views, with no accountability in their decision. ANd given their sheer size and reach, any viral protest reaction to such actions, would have NEAR ZERO IMPACT. Think about it.

Uhm, none of this was in the post I quoted. Also google is not "exempt from civil rights and accountability laws". Unlike the government, google's personnel is not voted in and does not have to respond to anyone outside of adherence to local laws. I may dislike many of their policies, but I won't call them censorship and a violation of free speech when they really aren't. If you want to have an impact, use something else. And it's not true at all that if people stopped using google services en masse nothing would change. What would be ineffective is whining about it and still using them.

5 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

It's censorship.

Quote

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information that may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

 

The key here is suppression. Google isn't suppressing anything. They are merely telling them to bring their neonazi journal or whatever else to another hosting service, or to host it themselves if they really want it on the internet. Also, it says public communication. Public, as in not through private services.

 

By your logic, if you came to my house and started saying things I find disturbing, offensive or simply annoying I wouldn't be able to kick you out without violating your "free speech" and censoring you.

[ivan134]

6 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Uhm, none of this was in the post I quoted. Also google is not "exempt from civil rights and accountability laws". Unlike the government, google's personnel is not voted in and does not have to respond to anyone outside of adherence to local laws. I may dislike many of their policies, but I won't call them censorship and a violation of free speech when they really aren't. If you want to have an impact, use something else. And it's not true at all that if people stopped using google services en masse nothing would change. What would be ineffective is whining about it and still using them.

The key here is suppression. Google isn't suppressing anything. They are merely telling them to bring their neonazi journal or whatever else to another hosting service, or to host it themselves if they really want it on the internet. Also, it says public communication. Public, as in not through private services.

 

By your logic, if you came to my house and started saying things I find disturbing, offensive or simply annoying I wouldn't be able to kick you out without violating your "free speech" and censoring you.

More explaining the obvious. This is insane.