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

[Sauron]

Just now, Windows7ge said:

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.

That's an interesting proposition, but nigh on impossible to do properly - how would you determine who has a right to be heard and who doesn't? Just because someone has a history of crime, mental instability or whatever, doesn't mean we should revoke their right to be protected by the law. What I would be in favor of is a limit on how much you can spend on legal expenses and the guarantee of a matching budget provided by the govenrment to the other side (if the other side can prove they can't afford it).

[matrix07012]

7 minutes ago, Mihle said:

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.

What we're seeing now is the efforts of MSM trying to destroy the alt-media by demonising it and trying to cut off it's income. Before the whole adpocalypse, the system somewhat worked. Truly offensive videos weren't getting any ads. Now almost no videos get them.

MSM is scared. TV is scared because their viewers are going to die in the next 20 years and they're going to die with them.

[Mihle]

2 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

What we're seeing now is the efforts of MSM trying to destroy the alt-media by demonising it and trying to cut off it's income. Before the whole adpocalypse, the system somewhat worked. Truly offensive videos weren't getting any ads. Now almost no videos get them.

MSM is scared. TV is scared because their viewers are going to die in the next 20 years and they're going to die with them.

Just saying, one video not getting adds or less adds does not mean its denied all money. It just means that they have to do other stuff like donation, add placements inn the videos themself.

 

Other than really offensive videos, youtube should not remove adds 100%, but they should mark them in different categoies depending on what the videos is about, and then the companies paying for the adds should decide what videos they want their adds on.

[PlayStation 2]

I don't understand why a company like Google that has shitloads of influence on things can't be tried for something.

Privatization?

[matrix07012]

8 minutes ago, Mihle said:

Just saying, one video not getting adds or less adds does not mean its denied all money. It just means that they have to do other stuff like donation, add placements inn the videos themself.

 

Other than really offensive videos, youtube should not remove adds 100%, but they should mark them in different categoies depending on what the videos is about, and then the companies paying for the adds should decide what videos they want their adds on.

They have that.

6 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

I don't understand why a company like Google that has shitloads of influence on things can't be tried for something.

Privatization?

They aren't doing anything illegal.

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, matrix07012 said:

They aren't doing anything illegal.

Fair.

[ivan134]

1 hour ago, Kumaresh said:

I see this thread is crashing and burning as expected Time to throw my hat into the ring

 

What is your opinion on private companies setting rules and refusing to abide by them in all cases. Say there are two posts made on Twitter

1. Death to all white people !!
2. Death to all black people !!

Making such threats clearly constitutes hate speech and both should be banned as per Twitter rules. But in case 1, it would not be deleted and in case 2, it would. There are many such cases where a company VIOLATES the rules which they themselves set regarding threats to violence, murder, rape, etc. They allow you to threaten and harass whoever you want as long as you belong to a certain political group. Is that acceptable ? If I were to start an online group and allow all of case 2 to happen and none of case 1 to happen, would that be acceptable ? What do you think ?

Kid, graduate middle school 1st before I waste time with you

[TheCherryKing]

As much as I hate government regulation it is necessary to regulate social media platforms as public utilities. All because the companies own the platform doesn't mean the have the right to violate the First Amendment. If cable and internet providers are regulated as public utilities the social media platforms need be regulated too. 

[Bensemus]

14 hours ago, Sauron said:

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.

You are not a multinational company with your fingers intertwined with millions of people's lives. That is a key point you seem to be ignoring. He's saying these companies have gotten to the point where they have more power over you then they should. None of what he's saying is currently illegal but that's the issue. Whatever these companies decide is right is. There aren't any other platforms with the same reach so any message that these companies don't agree with will be censored.

 

Right now they are all pretty left leaning so conservative ideals are potentially threatened. Nothing is preventing that from changing so your ideals are now the ones at odds with the companies and now you find our voice getting restricted.

 

This is the slippery slope the CEO of Cloudflare talked about. He did an interview about removing the Nazi site and he said he woke up one morning and decided that they had to go and bam they were gone. There was no process in place. He could drop any site he wanted to. Right now it's only sites like that but again slippery slope with no overhead, no one watching it.

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, TheCherryKing said:

As much as I hate government regulation it is necessary to regulate social media platforms as public utilities. All because the companies own the platform doesn't mean the have the right to violate the First Amendment. If cable and internet providers are regulated as public utilities the social media platforms need be regulated too. 

except social media companies are like newspapers and tabloids with letters to the editor.  once you start insisting they be treated like utilities then you also need to treat all forums, letters to the editor, radio shows and tv stations the same.

 

No, the internet can be a utility (and IMO should be), but not websites, they are private domains that are accessed by the internet. 

[Teddy07]

It is so funny that America declares war on everything they don´t like: war on drugs, war on immigrants, war against the press, war against health care ....

[dmaes]

1 hour ago, Teddy07 said:

It is so funny that America declares war on everything they don´t like: war on drugs, war on immigrants, war against the press, war against health care ....

It's also funny that they shit on companies that are doing nothing wrong while quoting their own laws in global topics, declaring countries they disagree with as evil, making up reasons to show their military power in the name of 'we gotta help those people in that poor country', making it a bigger disaster half the time, intervening in other governments, regulating, censoring and spying in free and open places. All while "supporting peace, tolerance and freedom".

 

I'm not saying it's all Americans, I'm not saying it's only Americans, just an example...

 

I think we all need to look at ourselfs first. Right now, we are being childish and running to mommy and telling her it isn't fair that the other kid is telling mean things and you want her to deal with it whilst you cry, instead of fighting back or looking for new friends. If your mommy says the same mean things to you instead of helping you find new friends, then you got a problem.

We shouldn't shit about companies censoring things on their own service, according to their own rules to which you agreed when you clicked that button but never red the wall of text. We should use the freedom of the internet to come with alternatives, and you government should protect you in finding those alternatives and not spy on you or help your ISP take complete control over what you can access on the free and open net, cause that is just as taping your mouth shut in a debate, while media companies censoring their own services is just having better experts and skills in debating.

[Trik'Stari]

On 9/2/2017 at 0:18 AM, CakeArmy_Max said:

Real quick, new to this section of LTT, please limit hatred <3

Ars Technica: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/tech-companies-are-cracking-down-on-hate-speech/

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. If I was making a video complaining about YT and they remove it, it can be considered censorship, but is still legal as they can do what they want with their own platform.

 

Another Ars technica article actually explains how a stop sign can be covertly changed to make self driving cars not recognize them WITH THESE 5 SIMPLE STEPS! (GONE CRAZY GONE SEXUAL ((NOT CLICKBAIT)) (((((CLICKBAIT))))) ((((((((OMG)))))))

Clickbait aside, https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/09/hacking-street-signs-with-stickers-could-confuse-self-driving-cars/

 

Do note, they didn't actually test this. Its all just a theory based on my TLDR version of the article. 

 

TLDR:

Freedom of speech does not mean anything with companies, stop signs can have a sticker on them and then self driving cars wont recognize them. 

 

Limiting freedom of speech, as a company, could be construed as discrimination.

 

Honestly I think Freedom of Speech should apply to social media companies, as a stipulation of doing business in the US. Mainly because of the power these companies will have to influence society.

[ivan134]

10 hours ago, Kumaresh said:

Ah, what a mature and calculated response. Your level of intellectual arguments is astounding.....

Why, thank you. Everything I've seen from you on this site leads me to believe you're a 12 year old edge lord who happened to watch some videos on YouTube then now thinks you understand how the world works. I'm not going too argue with a child. If you are actually a grown man saying the things you say, that means you're still not worth my time.

[ivan134]

9 hours ago, TheCherryKing said:

As much as I hate government regulation it is necessary to regulate social media platforms as public utilities. All because the companies own the platform doesn't mean the have the right to violate the First Amendment. If cable and internet providers are regulated as public utilities the social media platforms need be regulated too. 

You have no idea what any of the words you're using mean.

[ivan134]

12 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Limiting freedom of speech, as a company, could be construed as discrimination.

 

Honestly I think Freedom of Speech should apply to social media companies, as a stipulation of doing business in the US. Mainly because of the power these companies will have to influence society.

For people who claim to be for limited govt, you people sure do like a lot of govt when it's something you don't like

[Trik'Stari]

14 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

For people who claim to be for limited govt, you people sure do like a lot of govt when it's something you don't like

I don't like the left using corporations to surpass government control over society in an effort to create one party state. 

 

Which is precisely what this is.

 

Personally, companies shouldn't be allowed a political opinion because a company isn't a person. (no more corporate lobbying)

[Sauron]

8 hours ago, Bensemus said:

You are not a multinational company with your fingers intertwined with millions of people's lives. That is a key point you seem to be ignoring. He's saying these companies have gotten to the point where they have more power over you then they should. None of what he's saying is currently illegal but that's the issue. Whatever these companies decide is right is. There aren't any other platforms with the same reach so any message that these companies don't agree with will be censored.

 

Right now they are all pretty left leaning so conservative ideals are potentially threatened. Nothing is preventing that from changing so your ideals are now the ones at odds with the companies and now you find our voice getting restricted.

 

This is the slippery slope the CEO of Cloudflare talked about. He did an interview about removing the Nazi site and he said he woke up one morning and decided that they had to go and bam they were gone. There was no process in place. He could drop any site he wanted to. Right now it's only sites like that but again slippery slope with no overhead, no one watching it.

If companies have too much power, that's another issue entirely from what is being discussed here. As for cloudflare etc, you seem to forget the neonazi website can also be hosted on a private server by the publisher. If google and cloudflare don't want to host them that doesn't mean they are being censored and suppressed. There needs to be no process as long as they don't infringe the rules of their contract with the user. I would feel just the same about this even if it was a website I liked. Google cannot prevent you from putting your stuff on the internet, and even if they stopped indexing it there are plenty of other search engines (you could even write your own, it's not particularly hard to make a functional if not blazing fast one) that would allow you to find said website if you were interested. I think tor's hidden services have demonstrated that making things impossible to find by chance is not a deterrent if someone really cares.

 

No ideal is being "threatened". A threat would be the risk of jail or physical violence for thinking or saying those things. Once again, your freedom to think a certain way doesn't mean society at large has to listen or like you for it. It doesn't mean it's anyone else's responsibility to give you a stage. You can walk down a street and say whatever you want, but to say those things in a private stadium with thousands of seats you need to convince the owner to let you in.

 

I cannot stress this enough - if you don't like Google's way of doing things, don't support them. Make an effort to use something else. Show them that you prefer other services. Spread the word about things like DuckDuckGo or whatever your favourite SE is. Use libreoffice instead of google docs. Use Amazon cloud or dropbox or whatever. In other words, don't contribute to their marketshare. If a large group of people start doing this, Google will have to adapt to their demands to get them back. But if not enough people care, perhaps this is really not a big deal - and even if it is, if people don't care the government definitely won't. Arguing about the phylosophy of free speech (even if you were right in claiming it's a free speech issue and I don't think you are) is just about the least effective thing you could do to stop this.

 

And once again I direct you to a group of corporations that have much more power over the internet than Google does: ISPs. They could actually completely prevent a website from being on the internet if they wanted to, at least as far as their subscribers are concerned.That's what the government should actually be looking at regulating to ensure all traffic is treated equally - but guess what, the current right wing US government is doing the exact opposite. So don't make it sound like the left wing is censoring things and we live in this left wing dystopian nightmare where poor righties are discriminated against and censored - there are plenty of examples of equal or worse behaviour from the other side as well.

[NinerL]

They're companies, and can do whatever they want.

[FakezZ]

On 9/2/2017 at 4:29 PM, ivan134 said:

Who said you have to praise them? Unfettered capitalism means companies get to do whatever they want right? Why shouldn't they be "moral busy bodies" as you put it? Why does someone who favors capitalism with no government control have this viewpoint?

Because the system in place now is Corporatism and not Capitalism... With real Capitalism there is competition so if you don't like a company's way of doing things you can just take your business elsewhere. Good luck doing that when Google basically is the fucking Internet.

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, FakezZ said:

Google basically is the fucking Internet.

Maybe for you it is, but I assure you you can do everything Google services do through other means. Just because Google is the most used platform does not man it is the only platform.

[FakezZ]

11 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Maybe for you it is, but I assure you you can do everything Google services do through other means. Just because Google is the most used platform does not man it is the only platform.

Yeah as I can also substitute using a car by travelling by foot... The fact that there are alternatives does not mean that they are viable.

[Sauron]

Just now, FakezZ said:

Yeah as I can also substitute using a car by travelling by foot... The fact that there are alternatives does not mean that they are viable.

On the contrary, there are very viable alternatives. They may not be quite as good in some respects, but they are more than good enough for the vast majority of uses. Take it as using a manual shift car over an automatic one - it's a bit less comfortable but far from unusable, and you trade some comfort in exchange for more control.

[FakezZ]

Just now, Sauron said:

On the contrary, there are very viable alternatives. They may not be quite as good in some respects, but they are more than good enough for the vast majority of uses. Take it as using a manual shift car over an automatic one - it's a bit less comfortable but far from unusable, and you trade some comfort in exchange for more control.

No man it is not the same... You can use a manual car, in fact where I live driving a manual is the norm, but having Bing or Yahoo as a search engine is absolutely unusable. Vimeo or other YouTube alternatives have very little content and the list just goes on...

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, FakezZ said:

No man it is not the same... You can use a manual car, in fact where I live driving a manual is the norm, but having Bing or Yahoo as a search engine is absolutely unusable. Vimeo or other YouTube alternatives have very little content and the list just goes on...

Have you tried using DuckDuckGo? I find it far from unusable, and certainly in case of absolute necessity bing or yahoo would do just fine.

 

As for content, you choose what you want to watch. The argument of "youtube has more content" doesn't matter if what you're looking for are ways to avoid a supposed "censor", because the content you care about is not on it...

 

The fact that you can't bother using something else is not an argument for "google pretty much being the internet".