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

[ivan134]

2 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

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)

Lol what? 

[ivan134]

This is fucking hilarious. People who claim to be for small govt and hate those darn SJWs who are against "free market of ideas" want to use govt to silence a company that hurt their feelings. I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you ?

[TheCherryKing]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

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. 

The cable lines are owned by the cable company, not the city. All because a company owns cable lines or a social network isn't an excuse to have full control over it. 

[TheCherryKing]

3 hours ago, NinerL said:

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

According to your logic "Companies can do whatever they want.". Do you want the cable company to throttle your internet because you are watching too much YouTube? The cable company owns the cable lines so they can "do whatever they want".

[FakezZ]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

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".

It's not just me, though, it is the majority.

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, TheCherryKing said:

According to your logic "Companies can do whatever they want.". Do you want the cable company to throttle your internet because you are watching too much YouTube? The cable company owns the cable lines so they can "do whatever they want".

There's an important distinction between free speech and competitive practices.

 

If a cable company throttles YouTube, that's an anti-competitive move.  Regulators should certainly be welcome to step in and stop the cable giant from trying to stifle a rival service.  However, telling websites that they must allow certain content?  That's a free speech issue.  That's the government telling them what they must let people say on their site.

 

Do you think a site like Breitbart should be forced to include a "we celebrate diversity" section?  No?  Then why do you think that Google or Facebook is obligated to host hate speech?  You'll try to point to their dominance of the internet, but the law doesn't dictate what speech anyone is supposed to host based on their size.  And you might have a better argument if Google or Facebook was trying to squelch ideas merely because they're right of center, but they're not -- they're focused on extremists, the people who condone or encourage hate and violence.  At that point, it's less about squashing speech and more about creating a welcoming environment.

[Misanthrope]

There's an argument I usually make about how Youtube can be viewed as a pragmatic monopoly. I don't feel like making that argument anymore, they should kick out all the whiny Conservatives and Centrists off of the fucking site if they want to.

 

My guess is that they won't even skip a beat when it comes to profits, they're highly overestimating their self worth. The "New Media" it's just as bullshit as the old one, just guys that would like you to think differently cause they're still not as rich as the larger corporate media yet.

[Teddy07]

6 hours ago, 101dmrs said:

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.

1

I agree

It is only slightly annoying when companies censor but they can do whatever they want on their service

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, TheCherryKing said:

According to your logic "Companies can do whatever they want.". Do you want the cable company to throttle your internet because you are watching too much YouTube? The cable company owns the cable lines so they can "do whatever they want".

If companies cannot just do whatever they want then you're no longer talking about Capitalism. You're talking about a Socialist Democracy where certain goods and services are deemed as too important to leave up to the market and then the government takes control to regulate or directly run.

 

ISPs probably should remain under this "regulated" sphere but entertainment services? It seems like you're going a step too far for most people: what you're asking for would eventually devolve into State Propaganda. Too totalitarian to fuck with people's entertainment and access to information.

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, TheCherryKing said:

The cable lines are owned by the cable company, not the city. All because a company owns cable lines or a social network isn't an excuse to have full control over it. 

Not to sure how that changes what I said.   Websites are not the internet, the Internet is the physical network that we can all connect to, websites (like facebook and twitter) are private services that connect to the internet, you can use them or you can ignore them.   It doesn't matter who owns the infrastructure,  you can't force  everything on the internet to come under essential utility laws.  Freedom of speech guarantees you the right to express your opinions, it does not force other people to give you the platform, you have to find that for yourself.  

[SpaceGhostC2C]

On 9/2/2017 at 4:30 PM, 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.

Except it isn't if there is isn't speech suppression, and refusing to say something is not suppression of speech. Because, and never forget this, Youtube removing a video means Youtube refusing to say something. Because it is Youtube saying it, you are just its contributor.

That's why, despite how all these platforms present themselves, we must never neglect what comes in the footnotes and the small prints. Youtube, Facebook, etc, are media companies in the same way a newspaper is. As such, they have full authority on what they publish, and full responsibility. They present themselves as means for people to communicate with each other independently, but that's not what they are, that's not their legal standing, and that's not how they behave. Being a Youtuber isn't different from being an LTT forum member. You give up much of your ownership (and at least in Facebook's case, all of it) over the content, and they are liable for what it's published. Posting in Twitter is akin to send a reader's letter to NYT. They may or may not publish it, it's up to them. And it's not suppression of speech.

This is, indeed, different from e-mail. Think of it this way: if I post an illegal download link and LTT does nothing, they can get in trouble. If I post illegal download links or copyrighted videos in Youtube, and Google does nothing, Google can get in trouble. If I use Gmail to send you an illegal download link, Google is safe: I may perhaps get in trouble, but not Google, whatever the content of my e-mail. It's the same difference as the NYT and the US Post. The reason why Youtube or LTT can get in trouble is because they ultimately have to own up to everything that's published in their sites, as everything is considered at least tacitly approved and within their editorial reach (which leads to "due diligence" debates in cases of copyright infringement, for example). Hence, it is entirely in their right to filter what will appear in their site, as much as any news agency has.

[Bensemus]

6 hours ago, Sauron said:

If companies have too much power, that's another issue entirely from what is being discussed here

That is what's being discussed. If you're opinion doesn't line up with the opinion of theses large companies they can remove you from their platform. Before that wasn't an issue but now most people get their info from places like twitter and FaceBook. If you can't talk there you are severely limited in your reach. You can host your own site but how many people new about The Daily Stormer and how many people actually even visited the site vs FaceBook/Twitter? If Google and other search engines stops indexing the Daily stormer how would average people get to it assuming it still has a domain? 

6 hours ago, Sauron said:

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)

But is is for most people. Most people max out at using Google. That doesn't mean they won't want to express something.

 

Even if they write their own search engine who's gonna know about it and use it to find it?

 

If my site is no longer indexed by Google and I've moved away from using their stuff I still lose out on 1.2 Billion people who do which seems to be about 76% of people using search engines. Telling people to not use Google isn't an answer at all.

 

7 hours ago, Sauron said:

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

But theses large companies have become so intertwined in our lives that many people feel they shouldn't be treated like a small forum like LTT. They should be treated more like the public spaces they are replacing.

 

7 hours ago, Sauron said:

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.

This is an issue. Average people in a large group aren't smart. Even if Google starts censoring large swaths of the internet if they do it slowly people won't really notice and the few that do and make an effort to try to stop it will be ignored and brushed aside. 

 

Snowden showed what the US government was doing. Unfortunately people are apathetic to things they can't directly see. Because of that either the government has to take initiative or a large organization needs to fight. Average people just won't bother.

7 hours ago, Sauron said:

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.

I'm not taking sides in this and am a left leaning person and have pointed out that only right now are conservative ideals threatened. I've pointed out that nothing is preventing it from changing so don't put words in my mouth. 

 

My point is that companies like FaceBook and Google should not be able to control what the general populace sees. ISPs are part of this too but people AND large companies like FaceBook, Twitter, Google, Apple.... plus organisations are fighting them. Some people are aware of what they stand to lose and the large companies don't want to pay the new fees the ISPs would introduce. This doesn't exist for companies ability to censor people.

[Bensemus]

2 hours ago, Commodus said:

Then why do you think that Google or Facebook is obligated to host hate speech?  You'll try to point to their dominance of the internet, but the law doesn't dictate what speech anyone is supposed to host based on their size.

Which is the crux of the argument. People think these companies are large enough and influential enough that they can't just do whatever they want. They also aren't an editorial owned by someone. They are an open platform that hosts what other people say. FaceBook isn't generating all those billions of messages. People are on their site. Breitbart is paying people to write articles that they then put on their site. Two very different things. No one cares what Fox, CNN, CBC, BBC do because they are hosting their own content. FaceBook, Twitter, Google control your access to other people's work.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Bensemus said:

They are an open platform that hosts what other people say.

No they aren't, they can close out anyone they want.  They have policies that restrict what you are and are not allowed to say, they have guidelines on advertising.

 

Just because they don't pay for the content doesn't mean they aren't liable for publishing it.  And it doesn't mean there aren't consequences to their business if they allow it to remain published.  There are many facebook pages that get unpublished simply becasue enough people don't like them, pages with content that is 100% evidenced and accurate.  ("we love GMO's and vaccines" for example).   If people want there to be unfetted access to their work, then they need to find a platform that will support their opinions.

 

Let's not forget that google are being forced to remove search results.  This is because they are liable for publishing links to sites that allow illegal activity (not googles content).

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Kumaresh said:

@ivan134 Still, The way in which you talk down to everybody here is boorish and appaling and in my personal opinion, not befitting of a supposedly mature longtime member of this forum. What I consider model behaviour would be somebody along the lines of @mr moose. Even if I don't agree with him on all occasions, he always speaks in a calm and mature manner, learn from him !

Why thank you.  While I am sure not everyone agrees, I do try not to be a prick. 

[Shakaza]

35 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

@ivan134 Still, The way in which you talk down to everybody here is boorish and appaling and in my personal opinion, not befitting of a supposedly mature longtime member of this forum. What I consider model behaviour would be somebody along the lines of @mr moose. Even if I don't agree with him on all occasions, he always speaks in a calm and mature manner, learn from him !

With how certain members of the forum treat so-called "libtards," I can't blame him for being a bit salty when interacting with them. Still crappy in my opinion, but I caaaan kinda see why. 

[TheCherryKing]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

Not to sure how that changes what I said.   Websites are not the internet, the Internet is the physical network that we can all connect to, websites (like facebook and twitter) are private services that connect to the internet, you can use them or you can ignore them.   It doesn't matter who owns the infrastructure,  you can't force  everything on the internet to come under essential utility laws.  Freedom of speech guarantees you the right to express your opinions, it does not force other people to give you the platform, you have to find that for yourself.  

If you want to be that way... Bring the net neutrality rollback on! 

[ivan134]

40 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

Guilty as charged I would like to think I have turned a new leaf though...... But not towards him in particular, a completely different person who I would dare say had more humility.

I don't care though ????? I'm thorough trying to be civil with right wingers.

[TheCherryKing]

This forum is a hate group against right wingers! 

[Energycore]

12 hours ago, 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.

That's a false analogy you got there. Google is to Bing [or whatever else] like say, Chevrolet to Fiat. Not like Chevrolet to Nike. Mind your logical fallacies

[mr moose]

29 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

If you want to be that way... Bring the net neutrality rollback on! 

Now you have lost me.   What does net neutrality have to do with allowing private website to enact their own policies.  I think you are confusing websites with ISP's.  Facebook, for example,  has no control over your internet, while your ISP does.  NN has nothing to do with websites and everything to do with those who control the networks (namely ISPs).

 

27 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

This forum is a hate group against right wingers! 

 

Actually it is a pretty good cross section of the general political spectrum.   I think you might just have some ideas that are not overly understood/accepted by the general population.

[Shakaza]

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Actually it is a pretty good cross section of the general political spectrum.   I think you might just have some ideas that are not overly understood/accepted by the general population.

Yup! You have the insane and moronic extreme left-wingers like me, you have the reasonable and logical left-wingers who actually look moderate in comparison but are still pretty guilty of being TOTAL SJWs, the centrists who have no idea whose side they're on, the moderate right-wingers who are borderline offensive, racist and sexist with everything they say, and the equally insane and moronic far-right folk who are always racist, sexist, ageist, and every other bad -ism you can be! And then there's everything in between, because those people are obviously special snowflakes who have to be DIFFERENT.

 

(Please note: This was 100.1% a joke, so plz don't hurt me I'm fragile. ;.;)

 

Edit: Oh gosh, this was my 1000th post. Why did this have to be my 1000th post?

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Shakaza said:

 

Edit: Oh gosh, this was my 1000th post. Why did this have to be my 1000th post?

 

I'd say it was 0.1% Karma and 100% because it was a joke.

[TheCherryKing]

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Now you have lost me.   What does net neutrality have to do with allowing private website to enact their own policies.  I think you are confusing websites with ISP's.  Facebook, for example,  has no control over your internet, while your ISP does.  NN has nothing to do with websites and everything to do with those who control the networks (namely ISPs).

 

 

Actually it is a pretty good cross section of the general political spectrum.   I think you might just have some ideas that are not overly understood/accepted by the general population.

That's it! You offended me! If you're gonna be that way I'll play your social justice "game".

[TheCherryKing]

9 minutes ago, Shakaza said:

Yup! You have the insane and moronic extreme left-wingers like me, you have the reasonable and logical left-wingers who actually look moderate in comparison but are still pretty guilty of being TOTAL SJWs, the centrists who have no idea whose side they're on, the moderate right-wingers who are borderline offensive, racist and sexist with everything they say, and the equally insane and moronic far-right folk who are always racist, sexist, ageist, and every other bad -ism you can be! And then there's everything in between, because those people are obviously special snowflakes who have to be DIFFERENT.

 

(Please note: This was 100.1% a joke, so plz don't hurt me I'm fragile. ;.;)

 

Edit: Oh gosh, this was my 1000th post. Why did this have to be my 1000th post?

Not everybody on the right is racist or sexist - including those on the extreme right.