Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Facebook employees stage a virtual walkout over Zuckerberg's inaction on Trump posts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by tantalus View Post
    Now the hard part comes, Should we change the regulations for the "next" time? or does this approach continue to serve us well....Do we need to view social media as some king of critical infrastructure or service within society...Do we need to find a completely new way to think about it that does not have any previous precedents...
    The amusing part of this question is the Repubs are calling for regulation because they're the plaintiff and the Liberals want free market. This can flip if the boot falls on the other side.

    The way it was is the right way but we've seen this leaves open fake news attacks.

    Dealing with fake news, what it is, should it be allowed is where things got gummed up.

    Big tech dreads regulation. I'm sure a lot of money would have been spent lobbying to prevent it.

    A party that is partial here is preferable to them and either works.

    But that's not a given due to the rough and tumble of politics.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 20 Jan 21,, 17:20.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by tantalus View Post

      is there any merit to breaking up tech monopolies ?
      If we are talking social media companies like Facebook, Twitter etc., IMO this is a unique situation. Using the Vanderbilt Standard Oil example, they were able to corner the market of a valuable commodity with a prohibitively high cost of access.

      The business model of Facebook and Twitter relies primarily on the continued activity of all of its users. The individual user him/herself is the commodity, which unlike oil has a sense of agency that is driven by the human need for social interaction. We've seen sites like MySpace and Friendster rise to success as quickly as they descended into irrelevance, based on the behavior trends of their users. Already we are seeing Gen Z eschewing Facebook for platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, and Instagram (Facebook owned).

      This level of dynamic change, plus the fluidity of the "commodity" within the market is the absolute last thing a monopoly needs to sustain dominance.
      Last edited by Red Team; 20 Jan 21,, 18:26.
      "Draft beer, not people."

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Double Edge View Post

        I don't know how things work at VOA and whether this has happened in the past. What the culture is like.
        Wanted to go a bit deeper into what this propaganda thing means. It's been bubbling for some time

        According to this article, the primary opposition is to Trump appointees that will affect objectivity.

        A group of more than two dozen senior officials from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, including Editor-in-Chief Daisy Sindelar, wrote Pack in sharp protest on Wednesday.

        The group said in a statement obtained by NPR that Pack's actions "will compromise the freedom from political influence that for seven decades has characterized Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) as an independent surrogate news organization for countries with no free press of their own."
        That RFA should not be likewise constrained as the countries it broadcasts to as it makes it easier for regimes of those countries to discredit RFA

        The question is how effective is Trump's way compared to the previous way of doing things.

        Trump wanted a change of spin to go with the MAGA theme.

        Does not help if Americans constantly get told they suck all the time

        At the same time you are going up against an opponent that does not care for rules let alone truth.

        To be effective at countering their PR requires a more targeted approach. One that skewers their narrative.

        This the protesters say reduces their position to that of the other side. It will be if you lie to the same extent as them but are they doing that.
        Only Truth will prevail
        One man who stopped lying could bring down a tyranny.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,
        Does it always have to be 100% true ? I don't know

        Russian dissidents maintain the best lies are 99% true (!)

        My study of poltical/information warfare is only beginning
        Last edited by Double Edge; 20 Jan 21,, 22:29.

        Comment


        • #94
          About VOA. The protesters think if their overseas arms challenge other govts that they be allowed to do the same to their own govt.

          This is like the BBC's approach. Stuck in permanent opposition mode.

          If i think about Indian equivalents to VOA, i have sources that are govt or quasi govt.

          What they do is explain policy. They will have discussions about said policy and explore the various facets.

          People confuse these programs for debates but they're not as there is no opposing side. You get the equivalent of a lecture on any policy or topic chosen.

          These programs are popular with those sitting for civil service exams. Because when asked to explain policy this is what they need to understand.

          The guests are ex-mil, foreign service and govt officials. Insights from experienced people.

          Private media does the debate, always opposes. People yelling at each other and several view points. Lobbyists, agents of any stripe etc.

          You get very little out of these programs. If there is one opposing voice it takes twice as long to get through than if you just had the one voice of the party enacting the policy.

          Opposition is fine so long as you understand what it is you are opposing. Frequently i find people taking up positions just because they hate the govt. They have no clue what it is they are opposing.

          When i look for equivalent sources like this in the west i find no options or very few.

          It's as if this approach is anti free. I don't see it that way at all.

          They offer a venue to get the official take that is valuable.
          Last edited by Double Edge; 20 Jan 21,, 23:09.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Red Team View Post

            If we are talking social media companies like Facebook, Twitter etc., IMO this is a unique situation. Using the Vanderbilt Standard Oil example, they were able to corner the market of a valuable commodity with a prohibitively high cost of access.

            The business model of Facebook and Twitter relies primarily on the continued activity of all of its users. The individual user him/herself is the commodity, which unlike oil has a sense of agency that is driven by the human need for social interaction. We've seen sites like MySpace and Friendster rise to success as quickly as they descended into irrelevance, based on the behavior trends of their users. Already we are seeing Gen Z eschewing Facebook for platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, and Instagram (Facebook owned).

            This level of dynamic change, plus the fluidity of the "commodity" within the market is the absolute last thing a monopoly needs to sustain dominance.
            Unique as it its an illusion of a monopoly?

            Should we use past examples to predict the future monopoly? Rapidily failed social media companies equals future failures. If its a "temporary" monopoly, is that a concept worth holding in our minds?. Minds can hold ideas for a lifetime so "damage" through an unhealthy market landscape is longer than the day to day price of oil...Do we need to think of monopolies in the context of the product or service provided not across industries.

            I agree that disrupting the social media platforms is much easier due to the low capital access requirments but I am not sure ease of access should influence how we think about regulation here. Incidentally increasing the expectation of monitoring of their platfroms will increase the cost for the companies to operate. This will favour them over disruptors as they can absorb the increasing costs where a startup could not.

            Nothing to do with your response, but there may be a problem of framing here that my own question caused. Is it an issue of a monopoly or have I asked the wrong question? If you fragmented the industry into smaller companies would that eliminate the potential for a liberal or conservative bias across those fragments...would it eliminate the fake news on those fragments or make it harder for them to muster the resources to manage their platforms...and how we think about the algorithms they use...

            We have to ask what are the particular effect or effects we seek to alter. We have to ask if using other industry and historical examples serve us well here or lead us astray...Did I fail to ask the right question...


            Last edited by tantalus; 23 Jan 21,, 11:07.

            Comment


            • #96


              I found the reactions to Trump's twitter ban more circumspect with the Japanese than when they interviewed Americans in other videos of the series who unanimously replied private company T's & C's. They were also more willing to blame him for the riot.

              The biggest surprise was every one asked replied they would like to go to the US. But the replies to the same question from American expatriates was not that forthcoming about returning that is among those interviewed in China, Korea & Japan.

              Can't afford the health insurance, will not do as well as my parents etc.
              Last edited by Double Edge; 25 Jan 21,, 20:56.

              Comment

              Working...
              X