- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Facebook declares war on satire news site "BabylonBee"
Posted on 10/21/20 at 5:48 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Posted on 10/21/20 at 5:48 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Both sides hate relative democracy.
I'll agree with you on that.
0
Posted on 10/21/20 at 6:04 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Silly to go to war with satirists, especially very good ones. They win every time.
I'm sure they'll come up with a modest proposal.
Posted on 10/21/20 at 6:21 pm to TigerstuckinMS
Your wordplay not unnoticed, but the Charlie Hebdo victims might disagree about the satirists always winning. Extreme example, I know.
Posted on 10/21/20 at 6:27 pm to goofball
Twitter banned the Bee one time for fake news thinking they were a real news site 
Posted on 10/21/20 at 6:38 pm to goofball
Posted on 10/21/20 at 6:46 pm to BottomlandBrew
quote:
Not specifically talking about Babylon Bee as I don't know much about them, but what's the issue with FB censoring whatever they want to on their platform? Genuine question. I see it as their platform, their choice. Tigerdroppings is censored (I can't say count or post barely visible female areolas). Reddit is censored (I can't post 16 year olds in bikinis on whatever weirdly quasi pedo subreddit was famous for a while). Most websites are censored. If you're not happy about that, then there are millions of other sites one can visit. Hell, start your own. Our country is built on variation of democracy, but it's also based on a form of capitalism.
Facebook and Twitter and Instagram are unique. While they are private enterprises, they have become- for better or worse- the predominant mode of widely disseminating opinions to the public. They act as de facto virtual town squares. When one of those companies bars political speech or ideological speech of a certain stripe, it essentially eliminates that ideology from the public discourse, or at a minimum diminishes its prevalence and visibility in the public discourse. This censorship has a significant impact, as it creates the impression in the minds of the application's massive user base (essentially the public) that there is only one prevailing ideology, which causes more people to blindly adopt that ideology in the absence of any meangingful alternatives. The notion that disgruntled users can simply resort to some other application is illusory. There are no true equivalents of Facebook and Twitter, no platforms with nearly the same scope or influence. To ban a particular view from Facebook or the other titanic apps is to relegate it to relative obscurity. Which is, of course, precisely the aim of those who advocate this censorship: to stamp out dissent and to ensure that these virtual town squares only promote their ideology. It should not be permitted. It is dangerous. It is contrary to America's democratic tradition of a free marketplace of ideas.
Posted on 10/21/20 at 7:01 pm to LegendInMyMind
quote:
fricking satire is real life. Real life is a joke
That's what's called a phetasy.
Posted on 10/22/20 at 6:21 am to DmitriKaramazov
Thanks for the well written reply.
But we give Facebook and Twitter that power. We can take it away. I understand the argument if they are secretly censoring it, but if they tell you they are blocking content and you still use their platform, then that's on you.
In the very short term, correct, but there have been mass internet migrations in the past and many more in the future. Do you still go to MySpace or Digg? Both of those sites had massive user bases that crumbled when inside and outside forces convinced users to leave.
I agree that the companies want to promote their ideology, but I don't see it as contrary to America's public tradition of a free marketplace of ideas. Just look at us during Colonial times. The patriots met at their public house to discuss their grievances and the loyalists met at their public house to discuss how rad the king was. If a loyalist were to go to the patriot public house and start talking shite about how great the king is, he was going to have a bad time.
quote:
Facebook and Twitter and Instagram are unique. While they are private enterprises, they have become- for better or worse- the predominant mode of widely disseminating opinions to the public. They act as de facto virtual town squares.
But we give Facebook and Twitter that power. We can take it away. I understand the argument if they are secretly censoring it, but if they tell you they are blocking content and you still use their platform, then that's on you.
quote:
The notion that disgruntled users can simply resort to some other application is illusory.
In the very short term, correct, but there have been mass internet migrations in the past and many more in the future. Do you still go to MySpace or Digg? Both of those sites had massive user bases that crumbled when inside and outside forces convinced users to leave.
quote:
Which is, of course, precisely the aim of those who advocate this censorship: to stamp out dissent and to ensure that these virtual town squares only promote their ideology. It should not be permitted. It is dangerous. It is contrary to America's democratic tradition of a free marketplace of ideas.
I agree that the companies want to promote their ideology, but I don't see it as contrary to America's public tradition of a free marketplace of ideas. Just look at us during Colonial times. The patriots met at their public house to discuss their grievances and the loyalists met at their public house to discuss how rad the king was. If a loyalist were to go to the patriot public house and start talking shite about how great the king is, he was going to have a bad time.
Posted on 10/22/20 at 7:51 am to goofball
Progressives always say they stand for personal freedoms, yet we see more censorship from the left now than we did in the height of the Conservative PC days.
Posted on 10/22/20 at 7:53 am to BottomlandBrew
quote:
Just look at us during Colonial times. The patriots met at their public house to discuss their grievances and the loyalists met at their public house to discuss how rad the king was. If a loyalist were to go to the patriot public house and start talking shite about how great the king is, he was going to have a bad time.
The difference is today the Loyalist Public House owns all the land and infrastructure and won't allow a Patriot Public House to be built or be operated.
Posted on 10/22/20 at 7:55 am to Centinel
quote:
The difference is today the Loyalist Public House owns all the land and infrastructure and won't allow a Patriot Public House to be built or be operated.
the would be true if ISPs were censoring sites like the Bee
Posted on 10/22/20 at 7:56 am to Salmon
quote:
the would be true if ISPs were censoring sites like the Bee
It's not about the ISPs. It's about the CDNs/Cloud Infrastructure and the ability to control what apps are allowed on phones.
ETA: This is an example of why the freakout over Net Neutrality was focused in completely the wrong direction. The ISPs were never the danger. The companies arguing for Net Neutrality were.
This post was edited on 10/22/20 at 7:59 am
Posted on 10/22/20 at 7:58 am to goofball
quote:
Senator Hirono ...
Posted on 10/22/20 at 7:59 am to Centinel
well, I'm definitely ignorant on that topic
but it seems to me that conservative sites still exist
maybe a better analogy would be that the Loyalists own the roads and the only way to get to the Patriot house is a small dirt trail?
or something like that?
but it seems to me that conservative sites still exist
maybe a better analogy would be that the Loyalists own the roads and the only way to get to the Patriot house is a small dirt trail?
or something like that?
Posted on 10/22/20 at 8:07 am to Salmon
The issue is that to have the reliability and reach to match the likes of Twitter, you need to be able to leverage cloud infrastructure. There are really only three people left in the market. Amazon, Microsoft, and Google. Unless you want to count AliBaba (Ha). Facebook is massive, but they really don't sell cloud access like the others. Their infrastructure is pretty much internal use only.
These three march in lockstep along with Apple and Facebook. Yes, you can spin up an App on and host it on a lower tier provider, but you will never, ever be able to get the reach you need with the above blocking you and Google/Apple deciding your App isn't allowed. You have to be able to hit a critical mass, and if they don't want you too...you won't.
And that is what's happening today. Do something that Big Tech decides they don't like? You're gone. And there simply isn't an alternative big enough to reach the masses like Big Tech, and Big Tech will make sure it remains that way.
It really is a perfect storm of old school collusion/cartel among the major tech players to keep competition out combined with them all being in lock step ideologically.
These three march in lockstep along with Apple and Facebook. Yes, you can spin up an App on and host it on a lower tier provider, but you will never, ever be able to get the reach you need with the above blocking you and Google/Apple deciding your App isn't allowed. You have to be able to hit a critical mass, and if they don't want you too...you won't.
And that is what's happening today. Do something that Big Tech decides they don't like? You're gone. And there simply isn't an alternative big enough to reach the masses like Big Tech, and Big Tech will make sure it remains that way.
It really is a perfect storm of old school collusion/cartel among the major tech players to keep competition out combined with them all being in lock step ideologically.
This post was edited on 10/22/20 at 8:11 am
Posted on 10/22/20 at 8:10 am to goofball
An “independent fact checker” decided my post about the lack of news attention about Hunter Biden was incorrect. I can’t wait to delete it after the election. I just can’t resist seeing the shite show it will be after for a few days.
Posted on 10/22/20 at 8:13 am to Centinel
I'm with Salmon in that I'm ignorant of the CDN/Cloud infrastructure issue. Can you explain that further? I'm assuming you are saying that Amazon or Microsoft or any other giant provider would deny hosting a right-leaning on their hardware.
edit. NM, you posted it while I was posting this.
edit. NM, you posted it while I was posting this.
This post was edited on 10/22/20 at 8:14 am
Posted on 10/22/20 at 8:13 am to Centinel
So what would be the solution?
I know you mentioned the 230 protections earlier, but the 230 protections say that they can remove speech, so they are within their legal authority as a platform. If anyone tried to change their designation without Congress amending 230, it would be an easy court win for FB.
And then I have issues with who decides at what point a platform is no longer a platform? The government? What is the criteria?
And once we take down FB or whatever, what is there to prevent another company from just taking their place and doing it all over again?
It seems like some of y'all are asking for very heavy government regulation that will almost certainly backfire in the future.
I know you mentioned the 230 protections earlier, but the 230 protections say that they can remove speech, so they are within their legal authority as a platform. If anyone tried to change their designation without Congress amending 230, it would be an easy court win for FB.
And then I have issues with who decides at what point a platform is no longer a platform? The government? What is the criteria?
And once we take down FB or whatever, what is there to prevent another company from just taking their place and doing it all over again?
It seems like some of y'all are asking for very heavy government regulation that will almost certainly backfire in the future.
Posted on 10/22/20 at 8:19 am to Teufelhunden
quote:
Yes it's crazy, but have you seen the shite that morons share and believe is factual?
There’s a whole sub-Reddit on people who “ate the onion” and believed/shared satire as if it was real. Great stuff.
Posted on 10/22/20 at 8:25 am to Salmon
quote:
So what would be the solution?
To be honest I don't know. You have the issue of them being in ideological lockstep and thereby crushing anyone who doesn't think like them, but then again you have them being in business lockstep and thereby crushing anyone who wants to challenge them from a business standpoint.
On principle, I'm against antitrust regulation unless absolutely, positively necessary...and I'm not quite sure we're there yet. But this censorship is only going to get worse.
What we need is a major disruption in Big Tech, but I'm not smart enough to tell you what that should look like.
The only other option would be to somehow take away the incentive for Big Tech to structure their revenue they way they have that incentivises driving a major wedge between this country so more on the left start calling out this ideological cleansing instead of cheering it on.
This post was edited on 10/22/20 at 8:26 am
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News