Censorship

[Tranquility]

I don't have a problem if this is removed as it is possible politics won't stay out of it. But, censorship should be something red and blue both don't want to see.

The first step in the upcoming censorship wars is from TX.

Gov. Abbott to announce bill prohibiting social media companies from censoring viewpoints

The text of the law is at https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB12/id/2317860 .

The good news to those here, even if from TX, is the saving clause which makes this apply only to the big guys:

(c) This chapter applies only to an interactive computer service that functionally has more than 100 million active users in a calendar month.

The best/worst part of the bill is it gives private standing to those hurt and attorney fees and costs if they win. GoogleFacebookTwitter better have a bunch of attorneys in house for the litigation to come.

 

[florduh]

Well, I'm glad we're all coming to the realization that multinational corporations aren't benevolent institutions that will "regulate themselves". I do find it funny that the line in the sand is internet posts, but I'll take progress where I can get it.

I guess my question with this specific law is, doesn't it make any form of content moderation illegal? Because that's going to cause problems. The reason Facebook and Google are 12 figure companies is that other companies spend lots of money advertising on their platforms. I sort of doubt the biggest corporations on earth are going to be happy seeing their ads displayed next to some loon's skull measuring videos.

I indirectly work in this industry. In my opinion, the censorship we're seeing isn't about Red or Blue. It's green. Google and Facebook don't serve the user. They serve their advertisers. My worry* is that a free speech free for all just isn't going to be profitable. Or as profitable.

To me, the solution here is to just nationalize Twitter. Then the First Amendment can reign on the platform. After all it's the "New Public Square". Make it publicly owned. Then we don't have to worry about advertisers setting the parameters of our public discourse.

(* I'm not actually worried. I'd be happy if every one of these companies died)

 

[Tranquility]

The difference is that companies want to be publishers without taking responsibility for what is published. The law on defamation was fine previously but we decided to promote social media as a societal goal with protections to social media akin to a phone company than a newspaper. But, they acted like newspapers. The real issue will be to protect companies who promote free speech while making those who want to shape and monetize that speech responsible for what is, essentially, the media company's speech.

On another note, it is said there was an entry in the Urban Dictionary. That entry is now gone and wayback machine does not link to previous. With the level of censorship in the webs, I don't know if the claim of censorship is a false flag or if there was a concerted effort to remove speech. When we allow others to say what is allowed, we always have to judge the intent of the others.

But, there is no such entry now:
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Sorry, we couldn't find: Blue Anon

Yet, people have talked about it:
OMG-LOL! Receipt-filled thread mocking #BlueAnon for each and every CRAZY conspiracy theory on the Left is an EPIC must-read

While the map is not the territory, few people wander territories without maps. The narrative IS the reality.

After posting (before moderation) I read further...for shits and giggles look it up on Google. Then click on some links. Apparently, we're not allowed to know what some think. (Bing and duck duck go come up with some articles at the top of the search. For now.)

 

[florduh]

The difference is that companies want to be publishers without taking responsibility for what is published. The law on defamation was fine previously but we decided to promote social media as a societal goal with protections to social media akin to a phone company than a newspaper. But, they acted like newspapers. The real issue will be to protect companies who promote free speech while making those who want to shape and monetize that speech responsible for what is, essentially, the media company's speech.

Ok, so the de facto goal is the destruction of Facebook, Google, and Twitter. That rocks. I'm skeptical about the prospects of success here though, mostly because they're fucking with The Money. In America, you never fuck with The Money. There are reasons Facebook is a hundred billion dollar company, and Free Speech bastion 4chan isn't. I believe the biggest is that one is moderated to the satisfaction of Fortune 100 advertisers, and the other is not. I'm skeptical that meeemaw's sick MS-13 memes getting deleted will convince our rulers to delete like a trillion in wealth from the global economy, but hopefully I'm wrong.

While I won't shed a tear for the death of Facebook, there will be a lot of collateral damage. Many small businesses rely on the advertising infastructure provided by Big Tech to survive. I've encouraged colleagues to plan for a possible post-FB world. Most have not. As an older millennial, I miss the early, balkanized internet of my youth. Niche sites and forums, like this one. I don't think everyone talking to everyone else all the time is healthy. Going back to a more decentralized internet would also spread the advertising wealth around a bit.

Anyway, the American Right embarking on a Maoist campaign to burn some of the most profitable businesses on earth to the ground is the feel-good-story 2021 needs. I wish them luck.

On another note, it is said there was an entry in the Urban Dictionary. That entry is now gone and wayback machine does not link to previous. With the level of censorship in the webs, I don't know if the claim of censorship is a false flag or if there was a concerted effort to remove speech. When we allow others to say what is allowed, we always have to judge the intent of the others.

Looks like it's a false flag. I was able to search for "Blue Anon" successfully. Side note: I've been familiar with this term for a while, because Leftist podcasts I listen to have made fun of BlueAnon weirdos for years now. So I bristle a bit at the idea these are "left wing conspiracy theories". They're Democrat conspiracy theories. Or Lib conspiracy theories. War mongering with Russia over nonsense isn't a traditional "Left" position. I understand that political monikers have lost all meaning in this country, but as an ardent "Left Winger", I think these "left wing conspiracy theories" are nuts. So does every person I know who remotely shares my politics.

 

[arb]

Left ,right..........all propaganda.

 

[florduh]

Left ,right..........all propaganda.

Propaganda is very profitable though. Because it gets people worked up. "The Social Dilemma" movie on Netflix covered this pretty well. The social media companies figured out that making people more and more outraged is very good for business. Who gives a shit if this business model causes an actual genocide every now and then. The shareholders are happy.

 

[Tranquility]

Looks like it's a false flag. I was able to search for "Blue Anon" successfully. Side note: I've been familiar with this term for a while, because Leftist podcasts I listen to have made fun of BlueAnon weirdos for years now. So I bristle a bit at the idea these are "left wing conspiracy theories". They're Democrat conspiracy theories. Or Lib conspiracy theories. War mongering with Russia over nonsense isn't a traditional "Left" position. I understand that political monikers have lost all meaning in this country, but as an ardent "Left Winger", I think these "left wing conspiracy theories" are nuts. So does every person I know who remotely shares my politics.

I think The Google might have changed algorithms because of the uproar. I clicked on each link on the first page that came up when I checked and each went nowhere. (Today, it's just ski goggles and such. Someone must have done some good SEO when they saw the news recently.)

The current cool check on bias is "superstraight". If you go to Google, all the top articles "perfectly shut down" or "refute" the new sexuality claim. Bing and DuckDuckGo have less...focused results. (In the future, https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/...hind-brave-preps-first-new-daniel-greenfield/)

I think there is a restructuring in the left/right and dem/rep divide. To me, it seems "Left" is more a worldwide globalist movement while "Right" is more worldwide nationalist movement. Basically, one world or many countries. The economic path is not quite the focus any more.

Times are changing. There is going to be a realignment with power being triangulated differently.

 

[florduh]

To me, it seems "Left" is more a worldwide globalist movement while "Right" is more worldwide nationalist movement. Basically, one world or many countries. The economic path is not quite the focus any more.

For the second time, this thread has brought to mind this scene:

I'm wondering if some Illuminati member, unhappy with hundreds of billions in shareholder value being threatened, will sit Abbott down with the whole, "Mr Governor, you have meddled with the primal forces of nature! And you... will... ATONE!" speech.

 

[Tranquility]

 

[Tranquility]

Were Hundreds of Cannabis Advocates Shadow Banned for Encouraging Environmental Clean Up?

...While suppression of cannabis content is not new (my account was deleted in 2018 from YouTube at 190k subscribers), the more significant problem is that Instagram is acting as a gatekeeper to cannabis knowledge, content, and resources. Instagram has become pay-to-play for cannabis content creators, denying smaller influencers the exposure they rightfully earned. If any brand, creator or initiative can't organically gain the exposure they deserve, there will only be room for corporations who can afford to buy approval - perpetuating inequity in the industry.

If the only cannabis content left on Instagram is sponsored content from large cannabis corporations, new cannabis users won't have access to the valuable cannabis education they need. A whole generation of cannabis consumers will lose the opportunity to chat and connect over social media if we allow Instagram to remove small cannabis accounts and only promote corporate cannabis, or hardly any cannabis at all.

Social media platforms should not be allowed to decide who achieves recognition and success in any industry. That is for the consumers and people within that industry to determine alone. If we don't hold Instagram accountable now, what will happen once federal legalization passes? Everyone in this industry, working hard for years, will suffer, seeing how much their efforts don't matter when Instagram decides which personalities and brands get their fair share of airtime.

We must take a stand now. Advocates can make their voice heard by tagging Instagram in posts about their gatekeeping on the industry and community. By addressing Instagram directly, we can change the narrative of what a cannabis content creator is. Let Instagram know that the cannabis legalization movement continues to grow and will not be silenced.

 

[Tranquility]

The law is probably not going to pass in this environment, but...it may. There does not seem to be an inherently partisan position on this one.

The steak:

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

The sizzle:
Wicker Introduces Bill to Prohibit Big Tech from Controlling Online Speech

The PRO-SPEECH Act would:

• Preserve consumers’ ability to access lawful content, applications, services, or devices that do not interfere with an internet platform’s functionality or pose a data privacy or data security risk to a user;
• Prohibit internet platforms from taking any actions against users based on racial, sexual, religious, partisan, or ethnic grounds;
• Prohibit large internet platforms from blocking or discriminating against competing internet platforms by declaring such actions presumptively anti-competitive;
• Require an internet platform to disclose to the public accurate information regarding the platform management practices, performance characteristics, and commercial terms of service of any app store, cloud computing service, operating system, search engine, or social media network it owns; and
• Authorize the Federal Trade Commission to enforce the Act under Section 5 of the FTC Act notwithstanding any other provision of law.

Places like FC wouldn't have to worry; it's for "big" tech. Well, unless a "commission" determines including them wouldn't outweigh a cost/benefit analysis.

(b) EXCEPTIONS.—
13 (1) SMALL INTERNET PLATFORMS.—The prohi
14 bitions under subsection (a) shall not apply to a
15 small internet platform unless—
16 (A) the Commission determines that the
17 benefits of expanding the application of such
18 prohibitions to 1 or more small internet plat
19 forms outweigh the costs; and
20 (B) the Director of the Office of Manage
21 ment and Budget approves such cost-benefit
22 analysis and publishes such approval in the
23 Federal Register.
24 (2) PUBLISHERS OF CONTENT, APPLICATIONS,
25 AND SERVICES.—The prohibitions under subsection 3
MUR21461 YR0 S.L.C. 1 (a) shall not apply to the extent that an internet
2 platform publicly proclaims to be a publisher, insofar
3 as the internet platform is acting as a publisher, of
4 any particular content, application, or service.

 

[Tranquility]

Back to back rather than edit as my posts lock fast.

Edit:
Just discovered how the Republicans will screw this up. They're going to focus on how the big platforms censored Covid issues, like virus origin, and believe the public will jump on the bus. Blame rather than aspiration. Sheesh.

Senate Republicans Introduce Legislation To Hold Big Tech Accountable For Censoring Stories On COVID Origins And Engaging In Anti-Competitive Behavior