You know how your friend’s parents were going out of town and said “no guests,” but your friend told everyone to come over anyway, and at the last minute parents tell friend that granny is coming to stay while they’re gone to make sure they don’t have guests, so your friend pitches the biggest fit about how parents don’t trust them and of course they wouldn’t have guests and granny should just stay home as a test run to prove friend is trustworthy…while fully planning to still have everyone over???
I disagree, as back in the day we could hold editors accountable for what was printed or not printed. Today literally anyone can publish anything to millions of people with zero responsibility for the outcome of their misleading/false/defamatory information.
Think of it this way, would google sell a foreign subsidiary if it meant they have to give up their algos? They would just shut it down and eat the loss. Same concept here if their algos (plus evidence they are actively sending US user data to beijing and/or having beijing manipulate what’s being shown to US users, which they obviously are) have to be transferred over to someone else in a sale.
I think this is, again, a function of technology - I know popular “news” celebrities of yore of got away with saying plenty of inflammatory things until eventually they were buried under lawsuits.
Social media platforms are technology first companies and so there is that shift between classical publishing/content companies vs technology companies - eventually the laws will catch up.
My earlier point was that people, largely, remain the same - and the polar opposites are very loud.
I don’t know if we really disagree, but if we do; Cool, cool.
They didn’t back in the day when advertising was seperate from news, because they had no financial incentive to lie/exaggerate/etc for ratings/reviews/clicks etc. It would have been all risk for no reward.
Not if they have their way with lobbying checks.
I think we had a smarter electorate back in the day because the stupid Americans were too busy digging ditches to be sitting around re-tweeting or X’ing Y’ing or whatever its called now.
Nope, picking at obvious fringes probably.
That said I still believe this is the case…
Propaganda (biased, misleading, disinformation intended to sway audiences to one belief over anothet) has been spread for-literally-ever. One example that always strikes me as especially poignant is all of the rumors spread about Marie Antoinette as part of the French Revolution.
The issue with 2020s propaganda is the many platforms (like TikTok but not only TikTok) that give space to so many more propagandists, so much faster, to so many people, with no apparent interest in fact-checking or slowing the spread of false information–and a populace more interested in their own “alternative facts” than the actual truth.
When a platform is state-controlled like TT (versus state-regulated) due to its company’s country of origin-- and that country is notorious for pushing its own alternative facts at the expense of actual truth–AND has access to so much personal user data that can be weaponized for propaganda and other non-neutral, harmful purposes, I can certainly understand how other governments would want to act to restrict its spread.
Section 230 is the reason things are different from when they were.
Repeal Section 230, make social media responsible for what they publish and we will solve multiple problems including Disinformation on Social Media, productivity loss due to Social Media, and the national security issues due to data collection by Social Media.
More likely to pass muster in the courts than shutting down TikTok.
I am going to think about what a USA without Social Media might be like. It seems obvious that it would have a large effect on how people spend their time.
Well, TBH, some of you I would need a stiff drink to go with, and I am sure the feeling is mutual but yes, either would do. Perhaps a pub where dinner and alcohol is available.
Then again… Some people here are more waffle house at 2am material.
One thing, all of us run or manage a business on this forum, whether big or small; established or newbies. We work(initially spent 14-16 hours listing/scouting/ driving to sales-can’t keep that up now); we may be employers; we’re tax-payers. Whether young/middle-aged or decrepit like myself, our entrepreneurial juices flow.
In fact, we seem to be a fairly stable group of folks( who meet the definition of ADULTS), whom I’d be proud to meet either at a nice restaurant or a waffle house(as an insomniac, whose nights are often turned into days, some of my most productive times are 1-5 AM), No matter how diverse, what religion/ethnic/ cultural or political group or income level, we have private enterprise and capitalism in common.
People come and people go from specialized forums like this one. And people reduce their involvement based on how their interests evolve.
This forum has rules which limit what can be discussed and the absence of Section 230 may or may not lead to rules changes.
I would gladly deal with many of the members of this community in person, as well as some of the former posters who appear to have lost interest in it.
If a useful function is served, forums like this will evolve to meet the regulations.
It is not clear that all the major social media would all retain their traffic, or want to.
It’s giving Dharmesh Mehta emailing Sellers and posting up on ASF to rile Sellers up into advocating for Amazon against their own interests, using buzzwords and pathos.
The difference this time is congress actually passed a law for this. Last time there was an attempted tiktok ban the courts ruled that the president doesn’t have the authority to do that and was overreaching. Now that there’s an actual law it is enforceable.
China was already caught once stealing US user’s data from the tiktok datacenters, and there’s little doubt that they will continue to do so. You can’t protect the company’s data from the company’s owner. It just doesn’t work that way.
If the app gets shut down nothing will change, another one will just take it’s place. (One that’s not owned by a hostile govt)
It’s giving Dharmesh Mehta emailing Sellers and posting up on ASF to rile Sellers up into advocating for Amazon against their own interests, using buzzwords and pathos.