Heck, we can just let the U.S. government manage it all so no wrong think ever comes out of the various media.
That’s what is unfolding right now. A D.C. media, social media leadership, and D.C. politicians all on the same page on exactly what can and cannot be said.
Not exactly. Management of the social media outlets are in control. Their decisions will reflect their political bias until loss of membership and reduced hits will influence ad rates, ad volume and stock prices. And that is controlled by…you, the user (or non-user).
No, because 90% of people don’t really care about politics or freedom of speech. What trends on Twitter? Political stuff? No. Not even left wing political stuff. Pictures of food. A cute video of a baby koala bear. Kim K’s clip of her new shoes.
Very very few people are going to bother packing up and leaving Twitter, Facebook, or any other platform because of censorship of political speech.
How well did Gob(or whatever it was called) do? I don’t even see anybody bother to mention it any more, and that’s the closest thing to a “let’s go leave X social media” site movement I’ve seen. And it went nowhere.
These are good points but, assuming your 90% is correct, a 10% drop in users will get them to sit up and take notice. If you are politically active on the right and censored, what is the point of sticking around?
Will it? Especially if they can tilt one election and be granted government favors that far exceed their temporary losses?
You’re right, of course, CWolf, social media aren’t really that political. If those interested in politics stop using social media, then all that’s left will be the cute baby koalas and food. They’ll be irrelevant as political media, although my FB feed is always full of ignorant clickbait politics of all kinds. Truth be told, I barely look at FB any more.
Meanwhile, you can watch Computing Forever and Sargon of Akkad over on BitChute and avoid YouTube. Looks like. Alex Jones and Infowars are there too. Competition and free enterprise are processes, but you really don’t want to put bureaucrats in charge of policing internet content, managing private businesses or nationalizing private businesses. Well, you might. Then again, Donald Trump and the Republicans whatever they are these days won’t be in control forever.
I’ve never distinguished a difference between a giant bureaucracy from a corporation, versus a giant bureaucracy from government. The problem is with the bureaucracy, not the distinction between public and private.
Which is why I said it’s best to break the social media company’s up as monopolies. They can self manage, but not as a unified front.
Only half(or less) of the story. The other half will remain. So it won’t be a politics-free zone(which I would be completely happy with). It will instead be a propaganda arm for politicians that align with the social and economic goals of the few social media monopolies.
And how would I have even heard of Sargon, if he’d never been allowed on YouTube in the first place? On whatever the hell “BitChute” is? I’ve never even heard of this thing. He’s probably getting < 5,000 views on that platform. And he has an existing following from back when YouTube wasn’t primarily attempting to be the Ministry of Truth.
Social Media has become part of the public space. Since they’ve decided that their mission is no longer a neutral service provider, but an authority of what ideas should and should not be allowed to be expressed, they are now every bit as dangerous(and probably considerably more dangerous) than any invading army.
There’s another layer of abstraction, in that Government bureaucracies are more insulated from their own effects.
If a corporate bureaucracy is dysfunctional, and it creates a competitive weakness, the company either fixes it, or it steadily loses market share.
If a Government bureaucracy is dysfunctional, it both has to be dysfunctional enough for people to take notice, and want change more than whatever else politicians might try to offer instead as a priority; and be a priority strong enough where you don’t mind stepping on the public sectors toes to get it done.
And then there has to be honest reassessment to see if the changes took root. It’s too easy to placate in politics with images.
Monopolies lose power of their own accord if they aren’t aware of how to keep adding value.
That’s how Microsoft, and Standard Oil, were dethroned.
You can stop using YouTube or Facebook or Twitter. You cannot stop using the U.S. government.
If the politics on my feed is any indication, it doesn’t do much good. No one is convinced of anything, left or right. They post their videos and click bait, and arguments follow the terms of their confirmation bias.
I don’t know. Probably never would have. However, something else would have existed and you would be aware of someone you are today unaware of.
Had you heard of YouTube in 2004?
In 2005, how many views were folks getting on YouTube?
In other words, he has an advantage dating to his days on the leftist YouTube to draw from and help build other media.
The same has been said (and enshrined in law in contradiction to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence and supported by the Constitution of the United States) of physical private property, like your local grocery store and restaurants. The claim doesn’t make it true. Facebook could fold tomorrow, and every photo you have there, every post, the entire history would be gone except in some difficult-to-search archive somewhere. But then, unfortunately, politicians would say something about too big to fail and buy or bail out the failed company.
Invading army? I’m sorry, but LOL.
It’s no more dangerous than allowing dangerous ideas airtime in general. Fortunately, our founding fathers recognized that bad ideas need to be aired out the same way as good ideas., that ideas must compete in the marketplace of ideas, that human beings have an intrinsic right to their own bodies, their own minds, their own opinions and their own speech.
If Bernie Sanders and company were making these claims, how would you respond?
What’s “dangerous” about this is there USED to be a time when we taught reason and logic and critical thinking to our children. For some reason, we stopped DOING that some several years back. A public unprepared to reason is subject to the flawed reasoning of those from whom they receive their information and today that’s the left-wing media and the left-wing social sites on the internet. It’s a recipe for disaster–including the disaster of a government-“regulated” media and internet.
Of course I can - and so can you. I don’t use 90+% of anything the government provides/offers. If the government seized Facebook and started operating it as a government owned platform - you still wouldn’t have to use it.
Possibly. I know I have a YouTube account from 2005(before Google even bought it) and I knew of it before I registered.
From what I recall, view counts used to be higher in the early days, because there was so much less content. I remember pretty simple videos with very low production values getting millions of views.
Views are actually a lot lower in 2018 than they were in 2010 for anyone short of Shane Dawson.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. That ALL ideas should be aired - good and bad. I obviously think Alex Jones is a flake. But I don’t want he, or anyone else censored. It’s not like I’m even on the Right.
I would favor President Sanders breaking up the Social Media platforms into smaller companies as well. You probably wouldn’t want to use Sanders as an example though, because he was by far my preference on the Democratic side. Had Rubio or Bush won, I would have voted for Sanders. I’ve always liked Sanders. For pretty much the exact same reasons I liked Ron Paul and Donald Trump.
Very well said. Hall of fame material right there
It’s ‘Gab’ and it seems to be doing pretty well.
Do you consider yourself a socialist?
Do you support Sanders’ campaign promises?
Right BobJam! How can ANYONE be stupid enough to try and elect an avowed SOCIALIST to run the government???
I think there are a variety of ways to run a government. I think both Norway and Singapore have been successful.
I think Sanders is one of the few people in Washington who primarily does what he thinks is right - rather than playing to the tune of his largest campaign donors.
I absolutely would take Sanders over 90% of Washington. You may think Jeb Bush and Jeff Flake are better. I completely disagree. Swamp critter #1 wearing an R cap, doesn’t appeal to me any more than Swamp critter #2 wearing a D cap. One thing Bernie is not, and will never be, is part of the D.C. establishment. That’s the single best qualification anyone can possess.
The guy preaches “sharing” as a mandate for the wealthy, yet drives a $175,000 car, has three homes of his own and “shares” as little as possible with those less fortunate–unless he’s proposing “sharing” what is YOURS and MINE. He’s the quintessential “swamp creature” of DC. He’s NEVER had a real job in his life, living entirely off of taxpayers.
I should point out, both are higher than us on business & trade freedom, and in Singapore, even the Government hospitals are run by private corporations.
Both have a immigration rate that’s triple ours. Singapore is closer to quintuple.
I’m not following this whole argument, but this particular point is badly argued. 'Nutjob said you can’t stop using the U.S. government, and you shifted the goalposts to using 10-% of what it provides.