|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Being a part of a mob that calls for someone elses firing over old comments is sort of like throwing gasoline on your neighbors house while it burns and expecting the fire not to reach your door. We are all vulnerable to this mob fury. Twitter has 336 million active users, but its not just tweets that can get you fired. Everyone who has shared an opinion online on a podcast, a blog or anywhere that can be screenshotted, copied or recorded is a potential target. If you think youre safe, think again. Sacco had just 170 followers; the tweet still ruined her life. No one is too anonymous. No tweet is too old. The more we make businesses pay attention to an online reaction, by directly calling for a firing or cheering on those who do, the easier itll be to get someone fired in the future. If a bunch of keyboard warriors out for blood can influence companies to ax employees over old jokes, then were all in jeopardy. If youve been online for any significant period of time, youve probably either said or will say something that, in or out of context, could be used to embarrass you in front of a potential employer. No one who helps build a guillotine imagines that one day their head will be on that chopping block. |
It's happened on here. People are unhinged.
Was it the Seahawks fan who was posting 9-11 taunts?
Quote:
I don't really remember all the details but does anyone recall a number of years ago the Giant were playing a big game against an opponent (was it maybe Seahawks) and some jerk (one of their fans) came to this site and was really stirring things up on the forum and a some posters found out where he worked and I think end up getting the guy fired or something along those lines?
Was it the Seahawks fan who was posting 9-11 taunts?
Yeah I maybe that was it.
Im pretty sure that guy posted a pic of one of the planes crashing into the towers or made fun of it. I remember it happening but not the details myself.
- 'it's OK to hate white people because they (we in our case) have all the power'
Which is a moral abomination and not even true if you see the human experience as a series of one on one interactions as opposed to the false extension of a particular narrative about groups and identity into. all. things.
Around that time she also started self negation, over eating, not studying, etc and more, worse..stuff..maybe part just being that we happen to Be white. Ergo - Self hate.
I told her hate is hate, don't hate and I love you just the way you are, sweetie.
But damn that line of thinking to hell.
I don't know but I think it was like the broadcast of the news, players being interviewed walking into game or getting on bus and made provocative comments about Katrina (how theyd mess up the Saints like Katrina did to NO)...maybe it was just me
Quote:
filtering out obscene, hateful or illegal content. Zero.
And if these content providers should be expected to filter out copyright violations, they sure as hell should be able to filter out obvious hate speech. When Alex Jones goes around saying that the victims of Sandy Hook are paid actors and they're harrassed incessantly by his legion of idiots, that's hate speech.
And Sarah Jeong's tweets weren't hate speech? I totally agree with you on Jones.
Look above, I don't disagree one bit about Jeong's statements, or the outlets that ran to her defense (Vox and the NYT).
It's just that you can't use Net Neutrality and social media content monitoring interchangeably. One guarantees that network traffic will be delivered regardless of the origin and type of that traffic. The other is more complex.
In a world where Net Neutrality exists, the nutjobs of the world will still have a platform. Alex Jones can pay for his servers, and his followers can continue to receive his garbage as they wish. I'd rather such a world didn't exist, but there's no way to support freedom of speech otherwise.
Social media platforms on the other hand do have an obligation not to allow hateful or criminal behavior where they can prevent it. This will continue to be a sore spot and a focal point for it going forward. From cyber bullying to terrorist attacks, copyright violation to outright theft (gang networks and trafficking of all different types), criminals and delinquents use these tools to accomplish their goals, and where it can be stopped, it should.
Bitchute, a youtube competitor, probably got a big boost out of this from some who support the 1st amendment.
Bitchute, a youtube competitor, probably got a big boost out of this from some who support the 1st amendment.
Thats an open question, somewhat linked to net neutrality. If it is a public utility, then all traffic should be treated neutrally. The fact that net neutrality has been overturned would say its not a public utility.
But even if is, that only extends to the ISPs. It doesnt mean every website and service becomes a public utility. It would be absurd for them to be. As an analogy, the Postal Service is a public utility. They cannot censor what is sent thru the mail. But that doesnt mean that newspapers and magazines sent thru the mail have to publish anything anyone asks of it.
It's why you see major shifts on cultural issues happen so quickly now, why a political stance that's the worst thing ever in adminstration X is totally fine for adminstration Y.
But the old lessons, seemingly forgot also still stand. The compass is money and power. Especially for corporations. The conversations on why to end a contract, show, relationship aren't predicated on politics, they are predicated on and P&L.
Now what group is loudest, more fervent, will vote with their dollars is pretty variable.
But if you want to get to the truth on why power brokers make certain decisions and they don't seem consistent, and sometimes they seem hypocritical, start with the money.
Guy makes a drunken remark and a good portion of his livlihood is ruined.
What is somebody screenshot remarks in a game thread where people have threatened to kill players or coaches. Should they deserve to be fired?
If a fan goes on a drunken rant when their team loses shouting "Fuck Brady in the ass" and it is captured in one of the Tosh 2.0/Flounder clips, should they be fired?
It is past the point of ridiculousness.
And what happens when outrageous behavior from one side of the political spectrum (Jones) is censored while equally outrageous behavior from the other side (Jeong) remains unrestrained?
but it starts a slippery slope. Why is Louis farrakhan allowed to still be active on the platforms? farrakhan has been a purveyor of hate far longer than Jones. Is his type of hate any better than Jones? And you can then start naming your "hate mongers" on both sides of the aisle that still are allowed on the platform.
two is part of net neutrality disallows content filtering at the ISP level of any type (in addition to the many other things it was created for - and by the way net neutrality was not some above the board "for the people" legislation as some think - it was absolutely political), but why allow it at the platform or app level? It's hypocritical in my mind to say Verizon, Comcast, AT&T - you cannot tell me what hate is, but Facebook, Google and Twitter (and others) can. And copyright infringement or theft is not a good comparison - that's a crime, and ISP's and the apps probably have an obligation to prevent or remove criminal activity.
Because as you can see they all view Jones as hateful, but not Farrakhan. If that doesn't highlight the disconnect then we can agree to disagree, that's just how I view it.
And wrt being "public" those platforms (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) are all in a confusing spot right now. When government organizations use those platforms for government purposes they ARE considered public. A government facebook page or twitter account. Not public utilities, but public forums. But today it's not really legislated IMO the right way. For example someone goes to a city council meeting takes the microphone and begins spewing profanities and offensive, personal comments they would be removed. Forcefully if necessary. What do you do if they do that on twitter or facebook? There is a different way of handling those things that the world hasn't quite figured out yet.
I hate to make it seem like I'm defending Alex Jones, I'm not, he's a POS, but unless he's committing a crime (when he is I think he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law), otherwise I think he's got just as much right to spew his bullshit as people like Farrakhan. And removing or banning him from these platforms is akin to digital book burning.
Conceding up front to a degree of hyperbole I'd say the better comparison is to Big Brother.
It doesn't have a direct tie to the censorship issue, but think about this for a second. Instead of calling people who believe Facebook posts and then vote based on those posts, a whole narrative about our sacred democratic system has taken hold since the election. The overdramatic assertion that by seeding fake news items that it inherently caused the election to be impacted.
We don't blame ourselves - the collective morons who believed reports from websites. We don't claim to have evidence that actual polls were hacked. Yet night after night, the news runs updates on an investigation that almost always uses some reference to attacks on freedom or democracy.
You know what is under attack? Our intelligence.
Quote:
Like Justine Sacco tweeting about hoping to not get AIDS in Africa are situations where people have posted extremely awful views. If the employers did not act swiftly they would have suffered reputational damage and possibly profit impacts. We had a situation here where a drunk soccer fan shouted on live tv behind a female correspondent fuck her right in the pussy! He was outed on social media and promptly fired. I have no issues with social media posters calling out terrible behaviour and holding them to account or businesses that take action. People need to own up to their behaviour and if the consequences make them think twice about posting or doing something stupid, I consider that progress
And what happens when outrageous behavior from one side of the political spectrum (Jones) is censored while equally outrageous behavior from the other side (Jeong) remains unrestrained?
Quote:
I hate to make it seem like I'm defending Alex Jones, I'm not, he's a POS, but unless he's committing a crime (when he is I think he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law), otherwise I think he's got just as much right to spew his bullshit as people like Farrakhan. And removing or banning him from these platforms is akin to digital book burning.
It doesn't have a direct tie to the censorship issue, but think about this for a second. Instead of calling people who believe Facebook posts and then vote based on those posts, a whole narrative about our sacred democratic system has taken hold since the election. The overdramatic assertion that by seeding fake news items that it inherently caused the election to be impacted.
We don't blame ourselves - the collective morons who believed reports from websites. We don't claim to have evidence that actual polls were hacked. Yet night after night, the news runs updates on an investigation that almost always uses some reference to attacks on freedom or democracy.
You know what is under attack? Our intelligence.
So true.
Quote:
We had a situation here where a drunk soccer fan shouted on live tv behind a female correspondent fuck her right in the pussy! He was outed on social media and promptly fired. I have no issues with social media posters calling out terrible behaviour and holding them to account or businesses that take action
Guy makes a drunken remark and a good portion of his livlihood is ruined.
What is somebody screenshot remarks in a game thread where people have threatened to kill players or coaches. Should they deserve to be fired?
If a fan goes on a drunken rant when their team loses shouting "Fuck Brady in the ass" and it is captured in one of the Tosh 2.0/Flounder clips, should they be fired?
It is past the point of ridiculousness.
I don't have any sympathy for the FHITP soccer fan drunkard who was fired. he saw the news cameras rolling, he decided to make a vulgar comment on live television and when someone recognized him on tv, he was outed. as the employer, they can justify firing him on the basis that he has poisoned the work environment for female employees.
I'm not sure what the laws are in the US about death threats, but if someone threatened to kill a player or coach here in Canada, they could face criminal charges.
if someone is filmed going on a rant making an ass of themselves and it goes viral, such that the person is outed, does he deserve to be fired? it depends on what is said or done and whether the person is the face of the company or someone behind the scenes and whether the person had an expectation of anonymity/privacy or not.
Quote:
I hate to make it seem like I'm defending Alex Jones, I'm not, he's a POS, but unless he's committing a crime (when he is I think he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law), otherwise I think he's got just as much right to spew his bullshit as people like Farrakhan. And removing or banning him from these platforms is akin to digital book burning.
It doesn't have a direct tie to the censorship issue, but think about this for a second. Instead of calling people who believe Facebook posts and then vote based on those posts, a whole narrative about our sacred democratic system has taken hold since the election. The overdramatic assertion that by seeding fake news items that it inherently caused the election to be impacted.
We don't blame ourselves - the collective morons who believed reports from websites. We don't claim to have evidence that actual polls were hacked. Yet night after night, the news runs updates on an investigation that almost always uses some reference to attacks on freedom or democracy.
You know what is under attack? Our intelligence.
Mic drop.
Sticks and stones may break your bones and in today's age, words can fuck your life up worse.
It doesn't have a direct tie to the censorship issue, but think about this for a second. Instead of calling people who believe Facebook posts and then vote based on those posts, a whole narrative about our sacred democratic system has taken hold since the election. The overdramatic assertion that by seeding fake news items that it inherently caused the election to be impacted.
We don't blame ourselves - the collective morons who believed reports from websites. We don't claim to have evidence that actual polls were hacked. Yet night after night, the news runs updates on an investigation that almost always uses some reference to attacks on freedom or democracy.
You know what is under attack? Our intelligence.
These Facebook ads and tweets are disguised to appear to be from legitimate organizations. Among those fooled: Kellyanne Conway. Donald Trump Jr. Eric Trump. Sebastian Gorka. Dinesh DSouza. Ann Coulter. They all re-tweeted fake stories from a Russian twitter account that appeared to be a legitimate GOP account. To millions of followers of their accounts. And Fox News then picked up the stories and reported them. To many more millions of viewers.
To millions of people, the information didnt come from some Facebook post. It came from the Presidents advisors and spokespeople, and from the news organization they trust.
Quote:
I don't really remember all the details but does anyone recall a number of years ago the Giant were playing a big game against an opponent (was it maybe Seahawks) and some jerk (one of their fans) came to this site and was really stirring things up on the forum and a some posters found out where he worked and I think end up getting the guy fired or something along those lines?
Was it the Seahawks fan who was posting 9-11 taunts?
Yes it was.
Sticks and stones may break your bones and in today's age, words can fuck your life up worse.
Could something be serious enough to invite that sort of outcome? Sure. Would excessively dark humor qualify? Most of us have heard things as bad or worse than a shitty joke about AIDS, and I'm sure plenty in here have said things at least that bad. Hell, just about every profession that deals with death has some species of gallows humor that would horrify people who don't deal with that every day.
To millions of people, the information didnt come from some Facebook post. It came from the Presidents advisors and spokespeople, and from the news organization they trust.
There were all sorts of stories out there. some picked up. Some not. But the perception - which you also seemingly show - is that the stories were all duping just Republicans and Fox.
Again - this isn't an attack on freedom or whatever superflurous descriptor goes in front of "election". It is a misinformation campaign that the ADD driven social media people have eaten up.
I guess we should call Nigerian scammers an imminent threat to our glorious banking system??
Nigerian prince is a good analogy. (for this example), I'm sure some ads/stories were aiming a little higher on the intelligence scale.
Quote:
we'll agree to disagree. I don't think a vulgar comment outside of the workplace should result in somebody getting fired in his workplace.
Sticks and stones may break your bones and in today's age, words can fuck your life up worse.
Could something be serious enough to invite that sort of outcome? Sure. Would excessively dark humor qualify? Most of us have heard things as bad or worse than a shitty joke about AIDS, and I'm sure plenty in here have said things at least that bad. Hell, just about every profession that deals with death has some species of gallows humor that would horrify people who don't deal with that every day.
There were all sorts of stories out there. some picked up. Some not. But the perception - which you also seemingly show - is that the stories were all duping just Republicans and Fox.
Again - this isn't an attack on freedom or whatever superflurous descriptor goes in front of "election". It is a misinformation campaign that the ADD driven social media people have eaten up.
I guess we should call Nigerian scammers an imminent threat to our glorious banking system??
False equivalence. Presidential advisors and mainstream news outlets are not telling people to trust the Nigerian scammers.
It really isn't that different from campaign ads. There are a lot of falsehoods in there.
Again - the idea Russians are the bogeyman is two-fold.
- It takes the burden off of ourselves to say we were duped and puts the blame elsewhere
- It allows us to avoid confronting the fact we didn't do due diligence before pulling a lever (and disavow that we are moronic fools).
Quote:
There were all sorts of stories out there. some picked up. Some not. But the perception - which you also seemingly show - is that the stories were all duping just Republicans and Fox.
Again - this isn't an attack on freedom or whatever superflurous descriptor goes in front of "election". It is a misinformation campaign that the ADD driven social media people have eaten up.
I guess we should call Nigerian scammers an imminent threat to our glorious banking system??
False equivalence. Presidential advisors and mainstream news outlets are not telling people to trust the Nigerian scammers.
technically he wasn't president at the time, he was a candidate, widely un-trusted and disliked by many. He had a 38% approval rating pre-election (according to 538), but you want everyone to believe his re-tweets swayed an election?
technically he wasn't president at the time, he was a candidate, widely un-trusted and disliked by many. He had a 38% approval rating pre-election (according to 538), but you want everyone to believe his re-tweets swayed an election?
His opponent was also widely untrusted and disliked by many, The election came down to @ 80,000 votes in three states. Do we know for sure peoples votes were influenced by the Russian disinformation campaign? Of course not - theres no way to know for sure what caused any person to vote one way or the other. But to allow it to continue is lunacy.
Quote:
technically he wasn't president at the time, he was a candidate, widely un-trusted and disliked by many. He had a 38% approval rating pre-election (according to 538), but you want everyone to believe his re-tweets swayed an election?
His opponent was also widely untrusted and disliked by many, The election came down to @ 80,000 votes in three states. Do we know for sure peoples votes were influenced by the Russian disinformation campaign? Of course not - theres no way to know for sure what caused any person to vote one way or the other. But to allow it to continue is lunacy.
No, we don't know for sure if there was any impact to the results, but now we're way off topic of the OP so I'll save my thoughts on how a prior administration could have shined a light on it all before the election.
I was making more of a point about the social media mob mentality latching onto something and running with it before knowing the facts.
Russian hackers knew such a strategy would work, and when it did, we don't blame ourselves. We blame Russia for threatening the very fabric that the country was founded on!!
And before anyone says blaming Russia is a red herring, I'll ask - what stories exist out there of people taking responsibility for voting before knowing the source material that might have swayed them? The focus isn't just squarely on the russians, but by extension, the current administration.
Not on ourselves.
Verified account @ChrisMurphyCT
Infowars is the tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies that uses sites like Facebook and YouTube to tear our nation apart. These companies must do more than take down one website. The survival of our democracy depends on it.
For those who don't know, Murphy is a Senator from CT.
I liked Bethany Mandel's reply:
Verified account @bethanyshondark
4h4 hours ago
Bethany S. Mandel Retweeted Chris Murphy
If the survival of our democracy hinges on silencing voices we dont like, weve already lost it.
There are ISIS pages on Facebook, but Alex Jones is determined to be "unspecified hate". I don't understand how people don't see a problem with this.
A democratic society should result in free thinking, but we've seen time and again that we are unwilling to think freely:)
Quote:
Chris Murphy
Verified account @ChrisMurphyCT
Infowars is the tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies that uses sites like Facebook and YouTube to tear our nation apart. These companies must do more than take down one website. The survival of our democracy depends on it.
For those who don't know, Murphy is a Senator from CT.
I liked Bethany Mandel's reply:
Quote:
Bethany S. Mandel
Verified account @bethanyshondark
4h4 hours ago
Bethany S. Mandel Retweeted Chris Murphy
If the survival of our democracy hinges on silencing voices we dont like, weve already lost it.
There are ISIS pages on Facebook, but Alex Jones is determined to be "unspecified hate". I don't understand how people don't see a problem with this.
Let it happen so someone on the opposite side and they'll have a problem.
How about - start with banning hate speech, and don't immediately jump all over them for banning one and not another. Let them take an immature, still developing process for identifying and removing hateful and dangerous participants from the platform and continue to build upon it rather than cry foul from the first fucking second they implemented it.
How about - start with banning hate speech, and don't immediately jump all over them for banning one and not another. Let them take an immature, still developing process for identifying and removing hateful and dangerous participants from the platform and continue to build upon it rather than cry foul from the first fucking second they implemented it.
If the process hasn't been stillborn Sarah Jeong should be banned already.
It seems that "free market solutions" is spouted an awful lot by those condemning the banning of Alex Jones.
I consider him a domestic terrorist, ginning up fear and anxiety among his large following to destroy this country in order to make a buck.
Whether most people consider him crazy or not, he has a large following that are dumb and crazy enough to act in furtherance of his messaging.
The sooner that guy gets a crippling neurological disease that paralyzes all of his motor functions, the better.
How about I don't need Facebook or Twitter or Apple or Google to tell me what constitutes hate speech? Not only do I not trust them to do it, I don't need or want them to do it. Most people don't. But...if they do it, then do it consistently, but they don't. for obvious reasons.
If it's not criminal it's not their business.
What's sort of ironic is that censorship of "offensive" material used to be a right wing tenet, now it's the left that wants everything censored so people don't "stir up a base", it's actually laughable when you think about how fully ideological roles have been reversed in this country.
Like I said - these are processes that are new. Zuckerberg was tap dancing all around the Holocaust denier issue for the same reason - they know action needs to be taken, but no matter how they take it there will be complaints.
Jones has been active on that platform and under scrutiny for YEARS. He's had millions of followers in that time. The scale here is completely different.
To compare that to the fallout to Jeong's fuckstick statements, which should earn her a banning - is just proof positive that you're less concerned with trying to keep hateful speech away from these platforms and more concerned with keeping score.
Let the process develop - and if the likes of Farrakhan, KKK/white supremacy groups, ISIS, etc. are still hanging on - then go after it with full force.
I liked Bethany Mandel's reply:
Quote:
Bethany S. Mandel
Verified account @bethanyshondark
4h4 hours ago
Bethany S. Mandel Retweeted Chris Murphy
If the survival of our democracy hinges on silencing voices we dont like, weve already lost it.
The InfoWars website is still up and running.
Therefore, Alex Jones has not been silenced.
You like an inane reply.
If Alex Jones is committing a crime, and as a "domestic terrorist" it shouldn't be hard to prove, then charge him and punish him. I don't care one bit about Alex Jones. I don't even know much about him other than he's a noted conspiracy theorist and he harassed Sandy Hook parents as did his followers. I thought he could or should have been charged with a crime because of that and if he was I would have applauded it.
besides that I know nothing of him, and don't visit infowars and I don't listen to his podcasts.
Removing him or banning him sets a dangerous precedent though.
And Chris Murphy took the discussion exactly where I thought it would go. Now that infowars is gone (from social media) let's set our sites on the next voice we disagree with. As long as it's labeled "hate speech" it's fair game to lobby for it's removal and banning.
I'm certainly not comfortable with Chris Murphy - or even Andrew Breitbart (if he were alive) or William F Buckely or Facebook or Google or Twitter etc telling me what I should view as hate speech.
Is this a serious post?
Quote:
and making you use Facebook, Twitter, Google, and iTunes?
Is this a serious post?
I think its valid question, and it ties into your net neutrality point from earlier. I think it boils down to what you consider a utility vs a private entity.
I can see an argument where ISPs are considered utilities where individual social media platforms are private entities. And as such need to be held to different standards. Although I'm sure there are valid arguments that even the ISPs are private entities.