Does Big Tech need to be regulated?

km991148

suicide_circus wrote: »

Big Tech is run by good progressive people, woke as they come and very aware of their own subconscious biases.

I know you are being a little bit tongue in cheek here, but there is no actual way to shoehorn a "woke" angle into a very traditional capitalist market.

These stereotypes are often played up but they have little basis in reality and really don't have anything to do with the sinister way in which these exploitative companies profit from the erosion of our society.

km991148

Kivaro wrote: »

I don't get the alt/far right responses on the topic of Big Tech regulation when it is obvious that support for it comes from all spectrums of the political/social divide. Maybe it is just a lack of understanding/intellect on the topic. There are many posters like yourself who would be classified as far right because you don't fully agree with them. It's odd.

I think after the last few years of division, further polarisation of "left" vs "right" and deliberate attempts to 'hack' political systems for personal gain and all the other BS we have seen politically, the issue of Big Tech and the shady practices they use should be something we should all unite against, regardless of political view point.

(That is of course until the issue itself becomes politicised (i.e. certain groups assuming they are censoring certain other groups due to political bias etc), which is already happening).

Maybe this needs to start with more people learning just exactly what these companies core business is (hint - it's fuk all to do with search engines and cat pictures)

km991148

Deleted User wrote: »

I used to think Google was a force for good in the world, democratizing knowledge for a bright new world. The motto Don't be evil was so simple but effective.

Along the way they seem to have been infiltrated by a lot of people with agendas that are slowly rotting the company and turning it into a nasty bully.

I found a video one time on YouTube - Stephen Fry giving a talk about unintended consequences of certain inventions, mainly about the internet.. I wish I could find it as it exactly describes this sentiment.
(It's not often I can be bother with Fry, he seems an absolute blowhard!)

astrofool

I do think it's funny that it's suddenly all the right wing and conservative groups wanting social networks to be regulated.

astrofool

astrofool wrote: »

I do think it's funny that it's suddenly all the right wing and conservative groups wanting social networks to be regulated.

And in a lot of the cases where they wish for the companies to be held to account is when they're requiring users of the platform to abide by the terms and conditions. There's an element of conflating separate issues going on.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Lol. I didn't "run away" from the thread, I don't post as much as you. My boards time is night time. And not everyday. You might take a break yourself.

I am a leftist, albeit of the old school ant-American imperialism, high taxes on wealth, pro union type. I think I put "leftist" in quotes, if not I apologise. I don't consider US Democratic Party supporters in the us, or their absurd supporters in Ireland, leftists. In general the cruise missile left makes me want to vomit.

the world isn't left and right. you dont have to be "left" to think that trump and parler were propagating dangerous lies and propaganda. the world is better without them.

Deleted User wrote: »

Its a bit odd to proclaim you were represented btw and then to say that:



I consume no propoganda, no CNN, no Fox News, no Twitter, no Facebook. On WhatsApp I follow friends and family. On the other hand you and the others who agree are assuming that people opposed to Big Tech are all right wingers, it was pretty clear that I was talking about breaking up the corporations I was talking anti-trust in the US, and the EU cases are also anti monopolists.

Just a coincidence then that this has started again just after Trump was banned from twitter and parler had its hosting pulled. just a coincidence I'm sure.

donspeekinglesh

Invidious wrote: »

Is this the same Australian government that has attempted to ban secure encryption?

Yes, apparently the laws of mathematics are less important than the laws of Australia.

mohawk

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Just a coincidence then that this has started again just after Trump was banned from twitter and parler had its hosting pulled. just a coincidence I'm sure.

I don’t know about anyone else but I am conflicted about Trump being banned. Before he became president we knew exactly what type of person he is from his Twitter account. It’s still hard to believe in someways that people actually believe the BS from him and voted for him. The other side of it is that the Tech Companies had the power to effectively censor the President of the US. Now if you or I had posted some of the stuff on Twitter that Trump had we would of been banned long ago. So I guess that’s why I am conflicted on it. On one hand I am thinking he was elected and president on US but on other there were lies and stirring up division and he instigated Capitol Hill.

Also I wonder if the Republicans had maintained a majority in the Senate/Congress if the Tech Companies have banned Trump from their platforms. Then again what else could be expected after Capitol Hill.

km991148

mohawk wrote: »

I don’t know about anyone else but I am conflicted about Trump being banned. Before he became president we knew exactly what type of person he is from his Twitter account. It’s still hard to believe in someways that people actually believe the BS from him and voted for him. The other side of it is that the Tech Companies had the power to effectively censor the President of the US. Now if you or I had posted some of the stuff on Twitter that Trump had we would of been banned long ago. So I guess that’s why I am conflicted on it. On one hand I am thinking he was elected and president on US but on other there were lies and stirring up division and he instigated Capitol Hill.

That's the point I think is wrong (I mean Twitter, not you!). All sorts of things trump tweeted would have had anyone banned but he wasn't. Then right at the very end, the dying embers of his lame duck presidency they suddenly decide that's the time. It was a pathetic, weak move from Twitter - i.e. they were happy to profit* from him all along and then want to (be seen to) do the right thing.

This causes more damage to society as now you have a galvanised support base crying 'conspiricy!'.

As an aside: I always make sure to add ars3holes I've worked with on LinkedIn.. you want to know where those mofos are when you next move job....






*Edit to add.. this is why I find it laughable even people talk about big tech and censorship.. they are the biggest advertising platforms around and do not give two proverbials about anything other than the bottom line.. i.e. the more controversial the character the better. This is the real story in this and it's exactly why there should be a united stance to stamp this bs out.

10000maniacs

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Regulation isn't bullying. Opting not to operate in a certain market because you don't like the regulations isn't bullying either.

Regulation of Google is like regulation of paper pulp manufacturers because of what is written on the paper.
Google is not a newspaper outlet. It just facilitates advertisers.
The fact that they are big is probably annoying to the media lobbyists and therefore it has become the scapegoat for the problems with their media industries.
"Oh crap, the paywalls don't seem to be working. Who do we blame?"
Its the same argument with the ISPs and music downloads.
These companies are just facilitator platforms for your products.
If your product is crap or outdated, it's not the facilitators fault.
If nobody wants to read your journalism because somebody prefers free content, WRITE BETTER CONTENT.

km991148

10000maniacs wrote: »

Regulation of Google is like regulation of paper pulp manufacturers because of what is written on the paper.
Google is not a newspaper outlet. It just facilitates advertisers.
The fact that they are big is probably annoying to the media lobbyists and therefore it has become the scapegoat for the problems with their media industries.
"Oh crap, the paywalls don't seem to be working. Who do we blame?"
Its the same argument with the ISPs and music downloads.
These companies are just facilitator platforms for your products.
If your product is crap or outdated, it's not the facilitators fault.
If nobody wants to read your journalism because somebody prefers free content, WRITE BETTER CONTENT.

No. They don't simply 'facilite' adverisers. They prime the entire system to ensure more adverts are seen. More videos are viewed, more articles promoted. That seems innocent enough as most people assume 'well I like cars, sure I don't mind more <car manufacturer of choice ads>'.. except it's not that simple.

It creates what I think of as 'bubbles of controversy'. You will be bombarded with videos that will do nothing but affirm whatever political viewpoint you follow. I don't just mean simply you like one policy of the left/right therefore you will see more. You will also be shown the most gaudy, ridiculous and controversial videos from the opposing side. Because when they are recommended, people will click. So there is s a double bind here, your own stereotypes are re-enforced and your negative stereotypes of the other side are re-enforced (mildly right leaning folks starting to think the entire left are super woke SJWs and mildly left thinking the right are all Nazi facists).

Add to the fact that this very system generates a ton of user data that allows advertisers and political campaigners to further precisely target adverts to very specific user groups and it's like a multiplier on the entire system.

10000maniacs

km991148 wrote: »

No. They don't simply 'facilite' adverisers. They prime the entire system to ensure more adverts are seen. More videos are viewed, more articles promoted. That seems innocent enough as most people assume 'well I like cars, sure I don't mind more <car manufacturer of choice ads>'.. except it's not that simple.

It creates what I think of as 'bubbles of controversy'. You will be bombarded with videos that will do nothing but affirm whatever political viewpoint you follow. I don't just mean simply you like one policy of the left/right therefore you will see more. You will also be shown the most gaudy, ridiculous and controversial videos from the opposing side. Because when they are recommended, people will click. So there is s a double bind here, your own stereotypes are re-enforced and your negative stereotypes of the other side are re-enforced (mildly right leaning folks starting to think the entire left are super woke SJWs and mildly left thinking the right are all Nazi facists).

Add to the fact that this very system generates a ton of user data that allows advertisers and political campaigners to further precisely target adverts to very specific user groups and it's like a multiplier on the entire system.

A bit like what RTE does when it advertises Newspapers after the news, Or when they advertise board games during Christmas children's programmes.
Targeted audiences.
Google's problem is that they are too good at it, and other envious less successful enterprises are drooling for some of the pie.

km991148

10000maniacs wrote: »

A bit like what RTE does when it advertises Newspapers after the news, Or when they advertise board games during Christmas children's programmes.
Targeted audiences.
Google's problem is that they are too good at it, and other envious less successful enterprises are drooling for some of the pie.

Broadcast Television advertising doesn't work as an analogy. It's not even close and it's naive to think so. It's a complete over simplification of the entire industry.


For a start, It's far tighter regulated and there are several different agencies involved in the process. RTE can't customise the content in order to keep people hooked. They don't have the same level of data and metrics on their viewers. It's also can't combine data from different platforms and products.

joseywhales

I don't get it, if the worst thing google do is try to manipulate us to consume more, that hardly makes them the Nazis of the corporate world, it's not like they rely on exploitative labour in the third world like almost every manufacturing company.

Are we not responsible for ourselves also? Like I can withstand a fair barrage of nonsense advertising at this stage, I feel so desensitized, I would wonder if it makes a difference anymore. Furthermore I have the choice to turn it off whenever I want. I certainly don't like the constant marketing but it is the price of a free service.

timeToLive

joseywhales wrote: »

I don't get it, if the worst thing google do is try to manipulate us to consume more, that hardly makes them the Nazis of the corporate world, it's not like they rely on exploitative labour in the third world like almost every manufacturing company.

They could manipulate us in any way they like. They can silence people they don't like.

completedit

Did anyone watch that Netflix documentary on the Social Media Dilemma? A lot of their argument seemed to be them creating a narrative and then shoehorning their whole pushback against the big tech culture they created into that argument. For example, whenever I'm parroting the problems of big tech, I'll allude to the Brexit vote and the misinformation spread on Social Media. But there were reasons to be pro-brexit; we might disagree with them, but there are many questions around identity and power which would support a more localised form of control. The take back control mantra was mocked but in a way, it could be the goal of all people to bring control as close to the local domain as possible. Then, on the whole topic of advertising. The general view seems to be that we are all clueless eejits and that we buy things we don't need by nefarious advertisers who are using the alogirithms to push stuff onto us. But what about the fact that these algorithms know us so well that they are able to undercover our wants and present them to us. It's not that bad of a thing really.

km991148

joseywhales wrote: »

I don't get it, if the worst thing google do is try to manipulate us to consume more, that hardly makes them the Nazis of the corporate world, it's not like they rely on exploitative labour in the third world like almost every manufacturing company.

Are we not responsible for ourselves also? Like I can withstand a fair barrage of nonsense advertising at this stage, I feel so desensitized, I would wonder if it makes a difference anymore. Furthermore I have the choice to turn it off whenever I want. I certainly don't like the constant marketing but it is the price of a free service.

It's not just adverts tho. It's the persuasive design, the recommendation algorithms and the depth of data collection used to further the agenda (of choosing what you watch in order to sell more ads). This means that more controversial content is pushed upon is. In my opinion these platforms have majorly contributed to the polarisation of our society. If it were as simple as just having to hit skip more on YouTube, then it would be fine (to use the TV ad analogy, go make a brew in the break).

But the very content is controlled (what tweets are shown, what videos are recommended, what FB shows in your feed etc). This is really changing our society and us going largely unnoticied.

The debate now seems to be around if one company owns the entire platform then they can cut people on a whim. This is also true and dangerous, but they have already been controlling what you see for a long time.

completedit

km991148 wrote: »

It's not just adverts tho. It's the persuasive design, the recommendation algorithms and the depth of data collection used to further the agenda (of choosing what you watch in order to sell more ads). This means that more controversial content is pushed upon is. In my opinion these platforms have majorly contributed to the polarisation of our society. If it were as simple as just having to hit skip more on YouTube, then it would be fine (to use the TV ad analogy, go make a brew in the break).

But the very content is controlled (what tweets are shown, what videos are recommended, what FB shows in your feed etc). This is really changing our society and us going largely unnoticied.

The debate now seems to be around if one company owns the entire platform then they can cut people on a whim. This is also true and dangerous, but they have already been controlling what you see for a long time.

We should always strive for cohesion and absolutely you can argue that technology platforms are exasperating the divide, but look at Nazi Germany 80 years ago when communication technology was in its infancy. Polarisation will always be with us; it just manifests itself through various channels.

joseywhales

km991148 wrote: »

It's not just adverts tho. It's the persuasive design, the recommendation algorithms and the depth of data collection used to further the agenda (of choosing what you watch in order to sell more ads). This means that more controversial content is pushed upon is. In my opinion these platforms have majorly contributed to the polarisation of our society. If it were as simple as just having to hit skip more on YouTube, then it would be fine (to use the TV ad analogy, go make a brew in the break).

But the very content is controlled (what tweets are shown, what videos are recommended, what FB shows in your feed etc). This is really changing our society and us going largely unnoticied.

The debate now seems to be around if one company owns the entire platform then they can cut people on a whim. This is also true and dangerous, but they have already been controlling what you see for a long time.

I did a quick look at my history from yesterday evening on youtube:

While some of this is mildly embarrassing but A-political, there is nothing that I am watching that I didn't actively want to watch at the time, I could have skipped the Bianca Westwood showreel, that was defintiely algo inspired! It was a slow day.

I have been watching a lot of the old rte show "hands" recently, I think its a fantastic resource.

Watched Biden To Impose Travel Ban For Non-U.S. Citizens Traveling From South Africa Amid Covid Concerns
MSNBC
22:37 • Details
2:24
Logo for YouTube
YouTube
Watched Discover Maine Public Lands
Maine DACF
22:17 • Details
20:48
Logo for YouTube
YouTube
Watched "Boom" River Driver's - Boom House Millinocket Maine
NEOCMaine
22:11 • Details
6:00
Logo for YouTube
YouTube
Watched Bianca Westwood Showreel 2018
MrTrebsy
22:05 • Details
6:12
Logo for YouTube
YouTube
Watched "I'm going home!" - Bianca Westwood gets caught in a storm
Sky Sports Retro
22:04 • Details
0:42
Logo for YouTube
YouTube
Watched Elena Spills Her Secret To Mark | Peep Show
Peep Show
22:01 • Details

10000maniacs

timeToLive wrote: »

They could manipulate us in any way they like. They can silence people they don't like.

I don't feel manipulated by any of it, because I don't fall for any of it.
Governments regulating the likes of Google are arguably guilty of the same things they are regulating against. Government regulation like this is more totalitarian than what these companies are doing. All Google has ever done is offered choice to the highest bidders. The mainstream media need to do the same thing and get themselves out there. Modernise.

km991148

completedit wrote: »

We should always strive for cohesion and absolutely you can argue that technology platforms are exasperating the divide, but look at Nazi Germany 80 years ago when communication technology was in its infancy. Polarisation will always be with us; it just manifests itself through various channels.

It's not really an argument tho is it? Bad things always happen so why even ask the question?

km991148

joseywhales wrote: »

, there is nothing that I am watching that I didn't actively want to watch at the time

That's what you think :pac:

Seriously tho, every one will be different and depending on your experience your milage may vary. But there is a lot if stuff being rammed down s lot of peoples throats. Not to say that everyone believes what they see, but even your entire feed is full of one type of video, or your search results on any given search are manipulated or the list of up next is primed to catch your eye and full of 'right wingers are racist' videos then it's hard to escape. This is a trend over a longer period of time, but but by bit we are being chipped away at.

Fighting Tao

It must be awful to be so gullible all the time that you believe everything you read online.

km991148

Fighting Tao wrote: »

It must be awful to be so gullible all the time that you believe everything you read online.

Indeed. but it's happening - look at any random other thread on Current Affairs - same old arguments back and forth..

Fighting Tao

km991148 wrote: »

Indeed. but it's happening - look at any random other thread on Current Affairs - same old arguments back and forth..

Should stupidity be regulated? Maybe have a regulation that if a person is a gullible fool, ban them from the internet?

km991148

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Should stupidity be regulated? Maybe have a regulation that if a person is a gullible fool, ban them from the internet?

I'd be for that..!

I get that you are saying, but the truth of the matter is, we are in the situation where all sorts if bs is gotten away with. There is little journalistic integrity, people believe all sorts of crap and there does seem to be a bit of an erosion in our society as a result.

I would guess 80/90 percent of people don't have the slightest clue how these companies work. A lot would think Google is a search engine and Twitter a communication tool.

Additionally: a lot if regulation is for stupidity.. why do we need to have laws that mandate seatbelt usage? Or building regs or all sorts of things. A lot if the time I would absolutely support a more Darwinism based model.. but it doesn't really help.

Fighting Tao

km991148 wrote: »

I'd be for that..!

I get that you are saying, but the truth of the matter is, we are in the situation where all sorts if bs is gotten away with. There is little journalistic integrity, people believe all sorts of crap and there does seem to be a bit of an erosion in our society as a result.

I would guess 80/90 percent of people don't have the slightest clue how these companies work. A lot would think Google is a search engine and Twitter a communication tool.

Additionally: a lot if regulation is for stupidity.. why do we need to have laws that mandate seatbelt usage? Or building regs or all sorts of things. A lot if the time I would absolutely support a more Darwinism based model.. but it doesn't really help.

I think the horse has bolted. We can’t protect everyone from themselves. The worrying thing, is that they may harm others.

fantaiscool

km991148 wrote: »

I'd be for that..!

I get that you are saying, but the truth of the matter is, we are in the situation where all sorts if bs is gotten away with. There is little journalistic integrity, people believe all sorts of crap and there does seem to be a bit of an erosion in our society as a result.

I would guess 80/90 percent of people don't have the slightest clue how these companies work. A lot would think Google is a search engine and Twitter a communication tool.

Additionally: a lot if regulation is for stupidity.. why do we need to have laws that mandate seatbelt usage? Or building regs or all sorts of things. A lot if the time I would absolutely support a more Darwinism based model.. but it doesn't really help.

Regulation is absolutely necessary. The elephant in the room is artificial intelligence. One of these companies is going to create the most powerful thing ever created by mankind.

timeToLive

10000maniacs wrote: »

I don't feel manipulated by any of it, because I don't fall for any of it.
Governments regulating the likes of Google are arguably guilty of the same things they are regulating against. Government regulation like this is more totalitarian than what these companies are doing. All Google has ever done is offered choice to the highest bidders. The mainstream media need to do the same thing and get themselves out there. Modernise.

The part in bold is very wrong. Everyone is susceptible to manipulation - everyone. Everyone gets stressed, tired, sick or can just be caught unaware. It doesn't mean you're dumb or not tuned in.


And to your second point, we vote the government in - we have no say in Google's activities.

jmcc

fantaiscool wrote: »

Regulation is absolutely necessary. The elephant in the room is artificial intelligence. One of these companies is going to create the most powerful thing ever created by mankind.

Artificial intelligence is overrated. It is Natural Stupidity that is the real threat.

Regards...jmcc