Does Big Tech need to be regulated?

jmcc

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.

I think that the English Socialist Workers Party might disagree with you on that. They got regulated/censored/blocked a few days ago by Facebook.

Regards...jmcc

RobbieTheRobber

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.

In terms of AI, you should much have bigger fears of what Chinese military backed companies are doing in that sphere.
And with much less worry about potential human rights misuses of that technolog.

jmcc

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.

Google went public. Things changed after that. It also paid about half a billion Dollars in a fine for illegally advertising drugs in the US. It has also been fined by the EU over various practices. It is currently the subject of antitrust action in the US. But it pales in comparison to the effectiveness of Facebook and other Social Media companies. Every Social Media venture that Google attempted crashed and burned.

Regards...jmcc

MisterAnarchy

Good news everyone , the internet has some great new campaigners for regulation , Prince Harry and his wagon.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/01/26/harry-and-meghan-patrons-of-online-censorship/

Harry and Meghan’s Archewell Foundation – a venture promoting various wellbeing-style initiatives – is about to launch a partnership with a leftist lobby group founded by a pair of academic critical theorists from the University of California. Their mutual aim is the further censorship of the internet.

The UCLA Centre for Critical Internet Inquiry, known as C2i2, was created by Safiya Noble and Sarah T Roberts. Those wanting to understand the goals of C2i2 should check out its founders’ work. Take Noble’s own book, Algorithms of Oppression. This claims that ‘search engines, specifically Google, perpetuate discrimination and racism’.

Noble wants the US government to ‘regulate decency’, and to stop search engines ‘imposing cultural values on a group’. This would mean almost anything could be censored according to the ‘the values assign to racial, gendered and sexual identities, as evidenced by the types of results that are retrieved’. This, she muses, might be ‘a permanent technical fix’ for ‘racist and sexist content’.

The lunatics are taking over the asylum

Fighting Tao

timeToLive wrote: »

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.

But we do. We don’t have to use their services if we do not want to. Their services are opt in.

timeToLive

Fighting Tao wrote: »

But we do. We don’t have to use their services if we do not want to. Their services are opt in.

They're not opt in:
If you browse a website that shows google ads

If you want to publish an app to reach a large audience
If you want to manage your companies google map interactions


Further reading: https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/quitting-google and https://www.businessinsider.com/google-chrome-drive-youtube-gmail-out-of-life-2018-11?r=US&IR=T

Fighting Tao

timeToLive wrote: »

They're not opt in:
If you browse a website that shows google ads

If you want to publish an app to reach a large audience
If you want to manage your companies google map interactions


Further reading: https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/quitting-google and https://www.businessinsider.com/google-chrome-drive-youtube-gmail-out-of-life-2018-11?r=US&IR=T

All ‘ifs’ and no ‘musts’. Says it all. It is not compulsory to use their services.

Btw, I don’t see any ads on any website.

jmcc

Fighting Tao wrote: »

All ‘ifs’ and no ‘musts’. Says it all. It is not compulsory to use their services.

Btw, I don’t see any ads on any website.

Take a look at the source code for the page. (CTRL + U). Google is so much more than just ads.

Regards...jmcc

Fighting Tao

jmcc wrote: »

Take a look at the source code for the page. (CTRL + U). Google is so much more than just ads.

Regards...jmcc

I said it was optional. I don’t have to look at any particular website if I don’t want to, and I still don’t see any ads....that has not changed.

jmcc

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I said it was optional. I don’t have Tom look at any particular website if I don’t want to, and I still don’t see any ads....that has not changed.

This page. Then use the CTRL+F keys to find mentions of Google in the source code. Many webpages send requests to Google servers for analytics, fonts and other things. You may not see these requests but they happen.

Regards...jmcc

Fighting Tao

jmcc wrote: »

This page. Then use the CTRL+F keys to find mentions of Google in the source code. Many webpages send requests to Google servers for analytics, fonts and other things. You may not see these requests but they happen.

Regards...jmcc

You didn’t read what I said.

jmcc

Fighting Tao wrote: »

You didn’t read what I said.

And you don't understand that you are using Google's services whether you like it or not. You can, of course, choose to block all these requests to Google's servers.

Regards...jmcc

Fighting Tao

jmcc wrote: »

And you don't understand that you are using Google's services whether you like it or not. You can, of course, choose to block all these requests to Google's servers.

Regards...jmcc

Eh, how did you come to that conclusion? All I said was that it was optional.

jmcc

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Eh, how did you come to that conclusion? All I said was that it was optional.

Perhaps it is because I don't rely on "technology" journalists for information about HTML, websites and domain names. The links to Google's servers are there in the HTML code (the markup code used for webpages). You may think the use of Google's services is limited to ads. It is not. Google is far more pervasive than you realise. You may not realise this but when you use "free" websites, you are the product.

Regards...jmcc

Fighting Tao

jmcc wrote: »

Perhaps it is because I don't rely on "technology" journalists for information about HTML, websites and domain names. The links to Google's servers are there in the HTML code (the markup code used for webpages). You may think the use of Google's services is limited to ads. It is not. Google is far more pervasive than you realise. You may not realise this but when you use "free" websites, you are the product.

Regards...jmcc

Another conclusion jumped to. Maybe I need to explain a bit clearer. So apologies for that. How did you leap into the conclusion that I don’t understand that I’m using google services?

jmcc

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Another conclusion jumped to. Maybe I need to explain a bit clearer. So apologies for that. How did you leap into the conclusion that I don’t understand that I’m using google services?

Your profile. People who don't understand the pervasiveness of online monitoring by Google, and others,focus on ads. They think that by blocking ads with an adblocker it stops them being tracked. Perhaps you are well-versed in all this stuff.

Regards...jmcc

Fighting Tao

jmcc wrote: »

Your profile. People who don't understand the pervasiveness of online monitoring by Google, and others,focus on ads. They think that by blocking ads with an adblocker it stops them being tracked. Perhaps you are well-versed in all this stuff.

Regards...jmcc

I said I don’t see ads in direct reply to someone else. That is a fact. I don’t see any ads. You jumped to conclusions based on that and the fact that I said it is optional to use google services. There is one easy to avoid most...don’t go online or interact with anything that is connected to the internet.

jmcc

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I said I don’t see ads in direct reply to someone else. That is a fact. I don’t see any ads. You jumped to conclusions based on that and the fact that I said it is optional to use google services. There is one easy to avoid most...don’t go online or interact with anything that is connected to the internet.

Well at least you didn't suggest using Tails or TOR.

Regards...jmcc

timeToLive

Fighting Tao wrote: »

All ‘ifs’ and no ‘musts’. Says it all. It is not compulsory to use their services.

Btw, I don’t see any ads on any website.

My sentences were:
They're not opt in:
If you browse a website that shows google ads

If you want to publish an app to reach a large audience
If you want to manage your companies google map interactions


Those are real scenarios for company owners, app developers and normal people browsing the internet

thebaz

and maybe start paying Taxes , like U2 , they like preaching to the masses, but think theyr above paying taxes (thats just for the masses

Tony EH

Sonics2k wrote: »

Lmao "the new left". Just another hypocritical talking point.

For decades the right and conservatives have pushed for a free market and to allow corporations to do as they wish and get massive tax write offs.

It's the left pushing to get corporations to pay more tax, to improve workers rights, get companies like Amazon to recognize trade unions, improve social benefits and care.

Suddenly the right have a problem with corporate power because "muh freedom of speech".

Get a damn clue what freedom of speech is. Trump still has the right to express his views and lies, and the government isn't suppressing it.

Edit. I'm well up for regulation of corporations and other massive entities. I just love the hypocrisy and stupid talking point you lot come up with.

It's gas isn't it.

Decades of free market baloney and not even a global financial collapse caused by it was enough to change the tune.

But some cunts get fucked off of Twitter and all of a sudden, it's time to talk about regulations.

:pac:

Kivaro

Jaysus, searching for a reason to be triggered, I guess.

Marcusm

thebaz wrote: »

and maybe start paying Taxes , like U2 , they like preaching to the masses, but think theyr above paying taxes (thats just for the masses

This is where the media gets it so wrong. Big Tech and Big Pharma contribute well over 50% of the total corporation tax payable in Ireland. The reality is Ireland doesn’t add the value which represents the profits which are taxed here. However, we are quite happy to tax those profits and have the funds available for government spending.

Even with respect to Apple, any additional tax represented by the claim of the Commission can be allocated either to the regions in which they consumers bought the products (EU non-Ireland) or to the territory where the products are designed and the intellectual property created (the US, principally). Ireland is an important cog in the global Apple organisation but Irish activities do not generate these profits.

Kivaro

It is certainly interesting to see what is going on between two of the Big Tech behemoths, Facebook and Apple. Things are so bad between them now that Facebook is considering filing an antitrust lawsuit against Apple. The irony of it, with Facebook being possibly the largest surveillance entity on the planet, with billions of people in their net. Amnesty International, who would not be regarded as conservative or right, state that the "omnipresent surveillance of billions of people poses a systemic threat to human rights" and specifically calls out Facebook. Apple's new software update, which will include a privacy requirement that companies like Facebook get explicit permission to collect certain data and track user activity across apps and websites. Facebook obviously does not like this, so the battle of the giants begins. And I am looking forward to it.

biko

Shortly after the Capitol Hill riots on January 6 Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook chief operating officer, said “I think these events were largely organized on platforms that don't have our abilities to stop hate and don't have our standards and don't have our transparency”

It turns out Forbes reviewed data from the Program on Extremism at the George Washington University, which has collated a list of more than 200 charging documents filed in relation to the siege.
In total, the charging documents refer to 223 individuals in the Capitol Hill riot investigation.

Of those documents, 73 reference Facebook. That’s far more references than other social networks. YouTube was the second most-referenced on 24. Instagram, a Facebook-owned company, was next on 20.

Parler, the app that pledged protection for free speech rights and garnered a large far-right userbase, was mentioned in just eight.

Whilst the data doesn’t show definitively what app was the most popular amongst rioters, it does strongly indicate Facebook was rioters’ the preferred platform.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/07/sheryl-sandberg-downplayed-facebooks-role-in-the-capitol-hill-siege-justice-department-files-tell-a-very-different-story/?sh=6b838e0410b3

Time to pull the plug on Facebook servers?
That won't happen, nor should it.
But Forbes gives us an insight into Big Tech's mind.

Kivaro

Looks like Facebook unfriended Australia this morning.
Imagine blocking news on their widely used platform in the middle of a pandemic, because this is just what they did, and the Australians are not happy. These giant tech companies have become too powerful and need to be regulated. What or who are they going to cancel next?

topdecko

Facebook is destroying the very fabric of society. Simple as that. Massive impact on young people as well and very destructive to their mental health. Obviously should be regulated - society has rules and norms for freedom of speech, bullying, stalking etc but none of this seems to apply in virtual world.
We are quickly going down the rabbit hole - just saw recently that Captain Tom Moores family in UK were getting trolled. Facebook/Twitter etc unleashes the worst of humanity.

VinLieger

biko wrote: »

Time to pull the plug on Facebook servers?
That won't happen, nor should it.
But Forbes gives us an insight into Big Tech's mind.

Pulling the plug shouldnt happen but they do need to be split up, ie split facebook, instagram, whatsapp, oculus etc from each other into real separate entities like was done with the major phone networks in the US back in the 80s. Also make it illegal for them to reform as the phone companies have effectively done in the past 30 years.



Same goes for Amazon and Google but the list of products and companies is too long to go through.

Varik

Kivaro wrote: »

Looks like Facebook unfriended Australia this morning.
Imagine blocking news on their widely used platform in the middle of a pandemic, because this is just what they did, and the Australians are not happy. These giant tech companies have become too powerful and need to be regulated. What or who are they going to cancel next?

As happy as I am for big tech to be raked across the coals, this is entirely on Australia.

Australia wanted a state mandated handout for their local new media and Facebook wasn't willing to pay it. Maybe the Australian government should have been more worried about the pandemic than getting their friends paid.

Kivaro

Varik wrote: »

Maybe the Australian government should have been more worried about the pandemic than getting their friends paid.

Their friends? That's odd.
The news and print business in Australia is in serious difficulty at the moment with dozens of regional newspapers about to shut down. They just want to be paid for their content that is used by the likes of Facebook and Google.