Does Big Tech need to be regulated?

TomTomTim · 22-01-2021 1:14pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no whim required. their rules are transparent. You break them, off you go.

Nonsense. "Hate speech" is one of the most nebulous terms in politics, and it's contained in all their rules. Something highly subjective is not transparent. Twitter were banning users for both the NPC meme & the "learn to code" meme. How did either of those things break their rules?

ohnonotgmail · 22-01-2021 1:14pm

TomTomTim wrote: »

Nonsense. "Hate speech" is one of the most nebulous terms in politics, and it's contained in all their rules. Something highly subjective is not transparent. Twitter were banning users for both the NPC meme & the "learn to code" meme. How did either of those things break their rules?

how do you expect me to comment on specific instances I am not aware of?

Sonics2k · 22-01-2021 1:16pm

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.

MacronvFrugals · 22-01-2021 1:34pm

The genius of social media is having hundreds of millions of people believing they are all individuals while being assorted into highly targeted categories consisting of endless data points.

This weaponized has the potential for endless damage ie Brexit and Trump

joseywhales · 22-01-2021 2:20pm

I don't understand, google provides a service people want, aus government want to impose charges on news, google decides its not worth it, people are upset. Google isnt your mom, they aren't obliged to help you. It not a service that's vital to life like water, they have no obligation to provide it.

Snotty · 22-01-2021 3:03pm

joseywhales wrote: »

I don't understand, google provides a service people want, aus government want to impose charges on news, google decides its not worth it, people are upset. Google isnt your mom, they aren't obliged to help you. It not a service that's vital to life like water, they have no obligation to provide it.

Dont come in here with logic, we need to regulate......something....something......oligarchs.

Im reminded of the woman selling her house rang up complaining about how the cows arses are always up against the fence next to her kitchen window and it was unsightly. People here would be calling for the direction of the cows arse to be regulated without one iota of what that actually means or how it could be achieved in any meaningful way, but never let that get in the way of ranting.

Kivaro · 22-01-2021 3:53pm

Snotty wrote: »

Dont come in here with logic .....

You may need to re-examine your understanding of logic.

aus government want to impose charges on news

This is not true. The Australian legislation wants Google and Facebook to pay local media organisations to host news content, just like the agreement Google made with France yesterday.

Big Tech companies are making fortunes on advertising revenue from their current process; money that should really be shared with local news outlets. This is an antitrust and anti-competitive issue. Local news outlets are in dire financial difficulty while Big Tech gain huge profits on content that does not belong to them.

Potatoeman · 22-01-2021 3:58pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

This thread just sounds like the big bad companies and governments that have a different ideology to me are evil. There are an abundance of these threads since Parler broke their agreements.

There are alternatives to each of the companies that removed service to Parler, and if Parler had not broken the agreements they made, they would still be online.

They should have hosted themselves. Bad planning on their part. Though it should warn anyone using hosting services that you don’t control your data.

Kivaro · 22-01-2021 4:07pm

Potatoeman wrote: »

They should have hosted themselves. Bad planning on their part. Though it should warn anyone using hosting services that you don’t control your data.

It is inevitable that there will now be a switch by many companies and organisations from Big Tech hosted services to local/owned hosted services in the future due to what happened with this incident. Even for benign companies, the thought of getting shut off to your service and data by the hosting service for whatever reason is very worrying. I'm sure that legal contracts and hosting agreements are now under the microscope, with addendums in the works until they can start hosting services themselves.

Potatoeman · 22-01-2021 4:18pm

Kivaro wrote: »

It is inevitable that there will now be a switch by many companies and organisations from Big Tech hosted services to local/owned hosted services in the future due to what happened with this incident. Even for benign companies, the thought of getting shut off to your service and data by the hosting service for whatever reason is very worrying. I'm sure that legal contracts and hosting agreements are now under the microscope, with addendums in the works until they can start hosting services themselves.

Everyone’s share price took a hit. Suddenly competition is more viable. Twitter and Facebook too, it was incredibly bad timing. Investors hear tech power grab and get nervous. Could have waited a month or two and spread it all out and wouldn’t have been as big of an issue.

Character Building · 22-01-2021 4:33pm

Big Tech needs to go the way of Standard Oil. It is not going to be easy, but ultimately there will have to be a break up of some description. It's not right that corporations can have power and influence many multiples of many sovereign nations. It needs to be checked and hopefully that will come sooner rather than later.

I read that Facebook may have to offload WhatsApp, how that acquisition was ever allowed in the first place is beyond me.

To quote No. 2 from Austin Powers:

"I spent 30 years of my life turning this two-bit evil empire into a world class multi-national. I was going to have a cover story with Forbes. But you, like an idiot, want to take over the world. And you don't realize there is no world anymore! It's only corporations! "

He wasn't wrong and that movie was 20 years ago.

Potatoeman · 22-01-2021 4:42pm

The argument against breaking up these companies is that the US want them to compete with China on AI. If they split them up then they won’t have the capital to sink into it and China could jump more ahead.

SlowBlowin · 22-01-2021 6:50pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

fair play to him.

Nothing to do with "Fair Play", that is the least correct way to to explain JBs wealth.

I am assuming you are in the legal profession (I recognise the manner), so here is a lawyer showing one of the Amazon dishonest/illegal activities that they get away with every day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz6NxH3wy94&t=53s

They use illegal practices like this all the time, and they get away with it because of who they are and the friends they have.

Have you ever reported a scam advert on FB ? It has no effect, I have reported the same scam 10s of times (as have thousands of others) yet it always reappears. Then you watch MZ giving sworn evidence saying FB do everything they can to prevent fraud, demonstrably wrong rubbish.

Big tech needs breaking up, and soon. Australia is leading the way, someone has to be first, very brave of them.

Sonics2k · 22-01-2021 7:12pm

I do have a fully legitimate question for those pushing for the regulation of "big tech".

What defines big tech? When does a company become big tech? How would you like to see it regulated, and in what way do you do this?

Gradius · 22-01-2021 7:28pm

Most of these companies are the biggest load of nothingness. Overvalued on stock markets to the umpteenth degree, and what do they even do? Glorified entities that, at the end of the day, sell ad-space. Whoop Dee Doo. The evening herald was doing that decades beforehand.

Nationalise the infrastructure, restructure the internet into a regulated system with actual responsibility and accountability.

Writing is on the wall for the future of these emperor's in new clothes.

Kivaro · 22-01-2021 9:04pm

If it wasn't for the Covid catastrophe going on at the moment, there would be bipartisan support in the States to start regulating Big Tech early this year. With support from both sides of the chamber and a Democratic president in charge, regulation of these dangerous billionaire-led "super power" entities is inevitable.

On the European side, new EU laws are being rolled out to break up the Big Tech monopolies. Massive fines and break ups are threatened for non-compliance of these new laws (Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act).

With efforts from both sides of the Atlantic, the Big Tech companies who repeatedly abuse anti-competitiveness and privacy laws would finally be regulated. These handful of companies have just too much power over the world's economy and when you see them influencing elections and the democratic process, then they have gone too far.

James Brown · 22-01-2021 9:23pm

Cambridge analytica gamed the system.
We need regulation in so far as not giving any one agency/company complete control of the supply of information. The consumer not forced to use specific software or services to go about his or her business.

As for Googles threats, if there's a consumer gap left, it won't be long being filed.

ancapailldorcha · 22-01-2021 9:31pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

I do have a fully legitimate question for those pushing for the regulation of "big tech".

What defines big tech? When does a company become big tech? How would you like to see it regulated, and in what way do you do this?

Regulation is inevitable. Either governments do it or they'll do it themselves. People are clearly concerned about the actions of these companies. Their size mean that a miniscule amount of people are making decisions that affect hundreds of millions, if not billions. These companies are tiny in terms of the amount of people they empty and the amount of tax that they pay.

I think that by asking about what defines big tech, you're missing the point. A non-competitive marketplace culminating in a monopoly benefits few. The regulations should be for the industry as a whole as opposed to just the bigger players.

As for what they should be, they should involve a digital charter of consumer rights, an independent regulator (or clarification where this exists) and the right for someone to delete their data unimpeded. There's an argument that these companies should be at least partly responsible for illegal content as well as having more of a role in shutting down harassment, death threats, etc...

I'd also support a digital tax as well on them as well. It's not like McDonald's or similar who actually employ people and support economies on a global scale. It's a very labour-light business so there's no reason for them not to pay up when everyone else has to. Something needs to be done to partly neutralize the first-mover advantage they have. These firms are now so big that they can buy out the competition instead of innovating. I don't know how to achieve this but it is worth mentioning.

Junkyard Tom · 22-01-2021 9:33pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

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

It's hilarious and worrying all at once. The corporations in collusion with their cheerleaders from the 'leave capitalism alone' crowd have created monsters they're now desperately trying to reign in.

The so-called 'left', they cry salty tears about, has been well-and-truly defeated. Literally bad winners, like Brexiters moaning about the consequences of their own idiocy.

ancapailldorcha · 22-01-2021 9:43pm

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It's hilarious and worrying all at once. The corporations in collusion with their cheerleaders from the 'leave capitalism alone' crowd have created monsters they're now desperately trying to reign in.

The so-called 'left', they cry salty tears about, has been well-and-truly defeated. Literally bad winners, like Brexiters moaning about the consequences of their own idiocy.

Gas, like. If you said there should be a regulation that water companies can't put bleach in drinking water you were a Stalinist. Then once tech CEO's became uncomfortable with homophobia, racism, misogyny and calls for coups, all of a sudden conservatives now want regulation?

Lewis_Benson · 22-01-2021 10:00pm

Kivaro wrote: »

Waking up to the news that Google has threatened to remove access to its search engine from Australian users, and Facebook has similarly threatened to remove news from its feed also to Australian users, it seems they are acting more like bullies than internet service providers with their threats. This came about after Australia introduced a law that would require Google, Facebook and other tech companies to pay media outlets for their news content, which seems to be a fair request. What is strange is that Google only yesterday agreed that they will pay news publications in France for the use of their content online in a "landmark agreement".

I do not believe that Trump would have been elected in 2016 without Cambridge Analytica's access and manipulation of user data on Facebook; something that Facebook knew was happening months before the scandal broke. Self-regulation has not worked. We all know that Big Data is King, but should these Big Tech companies actually decide or shape who becomes the leaders of democratic countries? Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft also have unfair competitive advantage over smaller companies, and they have a dubious history with privacy issues and the data they now own but actually belong to us. Not to mention the outrageous wealth that the few men who own these tech companies have amassed.

Is regulation required to control the influence of these Big Tech companies, or should we just let them get even bigger? Yay or Nay?

Never heard of Big Tech, who are they?

joseywhales · 22-01-2021 10:15pm

So we want to punish google for example for being so successful that they are now ubiquitous to the functioning of so many peoples lives, that they can't imagine living without google?

I would just call that merit. If you don't like a product, do not use it.

If they break existing anti trust laws they should be prosecuted, same as always but I don't see the need to target a specific sector or group of companies. I appreciate eu legislation on data privacy for example but I would not support a crusade against someone simply because they are too rich, too powerful or too successfull.

mcmoustache · 22-01-2021 10:29pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Witness the new Left. Pro billionaires and monopolists.

Why do you assume that ohnonotgmail's a lefty? A dislike of Trump isn't a good indicator of someone's political persuasion. All it shows is an absence of gullibility which isn't exclusive to the left or the right.

mcmoustache · 22-01-2021 10:39pm

Invidious wrote: »

Much of the global left was cheering with delight as Twitter & Facebook de-platformed the democratically elected president of the United States, without giving a thought to what that actually meant in terms of corporate power to silence and censor. The fact that the same tools can be used against adherents of their own ideology doesn't seem to have occurred to them.

These tools can of course be used against them. If Biden loses in four years, refuses to accept it and encourages nutters to storm the Capitol, Biden will be banned and he will have deserved it.

It's like a pub. A tosser getting thrown out because he was starting shít doesn't mean that the quiet couple chatting at a table are going to get thrown out too. Trump was given plenty of warnings and still, he persisted. That's on him and not on the services who gave him so much leeway.

22-01-2021 10:39pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Regulation is inevitable. Either governments do it or they'll do it themselves. People are clearly concerned about the actions of these companies. Their size mean that a miniscule amount of people are making decisions that affect hundreds of millions, if not billions. These companies are tiny in terms of the amount of people they empty and the amount of tax that they pay.

I think that by asking about what defines big tech, you're missing the point. A non-competitive marketplace culminating in a monopoly benefits few. The regulations should be for the industry as a whole as opposed to just the bigger players.

As for what they should be, they should involve a digital charter of consumer rights, an independent regulator (or clarification where this exists) and the right for someone to delete their data unimpeded. There's an argument that these companies should be at least partly responsible for illegal content as well as having more of a role in shutting down harassment, death threats, etc...

I'd also support a digital tax as well on them as well. It's not like McDonald's or similar who actually employ people and support economies on a global scale. It's a very labour-light business so there's no reason for them not to pay up when everyone else has to. Something needs to be done to partly neutralize the first-mover advantage they have. These firms are now so big that they can buy out the competition instead of innovating. I don't know how to achieve this but it is worth mentioning.

Yep I'd concur on regulations being needed. I think the EU is the most likely to move towards a workable system.. In terms of "breaking up" companies like Twitter or Facebook or Google or Amazon. I just don't see how it works in principle.

I'd agree on a means of dealing with them buying up any company of merit. Maybe expand on antitrust regulation etc.

I do think the sudden concern of posters in this case is more them taking offense when platforms crack down on the likes of parler.

Deub · 22-01-2021 10:54pm

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Nothing to do with "Fair Play", that is the least correct way to to explain JBs wealth.

I am assuming you are in the legal profession (I recognise the manner), so here is a lawyer showing one of the Amazon dishonest/illegal activities that they get away with every day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz6NxH3wy94&t=53s

They use illegal practices like this all the time, and they get away with it because of who they are and the friends they have.

Have you ever reported a scam advert on FB ? It has no effect, I have reported the same scam 10s of times (as have thousands of others) yet it always reappears. Then you watch MZ giving sworn evidence saying FB do everything they can to prevent fraud, demonstrably wrong rubbish.

Big tech needs breaking up, and soon. Australia is leading the way, someone has to be first, very brave of them.

You should have done more research before posting the link.
Check this link and you will understand that it is not Amazon that is doing the dishonest/illegal activity (and it is the reason the youtuber says it violates Amazon rules): https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-02-04/amazon-review-bribe

SlowBlowin · 22-01-2021 11:06pm

Deub wrote: »

You should have done more research before posting the link.
Check this link and you will understand that it is not Amazon that is doing the dishonest/illegal activity (and it is the reason the youtuber says it violates Amazon rules): https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-02-04/amazon-review-bribe

Think about it a bit more.... who profits from this activity, do you think it needs regulation ? Its an illegal activity, that Amazon benefit from, that happens on their site.

ohnonotgmail · 22-01-2021 11:07pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

Why do you assume that ohnonotgmail's a lefty? A dislike of Trump isn't a good indicator of someone's political persuasion. All it shows is an absence of gullibility which isn't exclusive to the left or the right.

i asked them the same question and they ran away from the thread. I'm not going to lie, I'm finding it a real tonic to see the posters like them crying now that social media has finally cracked down on the propaganda they consume.

MeMen2_MoRi_ · 22-01-2021 11:16pm

This caught my eye, don't no the reasons and this is the worrying part.. No idea of their posting history etc..

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1352716628690137088?s=19

People who have had their accounts closed just on a wim (this is my worry, there wasn't any interaction with these accounts, based off reports) without any warning from these tech companies for them to change their engagement on the platforms is totally wrong.. Best example of being a "tech company" would be along the lines of boards, people sign up to boards rules, yes rules get broken warnings are given, then bans.. then there is engagement with boards mods that you can either say that lessons have been learnt or even giving a lesson to boards that the moderation is being applied to strictly etc.. but I'm the end both seek to learn and move on.

With regards Donnie, I don't know how many "warnings" regards the labeling of his posts as false information a company can give, they gave him every bit of leeway by simply being POTUS, why should this person be regarded as higher then anyone else.. because he's got a title? The king of England wants a word, and "his land" back.

23-01-2021 12:32am

Deleted User wrote: »

Yep I'd concur on regulations being needed. I think the EU is the most likely to move towards a workable system.. In terms of "breaking up" companies like Twitter or Facebook or Google or Amazon. I just don't see how it works in principle.

I'd agree on a means of dealing with them buying up any company of merit. Maybe expand on antitrust regulation etc.

I do think the sudden concern of posters in this case is more them taking offense when platforms crack down on the likes of parler.

Amazon could divest AWS. Facebook could lose Instagram. Google could break up alphabet. Apple, not so sure.

23-01-2021 12:39am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i asked them the same question and they ran away from the thread. I'm not going to lie, I'm finding it a real tonic to see the posters like them crying now that social media has finally cracked down on the propaganda they consume.

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.

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

It going to lie, I'm finding it a real tonic to see the posters like them crying now that social media has finally cracked down on the propaganda they consume.

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.

23-01-2021 12:41am

mcmoustache wrote: »

Why do you assume that ohnonotgmail's a lefty? A dislike of Trump isn't a good indicator of someone's political persuasion. All it shows is an absence of gullibility which isn't exclusive to the left or the right.

And I didn't say anything about Trump either. That man is living rent free in your mind. Maybe give the old CNN a miss?

MeMen2_MoRi_ · 23-01-2021 12:57am

[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.

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.

I hope you're a new user of Signal, advocate for all who you talk with to move from WhatsApp

KyussB · 23-01-2021 7:34am

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

This caught my eye, don't no the reasons and this is the worrying part.. No idea of their posting history etc..
....

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1352716628690137088?s=19

Glenn Greenwald is one of the most reputable and principled journalists around - to the point that Edward Snowden chose him for releasing the NSA papers. Pretty brave guy, he and his partner live in Brazil even under death threats from Bolsonaro supporters - while journalistically bloodying Bolsonaro's nose in the media - even after one of their close friends, the politician Marielle Franco, was murdered by militiamen directly tied to Bolsonaro's family.

If stuff like the tweet above doesn't immediately ring massive alarm bells for people, then we're on the path to slipping into authoritarianism very quickly - as quite a lot of people seem to be perfectly fine with censoring everything except 'centrist'/mainstream politics.

The logical conclusion of the way things are going, if they are allowed to continue down this path, is a lot like Glenn's situation in Brazil: People on the left won't merely be censored, eventually they will be targeted with violent suppression and murder - and as more time passes and authoritarianism increases, will have to consider whether it is safe for them to even stay in the country/region at all - much like how many intellectuals and members of ethnic/political groups fled Germany before it was too late.

It's not the crazy far-right parties, whose suppression is the excuse for the scary rise in authoritarianism, that will gradually move in this direction - it is the poliical groups and parties already in power - they are the authoritarian threat, not the fringe far-right.

Kivaro · 23-01-2021 9:41am

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 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.

listermint · 23-01-2021 9:48am

Snotty wrote: »

Dont come in here with logic, we need to regulate......something....something......oligarchs.

Im reminded of the woman selling her house rang up complaining about how the cows arses are always up against the fence next to her kitchen window and it was unsightly. People here would be calling for the direction of the cows arse to be regulated without one iota of what that actually means or how it could be achieved in any meaningful way, but never let that get in the way of ranting.

An amusing anecdotes. But in the cows case a small hedge hides the cows arse from view.

In the context of social media the fault is heavily designed in. En engineer sat for a year writing code to grab as much crap from the far reaches of the platform to feed into someone's brain.

There are solutions to everything you just have to look for them . People seem to think this is as random and uncontrollable as cows arses don't understand the amplification of coded AI

Deub · 23-01-2021 12:02pm

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Think about it a bit more.... who profits from this activity, do you think it needs regulation ? Its an illegal activity, that Amazon benefit from, that happens on their site.

Your posts on this are misleading. In your first post you make it look like the action is from Amazon when it is not. You do the same in the post above. Reading it you would think all the profits go to Amazon which is not true. I wonder why the seller does it if he doesn’t get any benefits. Since you thought about it more, what regulations do you suggest?
Genuine question. It would protect everyone from dodgy sellers on all platforms (ebay, donedeal, etc)

mohawk · 23-01-2021 12:40pm

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 don’t think it’s a right/left issue either. Monopolies are never a good thing no matter what sector it’s in. I think that posters throw around the term far right as a way to shut down discussion of anything they don’t like or agree with.
You can argue that the mainstream media is regulated. There are journalism standards etc that have to be met. That’s all well and good but I am in my mid 30’s and many people my age or younger aren’t reading newspapers or watching the news. They hear the news from social media. Social media has made the divide between democrats and republicans way worse in the US because of the echo chamber effect. That can happen here too.

Invidious · 24-01-2021 7:07pm

mohawk wrote: »

Social media has made the divide between democrats and republicans way worse in the US because of the echo chamber effect. That can happen here too.

I think the opposite effect can be seen in Ireland. Once, there used to be a healthy spectrum of public opinion. Now, social media is used to berate and castigate everyone into thinking the same way.

24-01-2021 7:30pm

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.

km991148 · 24-01-2021 11:39pm

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 · 24-01-2021 11:45pm

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 · 24-01-2021 11:48pm

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 · 25-01-2021 12:05am

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

25-01-2021 12:20am

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 · 25-01-2021 10:37am

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 · 25-01-2021 10:52am

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 · 25-01-2021 11:01am

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 · 25-01-2021 11:11am

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 · 25-01-2021 12:22pm

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.

Does Big Tech need to be regulated?

Comments