The power of Social media

[Senator]

I'm sure you'll be thrilled when the government then tells you that you must go to church, and they tell you which one and then use your tax dollars to support it. Or maybe they say no one can go to church and arrest you when you do.

I'm sure you will be equally thrilled when you are forbidden from complaining about or to the government. Or when you are not allowed to gather together in groups of more than two unrelated people.

And I'll bet you'll be over the moon when they tell you what books and magazines you are and are not allowed to read.

Private companies manipulate the populace already, and while they may not have the force of law, or the power to kill people, people that do not do what the Media is promoting, they become a pariah that other people shun. People commit suicide because they are viewed as outcasts. People are violently attacked by others that have taken the narrative to an extreme. Lives are ruined by social media and newspapers.

Perhaps if we had a lengthy criminal penalty for reporters and employees of the social media group that causes the issue, it would help.

 

[Music Lover]

Private companies manipulate the populace already, and while they may not have the force of law, or the power to kill people, people that do not do what the Media is promoting, they become a pariah that other people shun. People commit suicide because they are viewed as outcasts. People are violently attacked by others that have taken the narrative to an extreme. Lives are ruined by social media and newspapers.

Perhaps if we had a lengthy criminal penalty for reporters and employees of the social media group that causes the issue, it would help.

I prefer a world where people can say what they want and then have to live with the consequences either good or bad, but I'm weird that way.

For fun, imagine someone you hate having the power to decide what you can or can't say...because if there's a law eventually someone who doesn't like you will make that call.

 

[athena53]

The power of social media. First seed gets planted. Next, everyone wants an Instant Pot pressure cooker, whether needed or not.

Yeah, I see that especially around Christmas. There are bloggers and other "influencers" who get free products, free restaurant meals, etc. because they have so many followers on their blogs, on Twitter, on Instagram, etc. If you can get an influencer all excited about your product or service, the herd will follow. (I've listened to a few BBC podcasts explaining how it works.) Suddenly, a single product such as the Insta-Pot is on everyone's list. It will be interesting to see what this year's "must-have" (which I will ignore) will be.

And then there's Girl Scout Cookie season. Half my FB friends are posting pictures of their favorites and telling what they've ordered. I ignore those, too.

 

[Pellice]

Yeah, I see that especially around Christmas. There are bloggers and other "influencers" who get free products, free restaurant meals, etc. because they have so many followers on their blogs, on Twitter, on Instagram, etc. If you can get an influencer all excited about your product or service, the herd will follow. (I've listened to a few BBC podcasts explaining how it works.) Suddenly, a single product such as the Insta-Pot is on everyone's list. It will be interesting to see what this year's "must-have" (which I will ignore) will be.

And then there's Girl Scout Cookie season. Half my FB friends are posting pictures of their favorites and telling what they've ordered. I ignore those, too.

The advertising industry arose mostly in the 20th century. I personally think it reached its apogee in auto ads, which alternated between half-naked women sprawled on car hoods and weapons of destruction tearing along roads. Previously, manufacturers paid fees (or bribes if you want to put it that way) to get "licenses" from various governing authorities to get a certificate, or, ideally, exclusion of one's competitors from a given marketplace. (My institution has alternately bid out exclusive contracts to either coke or pepsi for the past 15 years. No other sodas could be sold on the campus, no vending machines other than the contractor's. You weren't even supposed to bring in competitors' products for an event, although I did buy cheaper ones occasionally, gambling that there weren't inspectors coming around.

It's all pretty pervasive and annoying. From what I read, the careers of "influencers" are ephemeral unless they start doing the hard work to make themselves true experts.

 

[Senator]

I prefer a world where people can say what they want and then have to live with the consequences either good or bad, but I'm weird that way.

For fun, imagine someone you hate having the power to decide what you can or can't say...because if there's a law eventually someone who doesn't like you will make that call.

That makes sense for the government, however private companies can make the rules as they see fit. Large companies, such as Google, FB, Twitter, Amazon, etc. can distort the news. Even this forum, under the guise of creating harmony, limits controversial topics.

Free speech was designed not to create harmony, it was designed to allow controversial topics, by definition. One person's controversial topic is another person passion. If speech was limited prior to the revolutionary war, America's independence would have never happened. Those topics were inciting war, by definition.

If someone thinks the world is flat, they have the right to say it, regardless if the rest of the world thinks it's round. At one time there was a single person telling the people that the world was round.

When a large company(s) can control the news, they can make the decision to call two different people's actions differently. Stereotypes have evolved based on how they are described. One person may be called decisive, while another person may be called a bully for the same action.

My opinion is the news is way too powerful, and eventually it will be curbed. It may take a constitutional amendment. When freedom is abused, and groups rather than individuals are held responsible, freedom is lost.

 

[Pellice]

My opinion is the news is way too powerful, and eventually it will be curbed. It may take a constitutional amendment. When freedom is abused, and groups rather than individuals are held responsible, freedom is lost.

How can you curb "the news"? Do you literally mean restricting the free flow of information? Or appointing an official Ministry of Truth?

 

[Music Lover]

That makes sense for the government, however private companies can make the rules as they see fit. Large companies, such as Google, FB, Twitter, Amazon, etc. can distort the news. Even this forum, under the guise of creating harmony, limits controversial topics.

The large tech companies are legally allowed to operate as platforms but not as publishers. As a publisher they would be allowed to make editorial choices (like a newspaper for example) but as platform they are not allowed to do so. However they have been making editorial choices which is in direct violation of their operating rules.

 

[Senator]

How can you curb "the news"? Do you literally mean restricting the free flow of information? Or appointing an official Ministry of Truth?

When a companies such as Google, FB, Twitter, etc. act as their own "official Ministry of Truth", that is not much of a different result than the government doing it.

The large tech companies are legally allowed to operate as platforms but not as publishers. As a publisher they would be allowed to make editorial choices (like a newspaper for example) but as platform they are not allowed to do so. However they have been making editorial choices which is in direct violation of their operating rules.

So who should go to jail?

 

[MichaelB]

Even this forum, under the guise of creating harmony, limits controversial topics.

Free speech was designed not to create harmony, it was designed to allow controversial topics, by definition. One person's controversial topic is another person passion.

There’s no disguised effort here to limit discussion. Community rules are clear and published in 1s and 0s for all to read. You can find them here, and they include this

About the First Amendment, censorship and your "right to free speech": You do indeed have a right to free speech. However this forum is privately owned and requires members to abide by our guidelines and by the decisions of our moderators. If you cannot accept these guidelines we encourage you to contact one of the many good web hosting companies out there and exercise that right to your heart's content.

 

[Senator]

There’s no disguised effort here to limit discussion. Community rules are clear and published in 1s and 0s for all to read. You can find them here, and they include this

No doubt you can make the rules and enforce them. As can any forum or news site.

My point is that when you have sites such as Google, they can control the news. They can limit discussion. They can change the mindset of the entire population. When most of the media is in lockstep with the topics that they publish, laws get changed or added. Freedoms get taken away. History gets erased.

That is media and power as the original topic of discussion.

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

I'm dating a very nice retired criminal defense lawyer who had a friend, also a lawyer, who died a year ago. They were on opposite sides politically but what my friend admired about the man was his ability to argue either side of an issue equally well. It definitely forces you to look at the factors supporting the opposition's beliefs.

That is what makes a lawyer a good lawyer. You have to be able to argue the other side BETTER than they will. Moot court competitions often will have participants argue/present both sides of the case.

 

[Chuckanut]

For fun, imagine someone you hate having the power to decide what you can or can't say...because if there's a law eventually someone who doesn't like you will make that call.

Ultimately, extremists end up being eaten by their own children.

 

[Music Lover]

Ultimately, extremists end up being eaten by their own children.

It always ends that way.

Recently a few reporters who dug up social media comments people made on the internet years ago when they were less famous and probably dumb teenagers...looked up only to embarrass or hurt someone they disagree with have now found the same thing happening to them. And of course now they're outraged that they're being held to the same standards.

 

[Rianne]

Looks like Mark Z. in trouble. He always looks like a deer in headlights. Now, he is a deer in headlights.

 

[Senator]

It's happening. Now we just need a government authority to define hate speech.

Of the 1,004 respondents, young people were the most likely to support curbing free expression and punishing those who engage in "hate speech." Nearly 60 percent of Millennials—respondents between the ages of 21 and 38—agreed that the Constitution "goes too far in allowing hate speech in modern America" and should be rewritten, compared to 48 percent of Gen Xers and 47 percent of Baby Boomers. A majority of Millennials also supported laws that would make "hate speech" a crime—of those supporters, 54 percent said violators should face jail time.

https://freebeacon.com/issues/poll-majority-of-americans-want-first-amendment-rewritten/

American hostility to the First Amendment did not stop at speech. Many would also like to see a crackdown on the free press. Nearly 60 percent of respondents agreed that the "government should be able to take action against newspapers and TV stations that publish content that is biased, inflammatory, or false." Of those respondents, 46 percent supported possible jail time.