Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: If you think there isn't shady shit going on....

  1. #1

    Default If you think there isn't shady shit going on....

    https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/17/media...ban/index.html

    Then you are an idiot.

    Google, Facebook, Twitter all need to have their 230 protections removed immediately. These fucking jackasses really think they run the world.... and right now it looks like they do.

  2. #2

    Default

    Isn't this more about the free market and economics than some conspiracy to stifle free speech?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    PWC, VA
    Posts
    8,482
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    The product doesn't get to decide what it sees.
    No, I am not Drauz in game.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Back View Post
    Isn't this more about the free market and economics than some conspiracy to stifle free speech?
    I agree. Remove the protections they hide behind and let the free market actually work.
    RETARD HALL OF FAME

    Quote Originally Posted by Back View Post
    There will be no war when guns are more regulated.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashliana View Post
    "I originally created an additional account back in the day to mess with the reputation system" Rep system came in 3 months later...
    Quote Originally Posted by Tsa`ah View Post
    Well tell that to the Naval hospital that issued a birth certificate labeled Ft Lejeune ... and then typed it in.
    Quote Originally Posted by Back View Post
    3 million more popular votes. I'd say the numbers speak for themselves. Gerrymandering won for Trump.

  5. #5

    Default

    I don't follow... Australia is trying to force Facebook to pay for content it doesn't even put on the site and are really just a medium for people to share it over? And Facebook doesn't want to pay, so they remove said content from their platform. What am I missing here? I'm no fan of Facebook and haven't been on their platform in many years... but I don't see anything wrong with their decision on this one. On top of that, why? To fund Rupert Murdoch even further who owns 70% of the media in Australia? How does this even make sense?

    I'm going to start posting on Facebook again and the Government needs to force them to pay me for my content. Sounds fair, right?

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blazar View Post
    I don't follow... Australia is trying to force Facebook to pay for content it doesn't even put on the site and are really just a medium for people to share it over? And Facebook doesn't want to pay, so they remove said content from their platform. What am I missing here? I'm no fan of Facebook and haven't been on their platform in many years... but I don't see anything wrong with their decision on this one. On top of that, why? To fund Rupert Murdoch even further who owns 70% of the media in Australia? How does this even make sense?

    I'm going to start posting on Facebook again and the Government needs to force them to pay me for my content. Sounds fair, right?
    What it comes down to is similar to what NAPSTER was back in the day.

    Facebook has news articles posted on it's site. Facebook receives ad revenue ($) for those articles. The content creators of those articles/media do not recieve compensation. So Facebook profits from the work of content creators without any licensing or restitution.

    Australia was/is proposing laws that simply says - if Facebook is earning ad revenue from media produced by News organizations then some revenue should be paid to those entities.

    Facebook is saying "hell no" to that. And in response they just shut all of Australia down - not just media/news/etc. but normal people - from posting links like that.

    Facebook doesn't want to pay for the free content they get from people sharing work that is done by actual paid organizations.

  7. #7

    Default

    Same thing going on with music currently with the DMCA or whatever it's called.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaps View Post
    What it comes down to is similar to what NAPSTER was back in the day.

    Facebook has news articles posted on it's site. Facebook receives ad revenue ($) for those articles. The content creators of those articles/media do not recieve compensation. So Facebook profits from the work of content creators without any licensing or restitution.

    Australia was/is proposing laws that simply says - if Facebook is earning ad revenue from media produced by News organizations then some revenue should be paid to those entities.

    Facebook is saying "hell no" to that. And in response they just shut all of Australia down - not just media/news/etc. but normal people - from posting links like that.

    Facebook doesn't want to pay for the free content they get from people sharing work that is done by actual paid organizations.
    I don't use Facebook anymore, but what's wrong with simply saying okay...no news.
    Isn't that exactly what removing 230 will lead to?
    Anonymous is an Idea - not a group.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alfster View Post
    I don't use Facebook anymore, but what's wrong with simply saying okay...no news.
    Isn't that exactly what removing 230 will lead to?
    I agree with you - and we literally could examine it for hours - but my perspective is on how information around the world gets disseminated now. A lot of people rely on Facebook/Twitter/etc. to get their news or inform themselves.

    I personally disagree with those sources as news sources because of the way the algorithms work, but because Facebook knows they have that power - and a lot of people rely on their platform for that type of information - to fully shut off a whole country (while cow-towing to China's demands still) says a lot.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •