Merv's Politically Incorrect Audio Blog

1. No, but there are very natural monopolies in social media which is way there's not been much competition among similar platforms. For example, Twitter has face no legitimate rivals yet. Also, they do tend to move in lock step on these issues. See this list of companies banning Trump: https://www.glamour.com/story/donald-trump-social-media-bans-twitter-facebook

2. I don't think this is correct. We're the product. Advertisers are the customer. They tell social media companies what they don't want their brand associated with. See the massive Facebook boycott for example.

I do agree we need to be careful about potential regulation. But it's hyperbole to suggest that regulation = state controlled media. See the Fairness Doctrine, for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

 

They don’t really move as much in lockstep as you’re suggesting. Trump inciting an insurrection was too far for many people, and as companies responsible to shareholders it was a pretty easy decision for them.

That being said, the upper echelons of tech is a small world, so who knows what conversations are being had.

 

I know it will never happen, but term limits may be the only way to slow down them down. Change the Senate to 4-yr terms (max 2) and house to 3 yr terms (max 2)... and once you serve your 2 terms, you are ineligible to serve again (in either house or senate).

 

swords - type can be selected by the individual combatant

 

Anyone who chooses anything other than a rapier for unarmored 1-1 dueling is an idiot. Fight me.

 

Downside with Term Limits (which we have in FL for our Legislators) is you are so focusing on making connections for possible brides/influence from the donors big time x100. My State Rep gets tons of donations from the companies that run the Charter Schools in Jax (which BTW I'm for school choice, but not the way FL set up the system, too much money flow through the FL GOP from these companies), since in FL our Legislators are part time for two months of the year and it doesn't pay much. Most Legislators use their State House/Senate position as a jumping stone to a crushy donor class job, working for a big law office (since most of the FL Legislators are lawyers), get big connections in one of the big industries, or work for the Dem/GOP. Sometimes in the US House/Senate those guys don't blab about their connections, not in FL, lol.

Still, it might benefit the US House/Senate for some term limits.

 

There would have to be a package of reforms that severely restrict what politicians could and could not do both during their time in office and after in order to make a significant dent in bribes and lobbying tactics. I honestly don't know what solid reforms would look like these days.

 

No one is going to touch section 230. There are enough former Silicon Valley executives and lobbyists in Biden's cabinet to either kill any initiative to repeal 230, or secure the presidential veto.

 

He never called for violence. He did make unfounded claims that precipitated it, and did seem to condone or at least not condemn it.

The above also describes countless blue check twitter posters over the summer who helped created an environment where months of destructive rioting and looting was tolerated.

To my knowledge, they were not banned. You might say that as president he should be held to higher standards. The counterpoint is that a democratically elected leader should not be silenced.

 

This would be healthy in another level: there would be initiative to be physically fit.

 

Well the 60s civil rights movement turned violent at the end of a boom bust cycle outside any government's control.
boom -> black migration north and to urban areas that slowed during the Great Depression -> civil rights -> bust -> violence -> white flight -> black flight.
Now the wealth inequality is worse than ever, much of the nouveau riche and growth sectors are propped up by low interest rates and bullshit and the government mismanagement, and shit is hitting the fan. Uber admits they can only be profitable by replacing drivers with robots. Many streaming services basically can't be profitable or can't be profitable and produce or pay for new content at the same time. They're not Twitter where users make low effort content for free for Twitter. Where's the money? Yet their executives are paid millions to billions and their stock prices rise.

China has its own problems with treating internal migrants like shit. BLM and QAnon are f'ing nothing compared to the Taiping Rebellion. If some pissed off Chinese migrant decides that he's the new Chinese younger brother of Jesus, God himself tells him the CCP is chaotic evil, and he gets part of the PLA to join him with launch codes included, HOLY SHIT.

 

Running your own servers and doing your own thing you don't owe these greedy endless expansionist companies anything.

I don't know about the state vs private company thing, I stand for open Internet for civil use.

Anyway, I am thinking it is quite hard to compete with Big Tech ads, but the connectedness creeps me out.
Including Instagram New Terms of services
Currently, they own all of your data.. Including "our" camera. Access to all device information, including when using on PC. I actually looked it up. You don't have even full control over your own phone.
In 10 years who knows what they will own... You don't even get a popup banner to accept new terms of services.

Notice that by using the service, you have agreed to everything they write in their terms of service.

Don't even start on TikTok, looks especially trustworthy.


I still use some Google services but I like to keep my dependency on IT tech decentralized if I can help it.

Example... I can run Linux Mint if I get bugged out about some MS stuff I don't like and use open source software. I had a problem that my Ethernet happens to not work on lates Linux Mint and W10 tends to be rather stable.

 

The entire Summer of Love was organized on Twitter and Facebook, multiple assaults on federal court in Portland, nobody said boo.
The tech companies reached the level of power where they do not need any standards or policies, they do not even have to pretend having any.
This is the ultimate show of force to say: we are lying, we know that we are lying, and we know that you know that we are lying. And that's OK.
I fee like I would be watching the communist party official news channel during Martial Law in Poland all over again. The same attitude.

 

While I think Section 230 needs to remain unchanged, at what point are these huge social media outlets more like public communications or a utility? I have no idea how you could ever "draw the line" that says Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/etc faces some sort of regulation while others don't, but the reality is that they are completely different than sites like SBAF, Watchuseek, etc.

A one size fits all approach isn't really appropriate

 

Just getting back to this thread (Tuesday), but again well stated. As someone who tends towards abstraction and theory, it is a good reminder. One thought how this applies to our current political situation, in that it appears that with the electorate so evenly divided, and a real stagnation in the legistlative branch because of this and the resultant inability to horse trade/compromise, that at least on a national level the ability to focus on a single problem, let alone multi task, is all but gone. At the same time there seems to be plenty of energy for symbolic actions, like impeachment show trials. This is what I predict will happen in the next two years - a handful of idealistic left wing "we gotcha you deplorables!" bills written by AOC and singed by Biden, but nothing of substance.