;

Author Topic: F.A.N.G.  (Read 8197 times)

Embedded YouTube Journo

  • Unperson
  • *****
  • Posts: 695
  • Buffering Outrage
  • Awards Better dead than red Scrooge Goon or Ex-Goon cold, dead hands United Statesian Boy Scout Artist
    • Awards
Re: F.A.N.G.
« Reply #125 on: August 16, 2018, 10:01:49 PM »
+3
I wonder if something like YouTube/Facebook (and other case by case situations) could be declared a “Public Spaces” and therefore be subject to existing free speech protections. Somewhat like speakers corner in the UK? Obviously illegal shit would still be illegal, but  I mean fuck, if Trumps twitter can’t block people why should Twitter be able to block anyone? Ironically it’d probably spell the end for Twitter if they were no longer able to block bots and other trash accounts, you’d get endless streams of half intelligible phishing scams, but twitter needs to die anyway.

The term you're looking for is "common carrier."

I’m familiar with the term but was under the impression that also carried a certain amount of baggage as far as things like utility regulation and such is concerned.  Regardless even then perhaps you’re right.

I think when you're providing a large public medium where users post content that advertises itself as a place where broad societal conversations are taking place, you're more akin to UPS than to some sort of members-only salon. The scale and market share of the products involved go well beyond normal marketplace conditions. I hate the idea of regulation too, but I hate having the national conversation be tightly controlled by a handful of SF lefties worse.

agreed

J Dog

  • 5000 Posters Club
  • *
  • Posts: 5008
  • Ashli get moving. Why keep your feeble hope alive?
    • Awards
Re: F.A.N.G.
« Reply #126 on: August 17, 2018, 08:31:38 AM »
+4
The major hurdle is going to be enforcement and what kind of due process people are entitled to, not to mention the jurisdictional nightmare it would create.  If any organization that reached a certain size suddenly had to defend hundreds of lawsuits from all fifty states weekly, you wouldn't be hurting twitter, you'd only be strengthening its monopoly because its the only organization wealthy enough to handle the burden. 

I want to weaken FANG, not strengthen it. 

The Watcher

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 3882
  • Awards Wounded in the line of posting. Goon or Ex-Goon
    • Awards
Re: F.A.N.G.
« Reply #127 on: August 17, 2018, 09:48:26 AM »
+6
The major hurdle is going to be enforcement and what kind of due process people are entitled to, not to mention the jurisdictional nightmare it would create.  If any organization that reached a certain size suddenly had to defend hundreds of lawsuits from all fifty states weekly, you wouldn't be hurting twitter, you'd only be strengthening its monopoly because its the only organization wealthy enough to handle the burden. 

I want to weaken FANG, not strengthen it.
Breaking them up or over regulate them is the only way to stop them.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2018, 11:12:55 AM by The Watcher »
His name was Harry Anderson

The Watcher

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 3882
  • Awards Wounded in the line of posting. Goon or Ex-Goon
    • Awards
Re: F.A.N.G.
« Reply #128 on: August 30, 2018, 11:15:12 AM »
+9
Alleged Google Anon chimes in
His name was Harry Anderson

asip

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 1600
  • Awards Wounded in the line of posting. Motorcyclist United Statesian Deplorables You Shall Not Pass!
    • Awards
Re: F.A.N.G.
« Reply #129 on: August 30, 2018, 11:54:08 AM »
+1
Sounds totally legit

Hitlorr The Obniggerator

  • Enemy Of The State
  • ****
  • Posts: 381
    • Awards
Re: F.A.N.G.
« Reply #130 on: August 30, 2018, 12:32:49 PM »
+7
Yeah for a company that controls such a huge portion of the internet that seems like an obvious thing for them to do (for the advertiser $$$.) Fill its ranks with pozzed faggots and you get the policy pushing too.

The Watcher

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 3882
  • Awards Wounded in the line of posting. Goon or Ex-Goon
    • Awards
Re: F.A.N.G.
« Reply #131 on: August 31, 2018, 05:48:24 AM »
+7
 :jesse:
His name was Harry Anderson

Hollywood Shabat Goy Yaro

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 2353
  • ギューン野郎
  • Awards Deplorables Generation Identitaire Scrooge Anonymous Better dead than red Goon or Ex-Goon 420 Californian
    • Awards
Re: F.A.N.G.
« Reply #132 on: August 31, 2018, 10:49:53 AM »
+12
I'm predicting that SJW employees attacking their management and board members for wrongthink (And then getting fired for insubordination lol) will be the new frontier in leftist workplace agitation. 


Quote

Don't pick a fight with Al Franken, this is the guy who in truth should be President. Smart, ethical and generally a good person. And he is a comic so in a verbal war he will make you look stupid.

White Rapper

  • Cishet White Male
  • Goon Institute
  • *
  • Posts: 1257
    • Awards
Re: F.A.N.G.
« Reply #133 on: September 04, 2018, 03:28:30 PM »
+8
It is the censorship at the big tech companies you are seeing right now. The coder spergs make it whitelist all the gay shit they like and blacklist anything wrong think. The human moderators use their liberal feelings "impartially" to decide on reported videos. Even if the CEOs wanted to fix it they can't because it is happening on purpose. They don't really want to stand up to shareholders and tell them catladies took over their community standards reporting system.

The Watcher

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 3882
  • Awards Wounded in the line of posting. Goon or Ex-Goon
    • Awards
Re: F.A.N.G.
« Reply #134 on: September 04, 2018, 03:54:54 PM »
+5
It is the censorship at the big tech companies you are seeing right now. The coder spergs make it whitelist all the gay shit they like and blacklist anything wrong think. The human moderators use their liberal feelings "impartially" to decide on reported videos. Even if the CEOs wanted to fix it they can't because it is happening on purpose. They don't really want to stand up to shareholders and tell them catladies took over their community standards reporting system.
Word has it the stock price of a lot of FANG companies is artificial too.
His name was Harry Anderson

Megalodon of Mudsharks

  • Unperson
  • *****
  • Posts: 858
  • Awards Deplorables Drinkin' and Postin' The Gentry cold, dead hands old United Statesian Better dead than red Scrooge Libertarian KURWA
    • Awards
Re: F.A.N.G.
« Reply #135 on: September 04, 2018, 07:02:08 PM »
+9
It is the censorship at the big tech companies you are seeing right now. The coder spergs make it whitelist all the gay shit they like and blacklist anything wrong think. The human moderators use their liberal feelings "impartially" to decide on reported videos. Even if the CEOs wanted to fix it they can't because it is happening on purpose. They don't really want to stand up to shareholders and tell them catladies took over their community standards reporting system.

Have they learned nothing from SA?
« Last Edit: September 04, 2018, 09:18:27 PM by Postmortem Mixtape »

gay retard

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 1571
  • アメリカを再び偉大にしよう
  • Awards Sasstronaut Anonymous Faggot Killed in the Line of Posting Autistic Deplorables Goon or Ex-Goon
    • Awards
Re: F.A.N.G.
« Reply #136 on: October 10, 2018, 07:32:10 PM »
+11
rename thread to F.A.G.S. pls

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/09/the-good-censor-leaked-google-briefing-admits-abandonment-of-free-speech-for-safety-and-civility/

‘THE GOOD CENSOR’: Leaked Google Briefing Admits Abandonment of Free Speech for ‘Safety And Civility’

Quote
An internal company briefing produced by Google and leaked exclusively to Breitbart News argues that due to a variety of factors, including the election of President Trump, the “American tradition” of free speech on the internet is no longer viable.

Despite leaked video footage showing top executives declaring their intention to ensure that the rise of Trump and the populist movement is just a “blip” in history, Google has repeatedly denied that the political bias of its employees filter into its products.

But the 85-page briefing, titled “The Good Censor,” admits that Google and other tech platforms now “control the majority of online conversations” and have undertaken a “shift towards censorship” in response to unwelcome political events around the world.

Examples cited in the document include the 2016 election and the rise of Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) in Germany.

Responding to the leak, an official Google source said the document should be considered internal research, and not an official company position.

The briefing labels the ideal of unfettered free speech on the internet a “utopian narrative” that has been “undermined” by recent global events as well as “bad behavior” on the part of users. It can be read in full below.

It acknowledges that major tech platforms, including Google, Facebook and Twitter initially promised free speech to consumers. “This free speech ideal was instilled in the DNA of the Silicon Valley startups that now control the majority of our online conversations,” says the document.



The briefing argues that Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are caught between two incompatible positions, the “unmediated marketplace of ideas” vs. “well-ordered spaces for safety and civility.”



The first approach is described as a product of the “American tradition” which “prioritizes free speech for democracy, not civility.” The second is described as a product of the “European tradition,” which “favors dignity over liberty and civility over freedom.” The briefing claims that all tech platforms are now moving toward the European tradition.

The briefing associates Google’s new role as the guarantor of “civility” with the categories of “editor” and “publisher.” This is significant, given that Google, YouTube, and other tech giants publicly claim they are not publishers but rather neutral platforms — a categorization that grants them special legal immunities under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Elsewhere in the document, Google admits that Section 230 was designed to ensure they can remain neutral platforms for free expression.

Trump, Conspiracy Theorist

One of the reasons Google identifies for allegedly widespread public disillusionment with internet free speech is that it “breeds conspiracy theories.” The example Google uses? A 2016 tweet from then-candidate Donald Trump, alleging that Google search suppressed negative results about Hillary Clinton.



At the time, Google said that it suppressed negative autocomplete suggestions about everybody, not just Clinton. But it was comparatively easy to find such autocomplete results when searching for Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. Independent research from psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein also shows that Google search results (if not autocomplete results) did indeed favor Clinton in 2016.

Twice in the document, Google juxtaposes a factoid about “Russian interference” in American elections with pictures of Donald Trump. At one point, the document admits that tech platforms are changing their policies to pre-empt congressional action on foreign interference.

The document did not address the fact that, according to leading psychologists, the impact of foreign “bots” and propaganda on social media has a negligible impact on voters.

From Suggestions to Company Policy

It is unclear for whom the “Good Censor” was intended. What is clear, however, is that Google spent (or paid someone to spend) significant time and effort to produce it.



According to the briefing itself, it was the product of an extensive process involving “several layers of research,” including expert interviews with MIT Tech Review editor-in-chief Jason Pontin, Atlantic staff writer Franklin Foer, and academic Kalev Leetaru. 35 cultural observers and 7 cultural leaders from seven countries on five continents were also consulted to produce it.

What is also clear is that many of the briefing’s recommendations are now reflected in the policy of Google and its sibling companies.

For example, the briefing argues that tech companies will have to censor their platforms if they want to “expand globally.” Google is now constructing a censored search engine to gain access to the Chinese market.

The document also bemoans that the internet allows “have a go commenters” (in other words, ordinary people) to compete on a level playing field with “authoritative sources” like the New York Times. Google-owned YouTube now promotes so-called “authoritative sources” in its algorithm. The company did not specifically name which sources it would promote.

Key points in the briefing can be found at the following page numbers:

    P2 – The briefing states that “users are asking if the openness of the internet should be celebrated after all” and that “free speech has become a social, economic, and political weapon.”
    P11 – The briefing identifies Breitbart News as the media publication most interested in the topic of free speech.
    P12 – The briefing says the early free-speech ideals of the internet were “utopian.”
    P14 – The briefing admits that Google, along with Twitter and Facebook, now “control the majority of online conversations.”
    P15 – Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is linked to Google’s position as a platform for free expression. Elsewhere in the document (p68), Google and other platforms’ move towards moderation and censorship is associated with the role of “publisher” – which would not be subject to Section 230’s legal protections.
    PP19-21 – The briefing identifies several factors that allegedly eroded faith in free speech. The election of Donald Trump and alleged Russian involvement is identified as one such factor. The rise of the populist Alternative fur Deutschland (Alternative for Germany) party in Germany – which the briefing falsely smears as “alt-right” – is another.
    PP26-34 – The briefing explains how “users behaving badly” undermines free speech on the internet and allows “crummy politicians to expand their influence.” The briefing bemoans that “racists, misogynists, and oppressors” are allowed a voice alongside “revolutionaries, whistleblowers, and campaigners.” It warns that users are “keener to transgress moral norms” behind the protection of anonymity.
    P37 – The briefing acknowledges that China – for which Google has developed a censored search engine – has the worst track record on internet freedom.
    P45 – After warning about the rise of online hate speech, the briefing approvingly cites Sarah Jeong, infamous for her hate speech against white males (Google is currently facing a lawsuit alleging it discriminates against white males, among other categories).
    P45 – The briefing bemoans the fact that the internet has until recently been a level playing field, warning that “rational debate is damaged when authoritative voices and ‘have a go’ commentators receive equal weighting.”
    P49 – The document accuses President Trump of spreading the “conspiracy theory” that Google autocomplete suggestions unfairly favored Hillary Clinton in 2016. (Trump’s suspicions were actually correct – independent research has shown that Google did favor Clinton in 2016).
    P53 – Free speech platform Gab is identified as a major destination for users who are dissatisfied with censorship on other platforms.
    P54 – After warning about “harassment” earlier in the document, the briefing approvingly describes a 27,000-strong left-wing social media campaign as a “digital flash mob” engaged in “friendly counter-commenting.”
    P57 – The document juxtaposes a factoid about Russian election interference with a picture of Donald Trump.
    P63 – The briefing admits that when Google, GoDaddy and CloudFlare simultaneously withdrew service from website The Daily Stormer, they were “effectively booting it off the internet,” a point also made by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the FCC in their subsequent warnings about online censorship.
    P66-68 – The briefing argues that Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are caught between two incompatible positions, the “unmediated marketplace of ideas” vs. “well-ordered spaces for safety and civility.” The first is described as a product of the “American tradition” which “prioritizes free speech for democracy, not civility.” The second is described as a product of the “European tradition,” which “favors dignity over liberty and civility over freedom.” The briefing claims that all tech platforms are now moving toward the European tradition.
    P70 – The briefing sums up the reasons for big tech’s “shift towards censorship,” including the need to respond to regulatory demands and “expand globally,” to “monetize content through its organization,” and to “protect advertisers from controversial content, [and] increase revenues.”
    P74-76 – The briefing warns that concerns about censorship from major tech platforms have spread beyond the right-wing media into the mainstream.

full documents https://www.dropbox.com/s/llxn76ntakmxp0l/the-good-censor-watermarked.pdf?dl=0 or at bottom of boomerbart article
nah im a
white wow


kornbeef

  • Unperson
  • *****
  • Posts: 607
  • Awards Metal Fan For Dixie's land we'll take our stand! The Gentry TNE Veteran Sasstronaut Boy Scout cold, dead hands Goon or Ex-Goon old United Statesian Better dead than red Scrooge
    • Awards
Re: F.A.N.G.
« Reply #137 on: October 10, 2018, 08:17:30 PM »
+8
tl;dr: censorship is cool and good because America is bad

Procrustes

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 4673
  • Awards Quieres comprar naranjas?
    • Awards
Re: F.A.N.G.
« Reply #138 on: October 11, 2018, 01:13:45 AM »
+8
Social media users are cunts.

Hugbox Kommissar

  • Domestic Threat
  • ***
  • Posts: 231
    • Awards
Re: F.A.N.G.
« Reply #139 on: October 11, 2018, 02:34:07 PM »
+21
It's *doxes right wing protestors* important *demonitizes conservative youtubers* that *cuts off online funding* we *shadowbans right wing opinions* have *promotes leftist speakers* civil *contributes funds and advisors to Democrat campaign* discussion *fires employees for wrongthink* online.

a torrent of piss

  • 5000 Posters Club
  • Grand Inquisitors
  • *
  • Posts: 7628
  • Pineapple and Ham
  • Awards You're Great...No, YOU'RE Great!
    • Awards
Re: F.A.N.G.
« Reply #140 on: October 11, 2018, 02:55:51 PM »
+8
Remember civility and safety above all else, freedom is dangerous.

Dr. Hatchet-Wound

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 2243
  • Head, Dangerous & Elective surgery Mazzoni Center
  • Awards Drinkin' and Postin' United Statesian Libertarian 420 Better dead than red Scrooge The Gentry cold, dead hands Goon or Ex-Goon old
    • Awards
Re: F.A.N.G.
« Reply #141 on: October 13, 2018, 12:39:17 AM »
+3
tl;dr: censorship is cool and good because America is bad

good text tl;dr, here's an apt little video summation: https://youtu.be/6l5JlLBd0oQ?t=199

Dr. Hatchet-Wound

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 2243
  • Head, Dangerous & Elective surgery Mazzoni Center
  • Awards Drinkin' and Postin' United Statesian Libertarian 420 Better dead than red Scrooge The Gentry cold, dead hands Goon or Ex-Goon old
    • Awards
Re: F.A.N.G.
« Reply #142 on: October 16, 2018, 09:29:35 PM »
+5
Nasim Aghdam's spirit rises tonight, PBUH

Megalodon of Mudsharks

  • Unperson
  • *****
  • Posts: 858
  • Awards Deplorables Drinkin' and Postin' The Gentry cold, dead hands old United Statesian Better dead than red Scrooge Libertarian KURWA
    • Awards
Re: F.A.N.G.
« Reply #143 on: October 16, 2018, 11:27:48 PM »
+3
Nasim Aghdam's spirit rises tonight, PBUH

Boy there's a name we haven't heard in quite a while. Wonder why?  :adam:

The Watcher

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 3882
  • Awards Wounded in the line of posting. Goon or Ex-Goon
    • Awards
Re: F.A.N.G.
« Reply #144 on: October 17, 2018, 10:49:41 AM »
+8
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/supreme-court-case-could-decide-fb-twitter-power-to-regulate-speech.html
Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could determine whether Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies can censor their users
His name was Harry Anderson