Arctic Sea Ice : Forum

Off-topic => The rest => Topic started by: Neven on March 06, 2018, 05:33:24 PM

Title: The problem of social media
Post by: Neven on March 06, 2018, 05:33:24 PM
Russiagate has many consequences. One of them is tied to social media. Besides the negative aspects of social media, like the (distracting and addictive) effect it has on people and the insidiousness of commonplace marketing, it seems that more and more social media are used for astroturfing and foreign meddling in elections.

One of the outcomes is that social media have started censuring the content on their platforms. Which is slippery at best, and slippery on a slope at worst, as the definitions of what is propaganda and what not are malleable and open to abuse.

Is it possible to solve these problems? And if so, how?
Title: Re: Russiagate and the problem of social media
Post by: Neven on March 13, 2018, 12:47:49 PM
Would a solution be to prohibit anonymity on social media? No more nick names or pseudonyms, etc, only real names. Or pseudonyms, but showing the real names when clicking on them or some such.

Would that work? What would be the cons?
Title: Re: Russiagate and the problem of social media
Post by: greylib on March 13, 2018, 01:19:02 PM
Wouldn't it be possible to display where a news-item comment comes from?

I'm sure the experts would be able to fake a US IP address rather than the real Kazakh one, but would they be able to fake a separate address for each worker in the troll factory?
Title: Re: Russiagate and the problem of social media
Post by: TerryM on March 14, 2018, 04:51:35 AM
Would a solution be to prohibit anonymity on social media? No more nick names or pseudonyms, etc, only real names. Or pseudonyms, but showing the real names when clicking on them or some such.

Would that work? What would be the cons?


Would limiting each IP address to a single name or pseudonym help? - perhaps with exceptions for libraries?
Terry
Title: Re: Russiagate and the problem of social media
Post by: Neven on March 14, 2018, 11:56:25 AM
Something along those lines, Terry. Trolling depends almost entirely on anonymity.

This is probably impossible, but a not-for-profit version of social media, where there's no advertising and people can only post under their real names (paying a small fee), could be a step in the right direction.

Anyway, I don't know anything about this subject. I'm sure smarter people with more skills and experience have thought it through.
Title: Re: Russiagate and the problem of social media
Post by: Pmt111500 on March 14, 2018, 12:15:39 PM
I've got like... Umm... Some 7? Pseudonyms in use for generally one site each. I disappointedly noticed some providers of discussion forums do not allow changing the pseudonym according the site. Thus have mostly stopped posting comments in at least four sites. I don't have any suggestions to this.
Title: Re: Russiagate and the problem of social media
Post by: TerryM on March 15, 2018, 12:45:20 AM
I've got like... Umm... Some 7? Pseudonyms in use for generally one site each. I disappointedly noticed some providers of discussion forums do not allow changing the pseudonym according the site. Thus have mostly stopped posting comments in at least four sites. I don't have any suggestions to this.


Not necessarily a criticism, but why the need for all of the different names?
Terry
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Pmt111500 on March 15, 2018, 03:24:07 AM
After choosing a fantasy name on a fantasy forum it felt pretty natural to choose a separate nick for many sites. Yours, <part7ofafusedmutatedtownsmonster>, who occasionally writes his own blog by a differtent nick. Should check what my AOOO-nick was, coming up with an idea of a story of an internet user in a fascist Confederate state.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: TerryM on March 15, 2018, 04:38:44 AM
The only time I changed user names was when I lost the password for the old one after a computer glitch.  :-[


It's nice to be recognised when posting in other venues. People will often welcome you and introduce you to the regulars.


I appreciate a modicum of anonymity if only to protect those who share a name, but not viewpoints. There is an American Mensan with a large internet presence, and a right-wing attitude, who shares my name. My friends know it's not me because of our political differences, but I wonder what casual acquaintances might think.


Terry

Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Pmt111500 on March 15, 2018, 05:05:31 AM
anyway most the forum hosts know the email-address and I.P. at least, so full anonymity in net requires quite a bit more than just a change of nick. I think the easiest way to get a near anonymity is to buy a used smartphone, find an open wifi, connect through it to a select I.P. scrambler (or what the dark web connection was called, anonymity servers?), create a webmail-account while using the I.P. provided, and use it to login to regular net. So difficult and laborious usually only government paid spies and trolls bother doing. Thus they have something to hide and are automatically suspect, by some logic. On the other hand someone might actually need full anonymity.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: TerryM on March 15, 2018, 06:05:38 AM
I'd wanted to converse with someone who was in hot water here in Canada because of his publication of some Arctic studies he'd carried out in Canadian waters.
A longtime member informed me that it was by then illegal to encrypt a message so that the government couldn't break the code. I backed away.


The recent arrest of a person for altering and selling untraceable, unhackable blackberries has cooled my interest in the matter.


Terry
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Pmt111500 on March 15, 2018, 06:18:43 AM
Yep, the encryption stuff in legislation is really odd and scary. I don't know if you still have the one-time code I sent you by snail mail, but Dkkor 2obgg &ejka #6lsq ;-)ya ¡Гwee, and now we're both suspect in the eyes of a couple of intelligence services. LoL. Better not teach children to encrypt anything, else the bad FBI might come knocking. :D
PMT.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Neven on March 15, 2018, 08:32:14 AM
There is an American Mensan with a large internet presence, and a right-wing attitude, who shares my name.

There's a problem right there: People sharing the same name.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Neven on March 16, 2018, 10:53:22 PM
TYT weigh in on the problem, towards the end of the segment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY9VzzZ9bvI
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Archimid on March 17, 2018, 02:35:04 AM
I think the problem of social media and the web at large is that not enough people use it and not enough people understand how powerful it can be. Most people think it is just entertainment, apart from real life. That is understandable. This is totally new to the human species.

With the internet we have the capacity to transfer thoughts codified in letters to anyone one in the world instantly. We have the capacity to reach thousand of people with a few well placed clicks. The internet, and social media is free speech on steroids.

Words are important. The right words can change other people's lives. That was true  even back when we wrote on stones. Today, when we can transfer words at the speed of light, words are more important than ever.

In the 20th century the power of the word was confined to radio, TV and press. TV is a one directional medium. It beams thoughts encoded into words and images into the minds of the audience. Very powerful stuff. Press and radio are also mostly one directional but correspondence and the telephone allowed a bit of back and forward. If information is power, then power concentrates on those who can best transfer information.

Social media and the web changed the balance of power. Now we have a way for the common man to transfer their words across the world for a ridiculous cost. This is an extreme power to the people, but it can (and it is) be exploited for nefarious purposes.

The solution is that people need to talk. People need to let their opinion heard, even if their spelling is not good or the opinion is crap. The voices of the people must be louder than the voices of propagandists, and it can be. All they need to do is just dare to speak.

Comments matter. Posts on Twitter and Facebook matter. Sharing links matter. A post on the ASIF matters. Even if it is just 1 person that hear your thoughts, it matters.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: TerryM on March 17, 2018, 03:13:22 AM
Ramen Archimid


Another huge benefit the internet offers is the democratization of knowledge. 
In the late '80's I became interested in Ancient Sumerian nautical ship design. I was living in a reasonably large city with a university, yet as far as I knew no one shared my curiosity.
I search used book stores and eventually acquired a reasonable library on the subject. I began a multi-year project of building a timeline documenting the architecture, culture, trade routes and of course what little was known of the ships themselves.
In the early 90's using list servers I was contacting world leaders in the field. Thor Heyerdahl was excited by my work and wanted me to meet him in Washington state! Heady days indeed.


I'd recently married and didn't feel comfortable making such a long drive towing my model, and the expenses this would have entailed, so I never met Thor face to face.


10 years later I could go to Wikipedia, do an afternoon of searching, and have access to far more data than I'd managed to accumulate in those many years. In minutes I can be in contact with hundreds of others who share my curiosity.


The internet has been the most wonderful thing that man has ever invented. If it's attacked, or restricted we've got to put up one hell of a fight to keep it. Net neutrality, no censorship. no blockage. We can sort the wheat from the chaff by ourselves.


Terry
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Brigantine on March 17, 2018, 04:42:29 AM
The first step in finding a solution, is properly specifying the problem.

But I'm having a hard time putting my finger on what, *specifically* the problem is. I sense intuitively that it's a big, nefarious problem, but...

Large budget co-ordinated advertising is ok. Coca-Cola anyone?
Political advertising is ok. Billions of dollars spent in US elections, and that's above board.
Overseas political advertising is considered ok in the west - though I remember India for example was cracking down on Greenpeace etc. a while back.
(though political campaigns accepting money from overseas is generally not allowed).
Stealth / native advertising is considered rude but not really more than that.

Does it make a difference if it's co-ordinated by a government vs by an NGO, if the result is the same? Usually the worst type of propaganda is when it's your own government doing it - though mainly when individual free speech is limited as well.

The only other thing I can think of that feels in the same category as Russiagate - in terms of intuitively being a big problem - is tobacco advertising. Logically though, I can't think of what they have in common.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Neven on March 17, 2018, 10:00:55 AM
What they have in common, is maintaining the status quo and maximizing profits.

I agree with everything everyone said in the comments above, but just like with markets and sports, the Internet needs to be free, but bound by a set of rules. One of these rules seems to be some sort of transparency. Or maybe we need to make a distinction between Internet and social media. Transparency on social media has become a critical issue. Advertising in itself is nefarious enough, but when astroturfing is amplified through non-existent voices, society and democracy are faced with a very big problem.

The problem is also that people are addicted to social media and thus take it far too seriously.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: P-maker on March 17, 2018, 11:56:34 AM
Neven (as quoted from another thread):
Quote
I've already solved it for myself: I don't use social media.”

But, but, but this blog and the forum is the essence of social media! I already commended you for your clever use of tweets and other stuff on the ASIB the other week. I’m following a course on SoMe these days, and many will envy you your presence in virtual social media and the engagement you create through these activities.

Condemning social media means excluding 90 percent of the population, which are on Facebook in this country. It is either ignorant or elitist, but hardly a clever way forward.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: idunno on March 17, 2018, 09:19:03 PM
This and associated other articles in the Observer lifts the lid on how Cambridge Analytica/Mercer/Bannon used Facebook data of dubious legal provenance to unleash psychological warfare on the US electorate in 2016...

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/data-war-whistleblower-christopher-wylie-faceook-nix-bannon-trump
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Archimid on March 24, 2018, 02:01:45 AM
After the hurricane, Facebook was my best source for local news and the best way for me to know about people. Facebook, like social media (forums included) are a powerful democratic tool. It gives everyone a voice that can be heard.

I think this whole campaign against facebook will only serve to remove voices from the collective echo chamber.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: wili on March 24, 2018, 02:43:39 AM
The problem is that some of the 'echos' in the echo chamber are AI controlled bots, honing their skills at individual manipulation 24/7.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Archimid on March 24, 2018, 03:07:31 AM
I do believe that type of AI exists already. It should, the technology seems to be there.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Stephen on April 04, 2018, 07:10:04 AM
Carl Sagan seems to have predicted it all, especially that last highlighted sentence, "...a kind of celebration of ignorance"

(https://i.imgur.com/yYmPpsI.png)
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Neven on April 07, 2018, 11:47:31 PM
I don't know if YouTube qualifies as social media, but it's going down the drain (I also constantly get recommended videos from corporate media news sources that I hardly ever watch or want to watch):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbL-Y_JHDkU
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: TerryM on April 08, 2018, 12:23:47 AM
Neven


You first made me aware of Jimmy Dore. In the light of what has been going on over at U-Tube may I ask that you promote his shows more aggressively?
I've never watched a show of his that I didn't get something out of.


Thanks
Terry
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Iceismylife on April 08, 2018, 01:43:04 AM
I don't know if YouTube qualifies as social media, but it's going down the drain (I also constantly get recommended videos from corporate media news sources that I hardly ever watch or want to watch):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbL-Y_JHDkU
I've got an idea about how to "fix" this, and make some money tooo!!!!!! Wana talk?
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: sidd on April 27, 2018, 07:55:19 PM
Rob Pike (yes, the Unix luminary among many other things) has some posts about withdrawal from social media. I really like Pike's writing, and am greatly indebted to him.

"A sort of voyeuristic panopticon that exploits our weakness for variable reward and pushes us to participate in a strange sort of corporate surveillance that is ever consuming in our lives."

https://nomasters.io/posts/nonparticipation/

"
    You keep using your phone after it’s no longer needed to solve a problem.
    You spend more and more of your time on your phone to get the same effects
    You feel strange when you don’t have your phone.
    You can’t stop yourself from using your phone, even if you don’t want to.
    You have a hard time giving yourself limits. You might say you’ll only use “so much” but then can’t stop and end up using twice that amount. Or you use it more often than you meant to.
    You’ve begun having trouble doing normal daily things without your phone.
    You drive or do other dangerous things (like use heavy machines) while you are on your phone.
    You borrow money to pay for your phone.
    You hide some phone use or the effect it is having on you from others."

https://nomasters.io/posts/dumber-phone/

sidd
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Neven on April 27, 2018, 09:09:57 PM
It's not a phone. It's a computer.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: sidd on April 27, 2018, 09:34:02 PM
From the man responsible for C++

“I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my phone” -- Bjarne Stroustrup.

sidd

Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Hefaistos on April 27, 2018, 10:07:55 PM
Censorship by big social media platforms is now becoming a real issue.

While reading an article in the Guardian, I was trying to search for some reference with Google, it was a name of a person related to the war in Syria.
I thought the search results looked odd, because they didn't show what was written in the article. So I tried a 'clean' search engine, DuckDuckGo, and I got the correct results.

So, now I have dumped Google. I don't want my search engine to censor my information.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Hefaistos on April 27, 2018, 10:16:06 PM

Facebook shadow censorship hits Craig Murray.
"I am among those who argue that the strength of the state and corporate media is being increasingly and happily undermined by our ability to communicate via social media. But social media has developed in such a way that the channels of communication are dominated by corporations – Facebook, Twitter and Google – which can in effect turn off the traffic to a citizen journalism site in a second. The site is not taken down, and the determined person can still navigate directly to it, but the vast bulk of the traffic is cut off. What is more this is done secretly, without your being informed, and in a manner deliberately hard to detect."

Awful.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/04/blocked-by-facebook-and-the-vulnerability-of-new-media/
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: sidd on April 27, 2018, 10:27:41 PM
Apart from their panopticon tracting, Google has been gaming results for a long time.  About a decade or more ago, I noticed that pages which i knew existed had disappeared from their exhibited results. I quit dealing with them, except thru cutouts even before then.

duckduckgo,ixquick are alternatives, but i would not trust that their private keys are no compromised, and not only by state level actors. So i assume that my searches are known and might be scrutinized, no matter which engine i use. One defence is a personally controlled VPN or Tor, your searches may be seen but you remain anonymous as long as you are sufficiently careful.

And for a long time i have been caching copies of web resources on storage media under my control. As we see again with the recent wayback machine/Reid case, you cannot count on web resources remaining publicly available, even on archival sites. I was fortunate since i have always had access to copious storage resources, but these days a few terabyte USB drive is not so expensive.

After one has assembled a large enuf corpus, search and indexing becomes more difficult. I used to use a combination of opensource codes for that, these days i run Solr/Lucene from the Apache Foundation.

sidd
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: TerryM on April 28, 2018, 12:54:23 AM
Hefaistos
I'll switch to duckduckgo as soon as I post this.
Thanks


sidd
A sight much larger than this one was stripped from the internet and the archives were destroyed a few years ago. A notice was given but everyone assumed that archived copies would remain. Oh well.
We knew we were visiting a honey pot site for all the spooks out there, but no one expected everything to have been virtually sent to a crusher and melted down. When I first began lurking there were an excess of 9,000 pages of data & it was a full time job just keeping up with all of the new entries.
I wouldn't have had the courage to cash that site, and apparently no one else did either.


Yandex is a Russian search engine and apparently you can shield whatever you are doing from our spooks at least.  ::)
Terry
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Neven on August 30, 2018, 11:17:35 PM
The problem with social media is getting progressively worse (for left-leaning people and alternative media):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1glTX3c8ttY
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Neven on December 20, 2018, 10:32:12 PM
I still think some way needs to be found to prevent social media abuse by people/organisations with bad intentions, but don't know how. This non-existing propaganda used as counter-propaganda stuff is simply insane:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dfNkaozUus
Title: Re: Russiagate and the problem of social media
Post by: etienne on December 20, 2018, 11:02:36 PM
Would a solution be to prohibit anonymity on social media? No more nick names or pseudonyms, etc, only real names. Or pseudonyms, but showing the real names when clicking on them or some such.

Would that work? What would be the cons?
One of the problems of internet is that all what is written might be found back later. I remember writing a stupid comment in a forum around 1996 or 1997, and for many years after, when I was searching myself on Google, I found that comment. So anonymity is interesting when you discuss subjects that you don't really know and where you might say things that are really wrong or stupid.

This is also an argument against full transparency in parliamentary commissions and other political circles: if everything is open and public, if anything they say can be published, politicians might not say anything that is not fully controlled and this might increase the difficutly to find good deals.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Red on December 23, 2018, 07:08:17 PM
It occurred to me while reading the link below that if the population at large wanted to cause a multi-national corporation like facebook to commit suicide, all that has to be done is post links and stories about anti establishment crap and get them to ban you. At some point they will ban themselves out of business. Lets take this thought a little bit further. If these internet companies are going to work for the elites and warmongers of the world then maybe the way to stop this foolishness is to cause their rush to suck up to the ultra rich is to play their game back at them. Everybody who has twitter and facebook accounts that think this censorship is too Orwellian than get banned on purpose. Can you go without your crackbook or whatever for a couple of weeks? This censorship could be stopped  in that short of a time with enough participation. Take away their meal ticket and you will affect some change very swiftly I would think. I wouldn't think it wouldn't be too hard to change this course with the right people organizing it. If they lose enough accounts fast enough advertisers are going to run. Its algorithms that are doing the banning so by the time a human sees this problem they may well be already in dire straits.

https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=59592&utm_source=samizdat&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=free

Texas congressman Louie Gohmert has introduced a bill to remove social media companies' "special legal protections" if they behave like biased publishers rather than neutral platforms.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Red on December 24, 2018, 06:26:09 PM

Dear Minds,
Over the past few years, countless businesses and individuals have experienced a pattern of unethical and anti-competitive practices from Google, Facebook and other closed-source networks. These unfair practices, that we know of, include excessive surveillance, data mining, algorithm manipulation, subjective bans, inconsistent enforcement of terms and even complete de-platforming.
In response, Minds is suspending our support of all Google and Facebook products until the above mentioned items are resolved. Centralized payment platforms like Stripe (which powers Patreon) and PayPal have also been removed from our monetization systems and we are working tirelessly to evolve the Minds token into a true solution for creators. The beauty of the blockchain is that it cannot be censored.
For Android users, our mobile app can now be downloaded here: https://minds.com/mobile (also located in our footer under "Android").
A free and open Internet is our goal, and we urge others to join us. Privacy focused alternatives such as DuckDuckGo, Brave, Minds and many others are emerging and gaining momentum with this strategy. Let’s boycott Google, Facebook and other networks’ manipulative business models relying on proprietary software, censorship, surveillance and unfair monopolistic business practices. The movement to #DeleteFacebook and #BanGoogle is already underway (recently featured on Redacted Tonight and CNET). The platforms we give our energy to will become the future of the web.
Minds is prepared to take any and all steps necessary to protect your digital rights. We are powered by freedom -- the most powerful idea in human history. So we ask for your continued support in the ongoing fight for a free and open Internet by staying active on Minds and inviting your friends to join.
Sincerely,
The Minds Team


https://www.minds.com/blog/view/920414642387533824
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: etienne on December 25, 2018, 10:40:32 PM
I feel that I don’t really understand why people are on social medias like facebook. I checked the Minds page, looks good, but it really doesn’t interest me. I’m happy with the forum, I have a web page if I want to publish something, I can make comments on other people’s blogs, I have linkedin to stay in touch with ex-work colleges… I really don’t see why I would want more, but much more is possible without going on facebook type of application (blogs…). If I have something to say, I can always write an e-mail or make a phone call. I really don’t like the concept of publishing all the time what I do and think, I like to have some private space around my life, it’s also why you won’t find a picture of me if you google my name. I have also always refused to have a smart phone because I think that if something is important, people can call or make an SMS (just for fun, I designed this T-shirt that I never ordered https://schrondweiler.teemill.com/product/smarter-than-my-phone/). For professional reasons, I believe that I won’t be able to go much longer with just my old Nokia, but a tablet without SIM, with just WIFI as link to the Internet might be enough. During the last months, I have regularely borrowed a smart phone for a few hours, mainly for the camera feature and to check systems connected to the Internet. I also have been borrowing the kids tablets, but now that they grow older, they don't want that anymore.
Seeing what the kids do on social medias, I feel that it is mainly a waste of time. The old landlined telephone system would probably be more efficient for what they do. When they organize something, it always ends with a phone call to finalize the partical details. Looks more like playing a game than like a media to communicate.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Neven on February 27, 2019, 09:59:33 AM
I still think that prohibiting anonymity on social media platforms would solve a lot of problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvnbVfFDK6k
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: b_lumenkraft on February 27, 2019, 11:32:11 AM
I still think de-privatising of social media platforms would solve a lot of problems.

And since we are on it, i would even go broader:

I really think de-privatising media would solve a lot of problems.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: SteveMDFP on February 27, 2019, 11:35:58 AM
I still think de-privatising of social media platforms would solve a lot of problems.

And since we are on it, i would even go broader:

I really think de-privatising media would solve a lot of problems.

What would "de-privatising" look like?  Government ownership and control?  Seems to me the world has had problems with that model, too.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: b_lumenkraft on February 27, 2019, 11:54:14 AM
Steve,

that's a good question. I think every nation needs to find out for themselves.

Personally, i like the German model. Every household pays on monthly basis an institution (GEZ) which is decoupled from the government but is a public entity acting within the boundary of strong regulations.

No one should be able to make money off of invading other peoples privacy but this is actually the situation we are in today.

I'm open to any constructive idea that would stop this malicious and manipulative business model. In general, i'm a big fan of free markets. But some things cannot be playthings of markets. Any kind of infrastructure falls into this category imho.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: SteveMDFP on February 27, 2019, 12:01:52 PM
Steve,

that's a good question. I think every nation needs to find out for themselves.

Personally, i like the German model. Every household pays on monthly basis an institution (GEZ) which is decoupled from the government but is a public entity acting within the boundary of strong regulations.

No one should be able to make money off of invading other peoples privacy but this is actually the situation we are in today.

I'm open to any constructive idea that would stop this malicious and manipulative business model. In general, i'm a big fan of free markets. But some things cannot be playthings of markets. Any kind of infrastructure falls into this category imho.

Good response!  I'm not familiar with GEZ, but it sounds similar to the BBC funding model.  Publicly-funded, but by a formula that shields the programming from the shifting winds of any individual government. 

Perhaps independent media should be required to be non-profit entities?  That might also work.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: b_lumenkraft on February 27, 2019, 12:14:24 PM
Yes, i think you can somehow compare it to the BBC.

The non-profit model might work for the US better since they hate socialism so much.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Martin Gisser on February 28, 2019, 11:42:14 PM
<snip, off-topic and pretty silly for someone with such a big brain; N.>
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Neven on March 01, 2019, 09:41:48 AM
Re: " I maintain that ending anonymity on the Internet, would reduce a lot of the hate."

It might. But it will also take away a shield that some need.

The net is built on numerical addresses, not identities. If you want to mandate that all addresses must be associated with identifiable identities, you already got that, look up or subpoena the billing identity for that address.

But i think you want more that that, you want everyone with access to that originating address to be associated with an identifiable entity. You will find most of them are corporations. They sell access to joe blow from anytown, idaho to spout anything he wants. They harvest his data, know his hat size, look into his soul. You want the corporations to disclose his identity to all.

Good luck with that. But lets say you do force disclosure. Immediately, there will be hidden networks and  black market in identities. Gee, in fact, there already is ...

Now if you want to stop hidden networks, thats impossible. There is a theorem about steganography being fundamentally impossible to detect, one man's noise is another man's signal. That applies in spades to internet traffic. The earliest example on the internet that i recall was in message passing through tailored nameservice requests in the early nineties, but there are a myriad of other examples since.

Given sufficiently draconian law and enforcement, you could probably id all but a few percent of the users. NSA is already doin it, so is goofacetwit.

My position remains unchanged, I will not participate in a forum that forbids anonymity. Not because i am naive enuf to imagine that the identity associated with the user "sidd" on this forum is very hidden; in fact i think that anyone with half an hour on his hands could easily find my fone number and a street address. Rather because i cannot abide by the privacy violation of forcing identity disclosure.

sidd

I agree that it is practically impossible because corporations make huge profits off this diseased system. Still, it would help if on places like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter that reach the largest amount of people, it would be impossible to use pseudonyms, set up fake accounts or do Cambridge Analytica-style stuff.

As for the dark nets, how many people actually use those? I'm not completely useless with computers, but I've never considered delving into that stuff because of all the work it entails. 90% of the population are useless with computers or simply not interested.

Of course, there's the perhaps more interesting discussion of freedom vs censorship as well. If you could completely end anonymity, not only on the big social media channels, but on all of the Internet, would that morally be the right thing to do?
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: oren on March 01, 2019, 01:20:13 PM
I agree that it is practically impossible because corporations make huge profits off this diseased system. Still, it would help if on places like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter that reach the largest amount of people, it would be impossible to use pseudonyms, set up fake accounts or do Cambridge Analytica-style stuff.

As for the dark nets, how many people actually use those? I'm not completely useless with computers, but I've never considered delving into that stuff because of all the work it entails. 90% of the population are useless with computers or simply not interested.

Of course, there's the perhaps more interesting discussion of freedom vs censorship as well. If you could completely end anonymity, not only on the big social media channels, but on all of the Internet, would that morally be the right thing to do?
Oh dear. Obviously you are living in a (currently) civilized society.
When discussions (political or otherwise) turn threatening or violent, ending anonymity is a wonderful way to shut one side up and hand a major win to the bad guys. I know from experience, as for years I have shut up on political matters except thanks for the blessed anonymity of the Internet, or among close friends whom I know are of like mind.
You should see what terrible stuff people here write on Facebook under their real name. It is very similar to the same terrible things written in anonymous comments. Then you'll realize that removing anonymity will not prevent these brainwashed people from doing so, but will prevent the other side from responding (even weakly).
I personally think the problem of social media, and current life in general, is the lack of a moderator. All those lies on YouTube should be marked as lies, or even removed completely. All those fake news on Facebook should be filtered or removed. But we are living in a post-truth world, and I am not aware of a quick solution to the problem.
It used to be that knowing the truth (/science/knowledge) advanced you in life, either personally or through advancing the society you were part of. Thus evolution was on the side of truth. In post-modern society these advantages are too weak, and one can go on happily being ignorant and act in ways that cause long-term damage. The same applies for societies and whole countries, even the whole civilization. This state will not last forever, as evolution has a way to reassert itself over the long term. But of course, in the long term we will all be dead.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: sidd on March 01, 2019, 10:16:48 PM
Re: how many on darknets ?

very few. At any given time there are a million or two machines on the Tor network. How many humans behind them ? dunno, but the fraction is probably less than 1% of all internet users.

The other darknets like I2P are much smaller than Tor. But remember there are huge darknets in the internal networks of large organizations inaccessible (without some effort) from the open net. And then there are private darknets run by actors who think it important not to be tracked but do not connect to Tor or the like. I run one myself, essentially just a series of encrypted tunnels with roughly constant traffic flow to evade traffic analysis. There are typically less than a dozen users, all personally known to me.

sidd
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: magnamentis on March 02, 2019, 12:51:07 AM
When discussions (political or otherwise) turn threatening or violent, ending anonymity is a wonderful way to shut one side up and hand a major win to the bad guys.

exactly what i thought while reading, just don't have the skills to reply short like you do LOL

about 18 years ago i wrote and article online about a U.S. President to be a moron and it cost me dearly (at least they thought it would while not really LOL)

further one just would have to imagine what the Nazi's would have had for advantage if they only had to sift through everyone's old post from a time when none of them was suspicious about what's coming?

it could well have changed things to the even worse.

etc. etc.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: oren on March 04, 2019, 10:28:56 AM
I normally avoid posting on hopeless matters, so this one is a rarity for me.

The US Political system and it's subservient Media is overflowing with Dual Loyalists who have repeatedly placed the interests of Israel the country, it's Economic Interests, and it's Israeli Governments far ahead of the Interests of the American people and the USA.

Which has repeatedly constantly operated above International Law, The United Nations consensus, and against Human Rights Law. It's a very very long list of Israeli Apologists infesting the BAU MIC Neocon Neoliberal empire building system of the USA.
I tend to agree. Just don't confuse the interests of the Israeli people with the interest of the Israeli government. The people are torn in half between racist/religious/brainwashed "right wing" and liberal/free thinking "left wing" with large minorities of Arab-Israelis and Orthodox Jews (I am very much simplifying matters of course), with the government constantly fanning hatred between any and all political and religious groups. The government's (=Netanyahu's) interest of course is to rule forever and avoid criminal prosecution at all costs.
The Occupation should have been ended a long time ago, and the more it continues the more fascist the country is becoming.

The Social Media Meme goes like this: Pro-Palestinian = Anti-Semitic
That's called a Non-Sequitur = it does not follow.
It's false. Another everyday example of Fake News.
I agree.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: ASILurker on March 08, 2019, 09:18:27 AM
 Corporations have created a new kind of marketplace out of our private human experiences. That is the conclusion of an explosive new book that argues big tech platforms like Facebook and Google are elephant poachers, and our personal data is ivory tusks.

Author Shoshana Zuboff writes in “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power”: “At its core, surveillance capitalism is parasitic and self-referential. It revives Karl Marx’s old image of capitalism as a vampire that feeds on labor, but with an unexpected turn. Instead of labor, surveillance capitalism feeds on every aspect of every human’s experience.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo6K-bPh39M
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: ASILurker on March 08, 2019, 10:06:16 AM
Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyQyZgqiokE
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: ASILurker on March 08, 2019, 11:25:21 AM
Quote
Facebook deliberately broke privacy and competition law and should urgently be subject to statutory regulation, according to a devastating parliamentary report denouncing the company and its executives as “digital gangsters”.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/18/facebook-fake-news-investigation-report-regulation-privacy-law-dcms

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/18/a-digital-gangster-destroying-democracy-the-damning-verdict-on-facebook

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8449366/facebook-digital-gangster-broke-law-mark-zuckerberg-fake-news/

https://www.businessinsider.sg/facebook-like-digital-gangsters-damian-collins-2019-2/?r=US&IR=T

Thank You America!

18 February 2019
UK Parliament - Disinformation and ‘fake news’: Final Report published 
The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee has published its final report on Disinformation and ‘fake news’.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/digital-culture-media-and-sport-committee/news/fake-news-report-published-17-19/

Quote from #1 video - prepare to be educated better:

Quote
04:52
The key thing that I want our viewers to know is that surveillance capitalism doesn't stop at Facebook and right now it's a hugely positive development that we are looking at Facebook with this kind of scrutiny and perhaps moving to finally regulate this corporation -- but that is the beginning not the end of our challenge

Surveillance Capitalism is an economic logic that includes but moves far beyond Facebook at this point in time and so we are going to need the social response that addresses interrupts and outlaws this new economic logic not just a single company or not just a couple of companies

You write "a global architecture of behavior modification threatens human nature in the 21st century" explain.

All right well once you understand that surveillance capitalism is an economic logic it is not the same as technology this is one of the big lies that has been perpetrated that the these methodologies are the only way that digital technology can work that there's an inevitable-ist propaganda that has been fed to us so we need to pull these issues apart --

Ee have digital technology which we believed would be emancipatory empowering democratizing and it still can be -- in the last 20 years it has been overtaken hijacked by an economic logic whose economic imperatives put it on a collision course with democracy both from below and from above.

One of the things that surveillance capitalists learned is that the most powerful predictions of human behavior come from actually intervening in our behavior - touching our behavior to nudge to influence to tune to herd our behavior toward its commercial outcomes.

And what this has done is made them take hold of the digital media -- all of the devices beginning with our phones and our laptops but the sensors the facial recognition the smart dishwasher the smart television set the Smart TESLA car the Smart City all of this digital infrastructure now has been taken by surveillance capitalism as a way to nudge and tune and herd our behavior toward it's guaranteed outcomes.

It does this with subliminal cues it's a highly scientific process it does this in ways that it brags about are always outside of our awareness so that we have no right of combat we cannot resist we cannot say no and we cannot exit so this is what I call a global means of behavioural modification

We are essentially this great digital architecture that we've built in order to be an emancipatory and life-giving process for us and help us in our lives has now become commandeered by surveillance capitalism as a means to modify our behavior toward its commercial ends which is a direct assault on human autonomy.

A direct
assault on our decision rights a direct assault on the whole notion of individual sovereignty.

Back in the 1970s there was a US Senate committee that included people like Edward Kennedy and Sam Ervin these folks met for many months and they decided that behavioral modification was a pernicious action that it was a complete defiance of democratic principles and they decided that no federal money would fund any kind of program based on behavioral modification in prisons in schools and hospitals

Today the year 2019 we've just spent the last two decades whereas democracy slept the private sector under the aegis of surveillance capitalism has been able to command the digital to create literally ubiquitous means in behavioral modification without anybody saying no and without most of us even noticing or understanding what has occurred."

[end quotes]


Note: This should not come as any great surprise. This is not new news to me. That the UK report found what it found and said what it said is a surprise. The release of the new book by a "traditionalist" Institution with 7 years of research was able top be published in this way is also a surprise - but the contents aren't. The findings aren't. The urgent warnings are not a surprise.

That they are being sounded at all is a surprise so publicly - coming as it is from a Government Parliamentary Committee is very surprising - even for the UK. It would NEVER have come out of the US Congress that is for certain.

If something actually happens about this internationally I will possibly drop dead in shock though. But it is a start. It's a feint hope.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: ASILurker on March 09, 2019, 04:25:34 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJwf6oLvc2Q
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: ASILurker on March 09, 2019, 05:39:40 AM
The Intercept
Streamed live on 1 Mar 2019
Join The Intercept’s senior correspondent Naomi Klein and Harvard Business School professor Shoshana Zuboff, author of “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power,” for an engaging discussion about the unprecedented form of power called “surveillance capitalism” and the quest by corporations to predict and control our behavior.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s4Y-uZG5zk
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: b_lumenkraft on April 01, 2019, 11:40:51 AM
Manipulating the YouTube Algorithm - (Part 1/3)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PGm8LslEb4
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: mabarnes on April 10, 2019, 11:23:54 AM
It's old news of course, but at least someone in the US is talking about it this way once in a while.

The Final Battle in Big Tech’s War to Dominate Your World
Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Google are fighting for unbroken control of American life.
By David Dayen
April 9, 2019

Bellum omnium contra omnes is Latin for “the war of all against all.” Enlightenment thinkers like Thomas Hobbes used the phrase to describe the natural state of man in the absence of governmental authority. It’s also an accurate description of the U.S. economy right now, as some of its biggest corporations are left to their own devices.

Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google
are waging a war of all against all—a war for all of your time, all of your money, all of your worldly interactions and desires. They want to be your one indispensable partner for navigating life, and to get there, they must destroy one another.

If the government doesn’t step in, the American public will become collateral damage.

https://newrepublic.com/article/153515/final-battle-big-techs-war-dominate-world

The public are already the collateral damage.

I wholeheartedly agree, and hope everyone will focus on a simple solution:  Recognition of PRIVACY as a Civil Right, not to be violated without consent.  Meaning you OWN your personal information - content of posts, emails, etc, your location, and so on - outright, placing it into a legal regime similar to copyright - not to be violated without PER USE permission. 

One click on an 8000 word User Agreement would then not suffice to track your one's every move, log one's every click and post, and sell that information on to advertisers.  If they want to do that, fine - cut me in on the revenue?  At the very least, ask for permission.

How radical, eh.  Defining PROPERTY RIGHTS as a solution.  Cheers.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: ASILurker on April 25, 2019, 05:02:33 AM
Facebook expects record $5 BILLION fine from FTC over privacy violations
Published time: 25 Apr, 2019

Facebook has told investors it's probably on the hook for up to $5 billion in fines – a record-high penalty for a tech company in the US – as a Federal Trade Commission probe continues into its violations of users' privacy.

The FTC is investigating Facebook on charges it repeatedly and catastrophically failed to safeguard users' data, from allowing Cambridge Analytica to scrape 85 million users' information [ No, that wasn't the RUSSIANS - that was AMERICANS manipulating social media during the 2016 Campaign ] to permitting corporations like Microsoft and Netflix to access users' messages and other personal info as part of secret data sharing partnerships.

Investigators have reportedly found plentiful evidence that Facebook violated a 2011 FTC agreement requiring it to get permission from users before sharing their data with third parties – and to notify the FTC when third parties have misused this data.

While $5 billion may not seem like much next to the $15.1 billion in revenue Facebook has reported for the first quarter of 2019.............
https://www.rt.com/usa/457469-facebook-expects-billions-fine-ftc/


"I believe we need a more active role for governments and regulators," he wrote. "By updating the rules for the Internet, we can preserve what's best about it - the freedom for people to express themselves and for entrepreneurs to build new things - while also protecting society from broader harms."

Zuckerberg's missive was the most comprehensive the Facebook CEO has ever been on the issue of government regulation. His call comes as US federal prosecutors are reportedly probing Facebook's data sharing deals with a number of large technology companies. The US Federal Trade Commission is said to be in talks with Facebook over a possible record fine. And European officials continue to scrutinize the company.

Facebook was roundly condemned this month when it failed to stop a live stream by the suspect in the New Zealand terrorist attack that killed 50 people.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/30/tech/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-regulation/

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/01/facebook-ceo-zuckerbergs-call-for-gdpr-privacy-laws-raises-questions.html
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: ASILurker on May 12, 2019, 06:48:18 AM
Josh Hawley is the junior United States Senator from Missouri.
This essay was originally delivered as a speech at the Hoover Institution on May 2, 2019.


The Big Tech Threat
by Josh Hawley
5 . 9 . 19

Social media is challenging for us to grapple with because it presents so many novel problems, and none of them seem to have easy answers.

How do we preserve online data privacy for those using products whose very purpose is hyper-personalized service? How is it possible for big tech platforms to keep the digital public square pruned and free of criminal activity or other vices—without inserting their own political or content biases? What does competition even look like in this space? That is a really tough question. After all, the supposed value of this space for consumers is a kind of integration—an integration of various services and various platforms, various lines of business all in place.

These are largely the questions of the day on Capitol Hill. I have my views on each of them. They are rightly the subject of serious debate, and I hope that debate will continue and grow.

But I want to suggest to you today that all of those questions are downstream of a larger one, a bigger question which I think we ought to be devoting more time to as a society and which I want to talk with you about briefly. It is the question of the worth of these social media platforms and the social media business model. What is its actual worth to the American economy and to American society?

One of the most difficult things about acting in this area is the fear that any significant change in this space, any significant adjustment to the rules of the road—whether it be privacy requirements or content requirements—might end up stifling Silicon Valley, which we are told is the great crown jewel of the American economy. But is it? It is heresy to say that here, with Stanford University over my shoulder, but is Silicon Valley—the platforms, the products, the business models it has been giving us of late—really the best that our best minds have to offer?

My thesis is that the evidence strongly suggests there is something deeply troubling, maybe even deeply wrong, with the entire social media economy. My thesis is that it does not represent a source of strength for America’s tomorrow, but is rather a source of peril. [...]

Social media only works as a business model if it consumes users’ time and attention day after day after day. It needs to replace the various activities we did perfectly well without social media, for the entire known history of the human race, with itself.

It needs to replace those activities with time spent on social media. Addiction is actually the point. That’s what social media shareholders are investing in: the addiction of users.


cont'
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/05/the-big-tech-threat
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: bbr2314 on May 13, 2019, 01:00:55 AM
I think this is incorrect. It is addictive but they are not investing in addiction.

Since the Middle Ages, the time of every man has become increasingly profitable to society at large (and detrimental to man, if used incorrectly). In 1500, a peasant worked on a farm six days a week of 10 hours apiece, (or whatever it was), but beyond that point, their time was generally their own, giving them ~7 hours a day of free time assuming 7 hours sleep.

By 1940, jobs were 50 hours or so a week, five days a week in the "developed" world. While work had dwindled down 10 hrs / week from 1500, the increasing abundance of free time was only partially monetized through media companies (cinema etc).

By 2020, jobs will be down to 30-40/hours a week (ACTUAL hours worked) in most developed places. At this point workers have 9 hours a day of "free time" on weekdays and full freedom on weekends (79 hrs/ week vs. 59 hrs/week in 1500).

But WHAT does man do with that free time in 2020? He now has to commute a long distance in many cases. And if he is not commuting he is glued to a computer teleworking.

Most importantly, in the hours one is not glued to a screen for work, one is glued to a screen for other reasons (leisure). I think this is the big reason we have seen social media become a dominant force so successfully. It is the monetization of one of the last vacant portions of man's normal life. Leisure is no longer an escape from work for most people, it is simply adjusting the treadmill to "light".
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Sleepy on May 13, 2019, 05:19:53 AM
There are still different people, treadmill adjusted to Eliud Kipchoge's pace.

https://youtu.be/SRYtn0j5ccA

A bit more on topic and a personal reflection, I think there is a slight shift in attitudes going on and there are signs here of people waking up when they see what too much online time do to their children. Hmm, what am I doing here in front of a screen, the sun's coming up.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: ASILurker on May 13, 2019, 07:15:03 AM
This post by sidd seems awfully related .... to my last post - was going to snip some of the text but I couldn't decide what to cut, so left it all.

Turner at LRB with a retrospective on Mark Fisher, a writer who refused to go on.

" Mark Fisher killed himself on 13 January 2017 ..."

‘It’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism’

‘Capitalism is what is left when beliefs have collapsed.’

" ‘The catastrophe,’ as Fisher puts it, ‘is neither waiting down the road, nor has it already happened. Rather, it is being lived through "

"  Business Ontology, which is the idea that ‘it is simply obvious that everything in society, including healthcare and education, should be run as a business’; Market Stalinism, the terrifying proliferation of performative paperwork across the public services ..."

" the ‘mental health plague’ in capitalist societies suggests that ‘instead of being the only social system that works, capitalism is inherently dysfunctional, and the cost of it appearing to work is very high.’ The ‘privatisation of stress’, he suspects, is what’s really behind the epidemic of adolescent unhappiness. ‘Affective disorders are forms of captured discontent.’ "

" His students, he writes, knew perfectly well that their prospects were poor, and that there was nothing they could do  ... in a state that he calls ‘reflexive impotence’, a bored, depressed, withdrawn suspension. And the impotence of course becomes reflexive in that by acting powerless you make your powerlessness come true. Clinical depression, unsurprisingly, was ‘endemic’, as were specific learning difficulties. More generally, the teenagers Fisher taught seemed to be ‘in a state of what I would call depressive hedonia … [unable] to do anything else except pursue pleasure’, slumping, snoozing, snacking. "

"    Ask students to read for more than a couple of sentences and many … will protest that they can’t do it. The most frequent complaint teachers hear is that it’s boring … To be bored simply means to be removed from the communicative sensation-stimulus matrix of texting, YouTube and fast food; to be denied, for a moment, the constant flow of sugary gratification on demand. Some students want Nietzsche in the same way that they want a hamburger; they fail to grasp – and the logic of the consumer system encourages this misapprehension – that the indigestibility, the difficulty is Nietzsche."

"The pressure on teachers becomes ‘intolerable’. It’s their job to cram word-based content into the increasingly ‘post-lexic’ heads of their students; it’s also their job to fill in when families are ‘buckling under the pressure of a capitalism that requires both parents to work’."

"in the infernally paradoxical logic of depression, I was simulating it in order to conceal the fact that I was not capable of working, and that there was no place at all for me in society."

"Consider all those brilliant youngsters who loved school, studied hard and went off in the highest spirits to college or university, thinking there was a world out there that would welcome them, encourage and support them in their learning, give them jobs as scholars and teachers. That world started snapping shut in the 1980s and has gone on getting smaller and smaller, meaner and meaner, closer and closer to shutting down completely. Fisher seems to be describing a feeling of superfluousness; these young people, like the superfluous men of Russia in the 19th century, were being educated for jobs that no longer existed. Superfluous: ‘the experience of modern masses’ as described by Hannah Arendt."

" ‘And yet, I don’t wish I was living forty years ago. The point seems to be: this is the world we were all afraid of, but it’s also sort of the world we wanted.’ And if we decide now that, after all, we don’t like it, we’re not allowed to take it back. "

Read the whole thing:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v41/n09/jenny-turner/not-no-longer-but-not-yet

The reference in the article to "Exiting the Vampire Castle" is at

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vampire-castle/

Quite a stinging expose of social media, vampirism, class as opposed to identity, and how these divisions are exploited.

sidd

Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: b_lumenkraft on May 30, 2019, 05:55:45 AM
Let's talk about a third of migrants lying about their kids....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhj2GMahHo
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: be cause on May 30, 2019, 06:53:37 PM
  well told .. meanwhile 100% of Christians lie to their kids .. its the Santa clause .. b.c.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 06, 2019, 02:32:41 PM
Steven Crowder Too Anti-Gay For YouTube?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9EAYxeoaU8&t=1s
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 08, 2019, 09:06:44 AM
Sam Seder Dives Deep On Steven Crowder (... and how Jimmy Dore isn't helpful for the debate (once again).)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDukblIh0wk
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Neven on June 08, 2019, 01:34:39 PM
Sam Seder Dives Deep On Steven Crowder (... and how Jimmy Dore isn't helpful for the debate (once again).)

It's easy for Sam Seder to say 'demonetize everything political on YT', because when push comes to shove, Seder is a politically correct establishment guy who will get paid more easily, in some other way. You can see some mild pushback from Michael Brooks after about minute 20, concerning the larger implications. Michael Brooks is somewhat better/more interesting than Sam Seder, but thinks he knows everything and thus talks too much. After that Sam Seder goes off on Jimmy Dore, which says more about him than about Dore.

His argument boils down to: If we suppress gay-bashing, it will be easier/safer for kids to come out of the closet. This is such nonsense. You fight bad ideas with better ideas, not by suppressing them and letting them go underground. What Seder says, is intellectually weak and morally wrong.

At the end, Michael Brooks says: "I don't think our channel should be financially demonetized. I'm just sitting with that idea and I don't like it. It's not solid thinking." So, he gets it. He understands that Seder will be fine and he won't be, if political journalism channels get demonetized on social media. Seder would've shown some balls if he had said: Take us all off social media and all media in general, to save the kids from bad ideas.  But he's not saying that. He's advocating for financially ruining people so they can't do alternative journalism anymore. Because that's what this will all lead to.

Either way, I think both Jimmy Dore (and co) and Kyle Kulinski have a much better understanding of the dangers of arbitrary, opaque corporate censuring:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIKnsw6Xo8Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v1t62htoBY&
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 08, 2019, 03:18:22 PM
Neven, the points i took away from this video are somewhat similar to yours i.e. i'm more supportive of what Michael said. I don't know who's right and who's wrong in this 'censorship' debate if it was about me, YouTube (and of course FB, WA, IG, Twitter) would be curated and public entities.

Nonetheless, the main thing that stood out for me was Jimmy's whataboutism. It's something i picked up a long time ago and made me unsubscribe to his channel. "What about the dying kids in Jemen??" Are you kidding me, sidekick? And Jimmy just plays along. These are tactics straight out of the alt-right playbook.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Neven on June 08, 2019, 04:12:34 PM
Nonetheless, the main thing that stood out for me was Jimmy's whataboutism. It's something i picked up a long time ago and made me unsubscribe to his channel. "What about the dying kids in Jemen??" Are you kidding me, sidekick? And Jimmy just plays along.

It stood out for you because that's what Seder cherrypicked and kept repeating. Dore doesn't go into it because he's busy making a different point, in a live stream where they talk for hours about lots of things.

As for the whataboutism: It's not so much whataboutism, as it is about putting into perspective Maza's complaint that his family has to see what Crowder is saying about him (they don't, just as the family of any public person has to watch all the BS). Whataboutism would've been: A lot of alt right people are made fun of by lefties, boohoohoo.

Seder then turns this quote by Dore's sidekick into something it is not. But even if it were: Somebody says something stupid, so now we discuss that instead of Dore's main arguments that are much stronger and more consistent than those of Seder?

Now, that's a tactic straight out of the alt-right playbook.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: mabarnes on June 08, 2019, 04:27:48 PM
The latest round of Book Burning … not going to end well....
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 08, 2019, 04:50:05 PM
It stood out for you because that's what Seder cherrypicked and kept repeating.

No, as mentioned above, it stood out to me because i noticed it before with him. I can see such things on my own, i don't need any youtuber for that.

Quote
It's not so much whataboutism, as it is about putting into perspective

Sorry, hard disagreement on that one.

Also, i don't think Jimmy made any substantial point besides him being in fear of being demonetized as well.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Klondike Kat on June 08, 2019, 04:55:28 PM
The latest round of Book Burning … not going to end well....

Agreed.  This is similar to what Neven posted.  Suppressing ideas, even bad ones, is not the answer.  The more something is suppressed, the greater the desire to reach it.  Rather, promoting good ideas, especially truthful ones, will win out. 
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 08, 2019, 05:08:18 PM
So you guys think the book burnings and demonisation of youtube bigots is the same thing?

The book burnings are acts of censorship by oppressive regimes.
Youtube is a private company with TOSs. Not destroying the speech, but stops paying for them.

I can see subtle differences here.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Neven on June 08, 2019, 05:33:07 PM
I agree the analogy is flawed.

But there's a huge problem when private entities control public forums in ways that aren't transparent or consistent. Who gets censured, is irrelevant. It's a matter of principle.

The Jimmy Dore video (not the short excerpt by Sam Seder), as well as the Kyle Kulinski video (more detail) I posted, explain very well why that is.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 08, 2019, 05:43:52 PM
But there's a huge problem when private entities control public forums in ways that aren't transparent or consistent. Who gets censured, is irrelevant. It's a matter of principle.

Yep! if it was about me, there would be no private entities running any kind of infrastructure.

Quote
The Jimmy Dore video (not the short excerpt by Sam Seder), as well as the Kyle Kulinski video (more detail) I posted, explain very well why that is.

I didn't watched the Dore video, sorry. He's a done deal for me, i can't take him seriously anymore.

With Kyle, i often times agree and i take him seriously. I absolutely don't share his radical free speech approach though.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: sidd on June 08, 2019, 11:05:48 PM
“Where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.”  -- Heine

Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Neven on June 08, 2019, 11:48:28 PM
Joe Rogan had David Pakman on his show a couple of days ago, and from around minute 43 onwards they discuss the Crowder stuff and its wider implications. Pakman, also a politically correct establishment-type guy, goes about it in a smarter (or more insidious) way than Seder, positing the (imo weak) argument that YouTube is a private company and should be able to do whatever it wants, and that this is actually a right-wing position because it's against government intervention. But Rogan starts cornering him at some point, after around the 1 hour mark, after Pakman engages in some really bad analogies (worse than the one about burning books).
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Neven on June 10, 2019, 02:15:58 PM
So, here's the problem:

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/AYsWTQKG_6u_awjXskCPpRkUETgRAkwMcWKzZkkvy3CIRzYzB85hacMFMoONiS_DMhHYr3A2gSvKjKHeYOj_G7zBWtbiTb4VjXF2W1Br7ovk9LM62cUiXeWHsAF7gX-7ISIppeXq1EkmWcpeD2HfcgRnGCx_iRVVH2PB30i2T75dC3yEDIzAUs2yo_jM5NlQ2GLdwqW1XN50UfmNse5Gb-3awch3nuDZToH1XfEIuyq_S6_iGIVaWxdmKGqBCWhzHRciPryxT_kXARGR-IwPZYPni8iPUDW34gks0k97N_nRJrkqksJNThsaIGDJvG5p5zWsmtDfm8JxyjL9K5VISLpjCVX7wm_9g1YtOL_3z5sIJ8g1lIUxY7lSGA6t2VbrLcmavXfThQVV6TigxhpHsr1BbeQFG2umBO05_HCmaUiLO1uERhlyhSFswL3fMOKjHXr0kXOHxRBVeLE7apuzI-CDvhftJKfHV6yamjYgW6YnoxqaOfPYDAwnk9QzUU1o9WPlI01pfIYdpS0Hb8u-vB1-jR9R0GpQ1G-tFuoMFD56oYKm2MtpWAFIrTVCIz81oHQKvO9tsCdkI6lpL5_RYCSXL5rKUkAkVjTd6HZ33TNRZaTBiwQ6d3Po4cLqlAONvW_zelVhgZOTcfVt-HRylOALXSkRw1IejqPAlJD6RLTv4s93wnPubTN47zl9gPwOCmt6ioIhowY_fYJbmUG5ZsKO=w664-h578-no)

This is the slippery slope. It starts with Alex Jones and Steven Crowder, and then it moves on to Jimmy Dore (which I'm sure many people here will cheer on), and it only ends when there are no more opposing voices to establishment narratives at the behest of the financial elites. I guess this is the solution to the total lack of trust in mainstream, corporate media.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 10, 2019, 02:56:00 PM
David Pakman Debunks Joe Rogan's View On YouTube Bias

Video shows nicely how people on the left are demonetized all the time and no one ever talks about it.

When someone on the right is demonetized, all hell breaks loose. Go figure...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsJqYzsr4fA
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Neven on June 12, 2019, 12:04:14 AM
Listen to Greenwald and ignore the rest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWzK81bxgbE
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: bligh8 on July 04, 2019, 02:27:03 PM
https://www.thelocal.se/20190626/landmark-case-swedish-court-fines-man-for-not-deleting-hate-speech-from-facebook-group....

https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/18116-new-swedish-law-criminalizes-anti-immigration-internet-speech

Sleepy?

Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: b_lumenkraft on July 04, 2019, 02:40:39 PM
No free pass for hate speech. I love that!

Go SWEDEN! \o/
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: mabarnes on July 04, 2019, 05:34:26 PM
Wow.  Rather than comment about the law and human rights - here, Free Speech - I think I'll let this do the explaining far better. 

When it comes to government force policing speech, I would recommend extreme caution ... careful what you wish for, ladies and gents....

https://youtu.be/u2a2fAEQaGo
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: b_lumenkraft on July 04, 2019, 06:40:24 PM
I don't understand why Americans think so highly of their radical free speech law. It's bullshit!

In no aspect of life do people see punishment for bad behaviour as a bad thing, but when it comes to speech, everyone is an ultra free speech advocate all of a sudden.

Why wouldn't you regulate malicious speech as well?

When you can say anything you want, you are allowed to lie. And this it cancer, killing our world.

Free speech allows the Kochs to manipulate the whole world through marketing. Free speech brought us climate change denial. Free speech stands for misinformation by the rich and powerful. Heck, even the people ruling us are lied to and make wrong decisions because of that.

You shouldn't be allowed to lie about something that's scientifically proven.
Hate speech shouldn't be allowed.

What is so radical with those rules?
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: forkyfork on July 04, 2019, 07:04:11 PM
I don't understand why Americans think so highly of their radical free speech law. It's bullshit!

In no aspect of life do people see punishment for bad behaviour as a bad thing, but when it comes to speech, everyone is an ultra free speech advocate all of a sudden.

Why wouldn't you regulate malicious speech as well?

When you can say anything you want, you are allowed to lie. And this it cancer, killing our world.

Free speech allows the Kochs to manipulate the whole world through marketing. Free speech brought us climate change denial. Free speech stands for misinformation by the rich and powerful. Heck, even the people ruling us are lied to and make wrong decisions because of that.

You shouldn't be allowed to lie about something that's scientifically proven.
Hate speech shouldn't be allowed.

What is so radical with those rules?
the conservative agenda depends on the ability to spread lies
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Pragma on July 04, 2019, 07:11:23 PM
the conservative agenda depends on the ability to spread lies

As does just about any and every other agenda I have ever seen.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: b_lumenkraft on July 04, 2019, 07:14:47 PM
As does just about any and every other agenda I have ever seen.

And? What's the result of that? What do you see?

Do you see an enlightened world or rather a dystopia?

For what i can see, lies and bullshit rule the world.

So tell me, what is radical free speech worth when this is the outcome?
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Pragma on July 04, 2019, 07:47:25 PM
As does just about any and every other agenda I have ever seen.

And? What's the result of that? What do you see?

Do you see an enlightened world or rather a dystopia?

For what i can see, lies and bullshit rule the world.

So tell me, what is radical free speech worth when this is the outcome?

My point was to highlight a false dichotomy. Forkyfork was implying that only conservatives lie, or that they are the only ones with an agenda, or perhaps everyone lies, except for the particular "ism" that he or she happens to adhere to. I can't be sure, exactly, but it struck me as very naive.

I think it is safe to say that the statement in itself had an agenda, and not by lies, but by omission, another form of dishonesty.

As to your question, being a controls engineer, I know that bad things happen when there is no feedback to a system. In society, for stability to occur, these must be some form of correction, the actors must have some skin in the game.

I think that lying is not the problem. The problem is that there is no penalty when a person does harm to an individual or society. I could fill up this entire forum with examples of where powerful people have lied, bald faced, costing billions of dollars and millions of lives. Many of them are now happily and wealthily retired, with no repercussions.

Lying is not good, but it's a question of harm. Do we punish or prosecute flat earthers? How about we haul most religions off to court?

Goldman Sachs, among others lied their face off, and admitted that they lied and broke the law. For their efforts, (besides obscene profits) they got billions from the government.

So, I suggest to you that you are putting the cart before the horse. Lying is not the problem.

*edit* typos
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: mabarnes on July 04, 2019, 07:51:05 PM

You shouldn't be allowed to lie about something that's scientifically proven.
Hate speech shouldn't be allowed.

What is so radical with those rules?

The point is, the issue is, WHO DECIDES...? 

Do you trust your government to decide what is true, what is false?  Whether Iraq really has WMD's?  Whether it's hate speech to call THEM liars...?

Ever read the opposing "press" on Adams and Jefferson during their first Presidential contest?  In 1800, the candidates ... well, Adams himself called Jefferson ""a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."

Should an agency of government "stepped in" to punish him for hate speech?  What if his father was not "mulatto" ... who would decide if that was proven true, or false?

As they used to say, "Who's watching the Watchers?"

I hope this gives a bit of the argument - the consensus from American jurisprudence is that ALL speech is legal, except when DIRECTLY causing violence or destruction.  You can't say "Somebody shoot that hateful <pick a person> now!" ... but you can say "I hope <pick a person> dies soon."

The "cure" for hate speech and lies is, in American tradition, MORE SPEECH.  Proving people wrong, condemning their lies, exposing them.  That's not perfect of course, in fact sure, it's the worst system ... EXCEPT, to paraphrase a famous Brit, for all the others....

(I really do recommend reading about the 1800 Adams-Jefferson race ... it's very interesting.)
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: b_lumenkraft on July 04, 2019, 08:03:23 PM
My point was to highlight a false dichotomy. Forkyfork was implying that only conservatives lie, or that they are the only ones with an agenda,

I get that. But which side wins? Are the scientists who win the public opinion or the oil industry who manipulates with lies? And what's so wrong with the agenda of scientists? Having an agenda is not bad. Lying is.

Quote
or perhaps everyone lies, except for the particular "ism" that he or she happens to adhere to. I can't be sure, exactly, but it struck me as very naive.

This is not about freedom of opinion. Everyone should have their isms. This is about freedom of spreading lies. When your ism only works, when you can lie about it, what's it worth anyway?

Quote
As to your question, being a controls engineer, I know that bad things happen when there is no feedback to a system. In society, for stability to occur, these must be some form of correction, the actors must have some skin in the game.

Yes, i agree completely. But how are lies and hate speech meaningful feedback systems? 

Quote
I think that lying is not the problem. The problem is that there is no penalty when a person does harm to an individual or society. I could fill up this entire forum with examples of where powerful people have lied, bald faced, costing billions of dollars and millions of lives. Many of them are now happily and wealthily retired, with no repercussions.

Correct. A great argument for my point actually. ;)

Quote
Goldman Sachs, among others lied their face off, and admitted that they lied and broke the law. For their efforts, (besides obscene profits) they got billions from the government.

Only in America...  ::)

Quote
So, I suggest to you that you are putting the cart before the horse. Lying is not the problem.

I don't follow your conclusion. But you are free to have your opinion (which is a good thing).
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: TerryM on July 04, 2019, 08:12:59 PM
Hate speech is a No-No in Canada, and it works out fairly well. In the UK there are very strict civil penalties for slander and libel. I see these as improvements over the free for all "Free Speech" so often results in.
Terry
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: b_lumenkraft on July 04, 2019, 08:21:57 PM
The point is, the issue is, WHO DECIDES...? 

I knew this question would come, i had this debate before. ;)

Among other things, in Germany, it is forbidden to deny the Holocaust. The allies gave us this law after the war. The US was one of the allies.

Quote
Do you trust your government to decide what is true, what is false?

I trust experts. The government can ask experts. But the government wouldn't decide actually. A judge would. And they could also ask an expert.

Quote
Whether Iraq really has WMD's?  Whether it's hate speech to call THEM liars...?

... As they used to say, "Who's watching the Watchers?"


Well, you obviously need democracy in the first place. With working checks and balances, with a separation of power, and of course, a system where you have 'one vote, one person'. The US checks none of those boxes sadly. So no, here you would have to fix the country first.

Quote
Ever read the opposing "press" on Adams and Jefferson during their first Presidential contest?  In 1800, the candidates ... well, Adams himself called Jefferson ""a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.

Should an agency of government "stepped in" to punish him for hate speech?  What if his father was not "mulatto" ... who would decide if that was proven true, or false?

I don't glorify the founding fathers. The US constitution is ancient and needs modernisation.

And no, i don't think you should punish dead people.



Quote
The "cure" for hate speech and lies is, in American tradition, MORE SPEECH.

Well, that turned out not so well, right?

Quote
Proving people wrong, condemning their lies, exposing them.

Exactly. That's what i'm for. And when the lying is not stopping, you have a judge on your side helping your argument. Just like it is with other things in life.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: forkyfork on July 04, 2019, 08:29:06 PM
fact checking lies does not work in the US. look at all the people who still think obama was born in kenya
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: b_lumenkraft on July 04, 2019, 08:30:32 PM
Hate speech is a No-No in Canada, and it works out fairly well. In the UK there are very strict civil penalties for slander and libel. I see these as improvements over the free for all "Free Speech" so often results in.
Terry

Word, Terry! :)
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: b_lumenkraft on July 04, 2019, 08:35:16 PM
fact checking lies does not work in the US. look at all the people who still think obama was born in kenya

Yeah sure! What if it was forbidden to lie like that? Would this lie be so powerful than or maybe it would have never existed in this form?

You do see we are running in circles here?
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Pragma on July 04, 2019, 08:37:22 PM

This is not about freedom of opinion. Everyone should have their isms. This is about freedom of spreading lies. When your ism only works, when you can lie about it, what's it worth anyway?

To the person with the ism, often a great deal. Status, money, power and ego, and it's more the rule than the exception.

Quote
As to your question, being a controls engineer, I know that bad things happen when there is no feedback to a system. In society, for stability to occur, these must be some form of correction, the actors must have some skin in the game.

Quote
Yes, i agree completely. But how are lies and hate speech meaningful feedback systems?

You miss my point, I never said that they were. I address this below, and you agree with me. 

Quote
I think that lying is not the problem. The problem is that there is no penalty when a person does harm to an individual or society. I could fill up this entire forum with examples of where powerful people have lied, bald faced, costing billions of dollars and millions of lives. Many of them are now happily and wealthily retired, with no repercussions.

Correct. A great argument for my point actually. ;)

Quote
So, I suggest to you that you are putting the cart before the horse. Lying is not the problem.

Quote
I don't follow your conclusion. But you are free to have your opinion (which is a good thing).

Again I am confused, because when I said above, lying is not the problem, you said "correct".

To expand on that, the problem is that:

- We only get upset about lies, (or perceived lies) when they don't mesh with our world view.

- When people lie and cause harm, we usually tolerate it.

- If lying didin't have benefits, people and government wouldn't do it.

Human beings lie. It is in our nature, as are many other unsociable traits. It's how we deal with it, or not, is the issue, IMHO.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: b_lumenkraft on July 04, 2019, 09:03:27 PM
To the person with the ism, often a great deal. Status, money, power and ego, and it's more the rule than the exception.

What i don't want are ideologies that only work with lies. I want Centrism to be gone. I want Naziism to be gone.

I want enlightenment, logic and reason ruling this world, not big money and their despicable interests. Give me another thing that brings us towards this goal, and i listen.

But this is an issue, it is important. Free speech radicalism is certifiably wrong!

Quote
You miss my point, I never said that they were. I address this below, and you agree with me.
 

Sorry, i actually missed that.

Quote
Again I am confused, because when I said above, lying is not the problem, you said "correct".

Lying is a problem for all the reasons mentioned. The problem is, that there is no skin in the game as you pointed out.

Quote
Human beings lie. It is in our nature, as are many other unsociable traits. It's how we deal with it, or not, is the issue, IMHO.

Killing and stealing and cheating are also in our nature. How do we deal with it? In order to have a society, we have rules. Why no rules on speech?
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: gerontocrat on July 04, 2019, 09:16:52 PM
- If lying didn't have benefits, people and government wouldn't do it.

Human beings lie. It is in our nature, as are many other unsociable traits. It's how we deal with it, or not, is the issue, IMHO.
"- If lying didn't have benefits, people and government wouldn't do it."

Who gets the Benefits? Exxon,  the Koch Bros, Goldman & Sachs...............
Who pays the price. Shit, that's me.

A society built on lies will fail?
Many of us believe that our society will fail because AGW was lied about successfully for too many years. It's too late, pal.

Some of us believe that people are lying to themselves when they say if/when AGW gets fixed sustainable economic growth can continue until ....... But fixing AGW won't fix the 6th Mass Extinction.

Lying gives short-term advantage to some and long-term disadvantage to most.
It is a pity that the mainstream media (Fox, Sky, Murdoch Press) have encouraged the habit and taught us that it's OK.

But it is done. Pandora opened the box storage jar some time ago and let out the ooh nasties. Did she manage to put the lid back on quickly enough to keep "hope" in the jar?
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: sidd on July 04, 2019, 09:46:39 PM
This has been beaten to death a long time ago. I suggest Mill "On Liberty," Chapter 2. Is it taught in schools anymore ? I fear not.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

"All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility."

"Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being "pushed to an extreme;" not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case. Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility, when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain."

" For even this doctrine acknowledges that mankind ought to have a rational assurance that all objections have been satisfactorily answered; and how are they to be answered if that which requires to be answered is not spoken? or how can the answer be known to be satisfactory, if the objectors have no opportunity of showing that it is unsatisfactory?"

"If there are any persons who contest a received opinion, or who will do so if law or opinion will let them, let us thank them for it, open our minds to listen to them, and rejoice that there is some one to do for us what we otherwise ought, if we have any regard for either the certainty or the vitality of our convictions, to do with much greater labor for ourselves."

"First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility."

"Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied."

"Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds."

"And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience."

https://www.bartleby.com/130/2.html

Read the whole thing. Or perhaps, Milton in "Aeropagitica"

" We should be wary therefore what persecution we raise against the living labours of publick men, how we spill that season'd life of man preserv'd and stor'd up in Books; since we see a kinde of homicide may be thus committed, sometimes a martyrdome, and if it extend to the whole impression, a kinde of massacre, whereof the execution ends not in the slaying of an elementall life, but strikes at that ethereall and fift essence, the breath of reason it selfe, slaies an immortality rather then a life."

"As therefore the state of man now is; what wisdome can there be to choose, what continence to forbeare without the knowledge of evill?"

"Assuredly we bring not innocence into the world, we bring impurity much rather: that which purifies us is triall, and triall is by what is contrary. That vertue therefore which is but a youngling in the contemplation of evill, and knows not the utmost that vice promises to her followers, and rejects it, is but a blank vertue, not a pure; her whitenesse is but an excrementall whitenesse"

"Since therefore the knowledge and survay of vice is in this world so necessary to the constituting of human vertue, and the scanning of error to the confirmation of truth, how can we more safely, and with lesse danger scout into the regions of sin and falsity then by reading all manner of tractats, and hearing all manner of reason? And this is the benefit which may be had of books promiscuously read."

"Truth and understanding are not such wares as to be monopoliz'd and traded in by tickets and statutes, and standards. We must not think to make a staple commodity of all the knowledge in the Land, to mark and licence it like our broad cloath, and our wooll packs. "

"that if it come to inquisitioning again, and licencing, and that we are so timorous of our selvs, and so suspicious of all men, as to fear each book, and the shaking of every leaf, before we know what the contents are, if some who but of late were little better then silenc't from preaching, shall come now to silence us from reading, except what they please, it cannot be guest what is intended by som but a second tyranny over learning"

"Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making. Under these fantastic terrors of sect and schism, we wrong the earnest and zealous thirst after knowledge and understanding which God hath stirr'd up in this city. What some lament of, we rather should rejoyce at, should rather praise this pious forwardnes among men, to reassume the ill deputed care of their Religion into their own hands again."

"What would ye doe then, should ye suppresse all this flowry crop of knowledge and new light sprung up and yet springing daily in this City, should ye set an Oligarchy of twenty ingrossers over it, to bring a famin upon our minds again, when we shall know nothing but what is measur'd to us by their bushel?"

"it is the liberty, Lords and Commons, which your own valorous and happy counsels have purchast us, liberty which is the nurse of all great wits; this is that which hath rarify'd and enlighten'd our spirits like the influence of heav'n; this is that which hath enfranchis'd, enlarg'd and lifted up our apprehensions degrees above themselves. Ye cannot make us now lesse capable, lesse knowing, lesse eagarly pursuing of the truth, unlesse ye first make your selves, that made us so, lesse the lovers, lesse the founders of our true liberty. We can grow ignorant again, brutish, formall, and slavish, as ye found us; but you then must first become that which ye cannot be, oppressive, arbitrary, and tyrannous, as they were from whom ye have free'd us. That our hearts are now more capacious, our thoughts more erected to the search and expectation of greatest and exactest things, is the issue of your owne vertu propagated in us; ye cannot suppresse that unlesse ye reinforce an abrogated and mercilesse law, that fathers may dispatch at will their own children"

"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties. "

"And though all the windes of doctrin were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licencing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falshood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the wors, in a free and open encounter. Her confuting is the best and surest suppressing."

"Truth is strong next to the Almighty; she needs no policies, nor stratagems, nor licencings to make her victorious, those are the shifts and the defences that error uses against her power: give her but room, & do not bind her when she sleeps, for then she speaks not true"

"We doe not see that while we still affect by all means a rigid externall formality, we may as soon fall again into a grosse conforming stupidity, a stark and dead congealment "

"if it come to prohibiting, there is not ought more likely to be prohibited then truth it self"

" And if the men be erroneous who appear to be the leading schismaticks, what witholds us but our sloth, our self-will, and distrust in the right cause, that we doe not give them gentle meeting and gentle dismissions, that we debate not and examin the matter throughly with liberall and frequent audience; if not for their sakes, yet for our own? "

"we in the hast of a precipitant zeal shall make no distinction, but resolve to stop their mouths, because we fear they come with new and dangerous opinions, as we commonly forejudge them ere we understand them, no lesse then woe to us, while thinking thus to defend the Gospel, we are found the persecutors. "

https://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/areopagitica/text.html

sidd
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Pragma on July 04, 2019, 10:00:04 PM
But this is an issue, it is important. Free speech radicalism is certifiably wrong!

Sorry, but I must disagree here because, as has been mentioned, who decides? There are many things that are true, that are being denounced simply because it doesn't neatly fit into the current narrative. Nothing is ever cut and dried and the process is messy.

If you ban free speech, you do not ban the thoughts and I hope to hell we never do. I would much prefer to know the person next door is a Nazi, rather than have him be in disguise, and holding secret meetings.

If you have people that think that way, or if you have people that would be susceptible to such speech, then you have a much bigger problem in your society. Speech laws paper over a symptom, and ignore the root.

They also stop light from getting in to some very dark corners, like certain religious groups.

Have you noticed how patronizing speech laws can be? Every time someone advocates censorship, they never say that they are too stupid to think for themselves. No, it's because of those "other people" that need to be protected or controlled. That screams arrogance and self-righteousness. I always have to ask myself, "What's their agenda?"

I know I don't want my world to be that "safe".

Quote
Killing and stealing and cheating are also in our nature. How do we deal with it? In order to have a society, we have rules. Why no rules on speech?

Actually, we have quite a few rules. There is libel, slander and tort law. When someone does harm, there are legal remedies, and by harm I don't mean that my opinions offend someone or make them sad. To those I say, "Grow up and get a life".

But take heart, sometimes things do work out.

Oberlin college just got a major tune-up and I hope it is just the first of many.

Now, if we could just bankrupt a few politicians and corporations.

Cheers

PS, just before I post, I notice sidd has posted a better preamble that I could hope for. John Stuart Mill makes my scratchings look feeble. The third quote is brilliant amongst brilliance.

*edit* typos
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: TerryM on July 04, 2019, 10:05:59 PM
Yea - but Milton was attempting to justify Cromwell's well known aversion to truth. ::)


Besides the guy obviously never even took the time to learn how to spell.
Terry :)
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: sidd on July 04, 2019, 10:26:21 PM
Re: Milton,Cromwell

Milton's defense of Cromwell's Republic was not in Aeropagitica, rather in "Kings and Magistrates,"  "Eikonoklastes," the two "Defensio,"  "Civil Power," and "Ready and Easy Way."

I would guess these are not mentioned in schools either.

sidd

Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: TerryM on July 05, 2019, 12:04:41 AM
He still can't spell.
Terry
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: sidd on July 05, 2019, 08:59:44 AM
How your mind is made up: government shapes public discourse

"pre-planning social media campaigns that are designed to appear to be a spontaneous public response "

"operations that contingency planners term “controlled spontaneity”, politicians’ statements, vigils and inter-faith events are also negotiated and planned "

"Many of the operations are said to be modelled on extensive plans that were drawn up in the UK to channel public anger in the wake of any attack on the 2012 London Olympics"

"Although there was no terrorist incident at the 2012 Olympics, variants are said to have been deployed in the wake of every attack in the UK since then."

" ‘We would like the people to do that, how do you get them there?’ "

"A number of Western governments are understood to have exchanged information"

"hashtags, posters and vigils ...  Twitter, Facebook and mainstream media campaign..."

"approached The Sun, a tabloid newspaper, which agreed to dedicate its entire front page ...devoted a further six pages ... "

"the unit is working “at an industrial scale and pace” to develop messages that aim to “effect attitudinal and behavioural change”  ... The involvement of the UK government is rarely acknowledged."

"They could be seen being admitted behind the police cordon, where they plastered walls with a number of posters bearing images of London, and number of hashtags that were already circulating on Twitter"

"surrounded by apparently impromptu signs of the public’s defiance and unity"

 ‘We’re sending you a hundred imams’”

"One of the organisers described it as “a symbolic gesture of love”  ... did not say is that she worked at the Home Office, in law enforcement ... told MEE that it was entirely a "grassroots" initiative with no government assistance"

"Cabinet Office teams will work very quickly with the Red Cross and with local contingency planners, who usually send out the first social media messages"

"will also advise on the form of words that political leaders should use after such an attack, and enact the pre-planned vigils and inter-faith events"

“In Salisbury, people were telling us: ‘We’re not going to wear T-shirts saying I heart Salisbury – we just want you to get the Novichok cleared up.’

" ... some misgivings about the way in which emergency planning for the immediate aftermath of terrorist attacks is being combined with propaganda techniques that are intended to influence the responses of the public."

" may not always be the best way to respond ... "

"you can distract people by putting up a photograph of a French flag or whatever"

“When there’s nothing people can actually do, they can change the photo on their Facebook page. Then they can feel they’ve done something about it, they can go to work, and they’re not agitating the government."

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/mind-control-secret-british-government-blueprints-shaping-post-terror-planning

"Controlled spontaneity."  What a concept. Back to 1984.

sidd
 
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Neven on July 14, 2019, 05:18:14 PM
Boycot corporate media now, never watch it again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geCSPVzuLJk
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Pragma on July 14, 2019, 05:56:53 PM
Boycot corporate media now, never watch it again:


Posted on Youtube no less. Oh, the irony, and how telling that Youtube controls so much.

I don't watch corpororate media now, but mainly because it is so appalling. While I agree generally they should be boycotted, there is more than one way to do it.

For an interminable week, I had to use a computer that had no ad blocker or script controller and the internet was unusable.

I had no idea it was so bad. I also have no idea how people put up with it.

With the appropriate tools, I pick and choose what I watch and provide no direct revenue to them. I probably give them some metadata, but they have to work for it.

At the same time, combined with blogs and websites as pointers, I have access to a huge amount of information for free. I can then directly support the channels I find worthwhile and avoid Patreon whenever possible.

Another valuable, and painless, change is to drop Chrome etc, and move to open source, like Firefox.

This all happens while Alphabet has the significant burden of infrastructure.

I do not engage in any social media of any kind and I make no apologies to anyone. I have been expecting it to become "uncool" and collapse, but no luck so far.

Boycotting is good, but killing them by parasitism can work and is quite fitting as well.  :)
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Tunnelforce9 on July 14, 2019, 06:22:33 PM
You should get used to hear people calling out nazism for what it is, you can't expect people to look away if you speak the language of genocidal maniacs...

You know what i would do when i see a guy walking with a nazi flag ?
I would strangle him with his flag and so would the rest of my fellow countrymen.

That is why you don't see any of that shit in my country.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: blumenkraft on October 01, 2019, 07:12:14 PM
Facebook removes pro-Trump patriotic 'Police Lives Matter' pages after they were found to be run from Kosovo

Link >> https://www.newsweek.com/facebook-popular-information-kosovo-police-lives-matter-1462297

Hey America, here is news for you. It's not only Russia, but it's also fucking everyone else!
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: blumenkraft on October 01, 2019, 07:30:54 PM
Trolls for hire: Russia's freelance disinformation firms offer propaganda with a professional touch

Quote
Firms charged varying prices for services, such as $8 for a social media post, $100 per 10 comments made on an article or post and $65 for contacting a media source.

Link >> https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/trolls-hire-russia-s-freelance-disinformation-firms-offer-propaganda-professional-n1060781

Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: blumenkraft on November 10, 2019, 08:11:38 AM
Daphne Keller on Legal Liability for Tech Platforms
THE LAWFARE PODCAST - 57:05

Quote
In this episode of the Arbiters of Truth series—Lawfare's new podcast series on disinformation in the run-up to the 2020 election—Quinta Jurecic and Evelyn Douek spoke with Daphne Keller, the director of intermediary liability at Stanford's Center for Internet and Society, about the nuts and bolts of content moderation. People often have big ideas for how tech platforms should decide what content to take down and what to keep up, but what kind of moderation is actually possible at scale? And what happens when those decisions come into conflict with different norms of free speech—for example, between the U.S. and Europe? They talked about intermediary liability law in the United States, recent rulings by the Court of Justice of the European Union, and everything in-between.


Link >> https://overcast.fm/+BEBMzAGoo
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: blumenkraft on November 23, 2019, 10:02:46 AM
Ben Nimmo on the Whack-a-Mole Game of Disinformation
THE LAWFARE PODCAST - 45:14

Quote
In a new episode of Lawfare's Arbiters of Truth series on disinformation in the run-up to the 2020 election, Quinta Jurecic, Evelyn Douek, and Alina Polyakova, spoke with Ben Nimmo, the director of investigations at Graphika. They talked about how disinformation works; how a researcher knows where to look to find disinformation; how to tell when a strange pattern of tweets or Facebook posts is actually a disinformation campaign; and whether it's possible to counter these campaigns effectively, or if this work is just a never-ending game of whack-a-mole.

Link >> https://overcast.fm/+BEBO0zB9g
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Neven on November 26, 2019, 12:39:00 PM
I'm not sure if Ben Nimmo is a good source of information, given his involvement with the Atlantic Council, pushing stories that benefit the neoliberal/neoconservative status quo (ie conflict and war). Maybe the Lawfare podcast is something entirely different, but I don't have time to listen to it.

Here (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/08/facebook-censorship-mad-ben-nimmo-and-the-atlantic-council/)'s Craig Murray on Nimmo, in August last year:

Quote
Facebook Censorship, Mad Ben Nimmo and the Atlantic Council

Facebook has deleted all of my posts from July 2017 to last week because I am, apparently, a Russian Bot. For a while I could not add any new posts either, but we recently found a way around that, at least for now. To those of you tempted to say “So what?”, I would point out that over two thirds of visitors to my website arrive via my posting of the articles to Facebook and Twitter. Social media outlets like this blog, which offer an alternative to MSM propaganda, are hugely at the mercy of these corporate gatekeepers.

Facebook’s plunge into censorship is completely open and admitted, as is the fact it is operated for Facebook by the Atlantic Council – the extreme neo-con group part funded by NATO and whose board includes serial war criminal Henry Kissinger, Former CIA Heads Michael Hayden and Michael Morrell, and George Bush’s chief of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, among a whole list of horrors.

The staff are worse than the Board. Their lead expert on Russian bot detection is an obsessed nutter named Ben Nimmo, whose fragile grip on reality has been completely broken by his elevation to be the internet’s Witchfinder-General. Nimmo, grandly titled “Senior Fellow for Information Defense at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab”, is the go-to man for Establishment rubbishing of citizen journalists, and as with Joseph McCarthy or Matthew Clarke, one day society will sufficiently recover its balance for it to be generally acknowledged that this kind of witch-hunt nonsense was not just an aberration, but a manifestation of the evil it claimed to fight.

There is no Establishment cause Nimmo will not aid by labeling its opponents as Bots. This from the Herald newspaper two days ago, where Nimmo uncovers the secret web of Scottish Nationalist bots that dominate the internet, and had the temerity to question the stitch-up of Alex Salmond.

Nimmo’s proof? 2,000 people had used the hashtag #Dissolvetheunion on a total of 10,000 tweets in a week. That’s five tweets per person on average. In a week. Obviously a massive bot-plot, eh?

When Ben’s great expose for the Herald was met with widespread ridicule, he doubled down on it by producing his evidence – a list of the top ten bots he had uncovered in this research. Except that they are almost all, to my certain knowledge, not bots but people. But do not decry Ben’s fantastic forensic skills, for which NATO and the CIA fund the Atlantic Council. Ben’s number one suspect was definitely a bot. He had got the evil kingpin. He had seen through its identity despite its cunning disguise. That disguise included its name, IsthisAB0T, and its profile, where it called itself a bot for retweets on Independence. Thank goodness for Ben Nimmo, or nobody would ever have seen through that evil, presumably Kremlin-hatched, plan.

No wonder the Atlantic Council advertise Nimmo and his team as “Digital Sherlocks”.

Nimmo’s track record is simply appalling. In this report for the Atlantic Council website, he falsely identified British pensioner @Ian56789 as a “Russian troll farm”, which led to Ian being named as such by the British government, and to perhaps the most surreal Sky News interview of all time. Perhaps still more remarkably, Nimmo searches for use of the phrase “cui bono?” in reference to the Skripal and fake Douma chemical weapons attacks. Nimmo characterises use of the phrase cui bono as evidence of pro-Assad and pro-Kremlin bots and trolls – he really does. Most people would think to consider cui bono indicates a smattering more commonsense than Nimmo himself displays.

It is at least obvious cui bono from Nimmo’s witchfinding – the capacious, NATO and CIA stuffed pockets of Ben Nimmo himself. That Facebook allows this utterly discredited neo-conservative charlatan the run of its censorship operations needs, given Facebook’s pivotal role in social media intercourse, to concern everybody. The freedom of the internet is under fundamental attack.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: blumenkraft on November 26, 2019, 05:18:58 PM
Good to know, Neven. Thanks for the link.

Now i'm eager to hear what you think about the podcast. Because for me he sounded reasonable.  ???
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: gerontocrat on November 26, 2019, 05:40:12 PM
Social media is doing a superb job in transmitting lies, falsehoods, prejudice, hate, human trafficking, sexual exploitation of children....

Social media is doing a lousy job in spreading reason, facts and countering the above.

Therefore, the major social media companies making loads-a-money from it by establishing what is essentially a Cartel, are on balance, evil.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/22/sacha-baron-cohen-facebook-propaganda
Read Sacha Baron Cohen's scathing attack on Facebook : 'greatest propaganda machine in history'
In a speech, the actor argued that Facebook would have run ads by Hitler.

Quote
In a speech last night at the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the actor and comedian Sacha Baron Cohen attacked Facebook and other social media platforms for enabling the proliferation of hate speech and misinformation.

The speech was striking in its sincerity – Baron Cohen appeared as himself, rather than “in character” as one of his satirical personas – and its blistering tone.

Describing Facebook as “the greatest propaganda machine in history”, Baron Cohen argued that the company, which does not vet political ads for truthfulness, would have allowed Hitler to run propaganda on its platform.

Quote
Thank you, ADL, for this recognition and your work in fighting racism, hate and bigotry. And to be clear, when I say “racism, hate and bigotry” I’m not referring to the names of Stephen Miller’s Labradoodles.

Now, I realize that some of you may be thinking, what the hell is a comedian doing speaking at a conference like this! I certainly am. I’ve spent most of the past two decades in character. In fact, this is the first time that I have ever stood up and given a speech as my least popular character, Sacha Baron Cohen. And I have to confess, it is terrifying.

I realize that my presence here may also be unexpected for another reason. At times, some critics have said my comedy risks reinforcing old stereotypes.

The truth is, I’ve been passionate about challenging bigotry and intolerance throughout my life. As a teenager in the UK, I marched against the fascist National Front and to abolish apartheid. As an undergraduate, I traveled around America and wrote my thesis about the civil rights movement, with the help of the archives of the ADL. And as a comedian, I’ve tried to use my characters to get people to let down their guard and reveal what they actually believe, including their own prejudice.

Now, I’m not going to claim that everything I’ve done has been for a higher purpose. Yes, some of my comedy, OK probably half my comedy, has been absolutely juvenile and the other half completely puerile. I admit, there was nothing particularly enlightening about me – as Borat from Kazakhstan, the first fake news journalist – running through a conference of mortgage brokers when I was completely naked.

But when Borat was able to get an entire bar in Arizona to sing “Throw the Jew down the well,” it did reveal people’s indifference to antisemitism. When – as Bruno, the gay fashion reporter from Austria – I started kissing a man in a cage fight in Arkansas, nearly starting a riot, it showed the violent potential of homophobia. And when – disguised as an ultra-woke developer – I proposed building a mosque in one rural community, prompting a resident to proudly admit, “I am racist, against Muslims” – it showed the acceptance of Islamophobia.

That’s why I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you. Today around the world, demagogues appeal to our worst instincts. Conspiracy theories once confined to the fringe are going mainstream. It’s as if the Age of Reason – the era of evidential argument – is ending, and now knowledge is delegitimized and scientific consensus is dismissed. Democracy, which depends on shared truths, is in retreat, and autocracy, which depends on shared lies, is on the march. Hate crimes are surging, as are murderous attacks on religious and ethnic minorities.

What do all these dangerous trends have in common? I’m just a comedian and an actor, not a scholar. But one thing is pretty clear to me. All this hate and violence is being facilitated by a handful of internet companies that amount to the greatest propaganda machine in history.

The greatest propaganda machine in history.

Think about it. Facebook, YouTube and Google, Twitter and others – they reach billions of people. The algorithms these platforms depend on deliberately amplify the type of content that keeps users engaged – stories that appeal to our baser instincts and that trigger outrage and fear. It’s why YouTube recommended videos by the conspiracist Alex Jones billions of times. It’s why fake news outperforms real news, because studies show that lies spread faster than truth. And it’s no surprise that the greatest propaganda machine in history has spread the oldest conspiracy theory in history – the lie that Jews are somehow dangerous. As one headline put it, “Just Think What Goebbels Could Have Done with Facebook.”
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: TerryM on November 26, 2019, 08:51:37 PM
Ramen!!!
& down with Facebook's guardians of the truth - or at least the truth as they'd prefer it.


I've no following, but have been called a bot.
I actually had to refer them back to my years here above the line before they admitted that OK, perhaps they were wrong in this particular instance.
My ideas may seem strange to some, but they are my ideas.
I'm sure the same can be said for Craig and his ideas.


I don't "follow" Craig Murray, but I have interacted with him and I'm much more convinced that he's an actual person than I am that Ben Nimmo shares that distinction.


The internet started out with such high hopes, some actually saw digital commerce as an evil to be avoided - what we did on the internet we did in the interest of the community, eschewing personal reward. - How things have changed. How disastrously for the most part things have changed.


TGF Neven, and a few of his kind. Still more interested in facts than solely in financial gain.
Terry
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: blumenkraft on November 27, 2019, 04:20:32 PM
Social media is doing a superb job in transmitting lies, falsehoods, prejudice, hate, human trafficking, sexual exploitation of children....

You know what?

The radio is doing a superb job in transmitting lies, falsehoods, prejudice, hate, racism. See Nazi Germany.

TV is doing a superb job in transmitting lies, falsehoods, prejudice, hate, and marketing for the worst people and companies on earth.

It's not the medium. It's human nature.

Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: be cause on November 27, 2019, 04:53:47 PM
it'snot humN NATURE .. IT IS INHUMAN NURTURE  .. B.C.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: nanning on November 27, 2019, 05:40:22 PM
Indeed. Thank you very much bc. Beautiful.

blumenkraft, I remember from the 70's when there were only a few public TV channels in Europe and that was not used to broadcast those bad things. Although we already had advertising and that is a bad thing in this context. Perhaps I have rosy glasses because I was a child then (TV was still black&white).
Today there are hardly any trustworthy news sources anymore. Especially online via social media. You have to actively look for it.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Florifulgurator on November 27, 2019, 07:40:59 PM
My ideas may seem strange to some, but they are my ideas.
Perhaps. Here I've seen you share some ideas right out the Putin propaganda kitchen. The internets neurosurgeon in me (some of my ideas dwarf Dr. Frankenstein) would place you as a major neuron in the disinformation warfare awareness part of the human driven meta AI/data mining/ontology knitting/... brainware I would plant over the subcortical level AI's of Facebook.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: Neven on November 30, 2019, 12:53:37 PM
You're Putin's greatest asset, Martin.
Title: Re: The problem of social media
Post by: blumenkraft on December 01, 2019, 03:25:50 PM
Let's talk about opening a can and the future...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpgsAJjMiu0