Politics are like medieval royalty. A complex inter-generational web of influence, alliances, and quid pro quo. Support of these influencers was required to earn votes, and policy had to repay these influencers - rather than voters.
Through the application of advanced techniques and data, Facebook enabled the circumvention of that at a shockingly lower cost than in the past.
There is great irony here. These supremacists are the same type of bully they are seeking to correct for: people who abuse socially acceptable ways to oppress others.
In the Middle East accidental innocent casualties create more enemies and terrorists, such that the army often displays greater restraint than our police.
The animosity being generated in the 1/3rd of the population (white males), who also happen to own most of the guns, is already being politically leveraged. I worry that someone will find a way to harness it further.
I'm thinking 'telephone network' rather than 'newspaper'. Phone companies were built as monopolies and faced strict regulation. Imagine your phone only working for company approved topics :)
Speech was worthy of protection under the universal declaration of human rights, and these platforms are becoming so fundamental to communication that they should be given the same consideration.
These platforms have become so centralized, powerful, and ubiquitous that censorship on a platform has a greater impact than preventing a person from speaking. That kind of power should never be wielded unchecked by a private entity.
> I think it's fine for large web companies to apply their own morals.
This is rather like saying you think it's fine for libraries to only carry books in line with their morals. Or perhaps that your phone only works for approved topics.
At a certain size these sites become primary platforms for communication. I would argue that at that point they should be considered a governmental entity for laws around freedom of speech applied to historical means of communication. Or made into one.
It's not just about money, but the appropriate application of money. Sure the Dems may have bought some likes and upvotes, while CA applied information warfare technique normally reserved for military activity.
From the Guardian:
>He had recently been exposed to a new discipline: “information operations”, which ranks alongside land, sea, air and space in the US military’s doctrine of the “five-dimensional battle space”.
This is a fatal vulnerability to the ideal of democracy. The only way to beat this game is to play it, and whoever can play it faster, smarter, and harder wins.
The only limitation is when these actions cross the line and cost you support by alienating your base, but I don't think that line exists for Trump.
In fact, knowing just four random pieces of information was enough to reidentify 90 percent of the shoppers as unique individuals and to uncover their records, researchers calculated.
You can also commit crimes in novels or roleplaying games that are illegal. That's different from supporting a market that causes child abuse.
Possessing digital/virtual information that required abuse endorses abuse. Entropy is our friend here; only an extremely rare set of bits results from child abuse. You won't just find it.
Even fiction or photoshop is illegal. Your argument is much more applicable here, but seeing how society treats even inactive pedophiles as criminals rather than sick, I don't think it'll be very popular.
We clearly eat far more meat than we need and produce/harvest meat in ways that create unnecessary damage and suffering.
However, not everyone is like you. Some people develop deficiencies when they exclude meat from their diet. I have witnessed an ex-vegan health/nutritional professional advise a vegetarian to start eating some meat due to chronic health issues and lab-tested nutritional deficiencies.
It was an hard journey for both of them.
I'm glad it works for you right now while providing a sense of moral superiority, but not everyone is the same.
This isn't about gender, race, political affiliation, or whatever attribute you use to separate people into 'us' and 'them'.
This is about bullies and assholes. Bullies and assholes come in every race and creed. The thing about male/female chauvinists is that they're actually the same! A male chauvinist, born as a female, would still be a chauvinist. They have everything in common. They're the same asshole bully. They are the enemy.
We need to make a stand against assholes whether they identify with us or not, and stop letting the actions of assholes who identify with us cause us to sit by and tolerate further discrimination and bullying. My 'us' and 'them' is whether you discriminate against people.
Freedom from discrimination is a human right. You don't fix discrimination with discrimination - you only perpetuate it. I'm tired of the assholes running everything.
I think you maybe be on a bit of a red herring here. Yes, values vary by age group but I'm unconvinced that cohorts change predictably over their lifetimes especially if we consider a more international view.
However, values aside I think there is an impact from neuroplasticity in terms of how younger people adapt more readily to new technology, etc.
Yet this is the same type of work people are using to argue that that crabs/fish can feel/experience pain. Proving or disproving consciousness is basically impossible.
E.g. I feel like a lot of people aren't conscious :) Prove me right or wrong?
Through the application of advanced techniques and data, Facebook enabled the circumvention of that at a shockingly lower cost than in the past.