[1A] The Free Speech Thread

[jamil]

What little recall I have of the fairness doctrine leads me to believe that the news organizations didn't have to automatically include a rebuttal of whatever story they presented, but if some person or group wished to rebut their presentation they had to make time available gratis. The burden was largely financial in having to give up valuable air time, so they tended to stay away from subjects or presentations that they knew would be a lightning rod.

Back in the day I didn't even know there was a fairness doctrine until it was gone. I remember that news outlets talked about controversial issues, and they tended to provide different viewpoints, albeit, it was usually obvious which viewpoint they favored. The FCC requirements were only such that controversial topics of concern to viewers/readers were discussed, and positions were presented honestly/fairly in the judgment of the FCC.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Back in the day I didn't even know there was a fairness doctrine until it was gone. I remember that news outlets talked about controversial issues, and they tended to provide different viewpoints, albeit, it was usually obvious which viewpoint they favored. The FCC requirements were only such that controversial topics of concern to viewers/readers were discussed, and positions were presented honestly/fairly in the judgment of the FCC.

Like you, I didn’t realize it was there until it was gone. But honestly, I believe broadcasters tended to avoid most controversial issues. For better or worse, if the FD were still in place, folks like Rush Limbaugh would have never been heard of.

 

[jamil]

Like you, I didn’t realize it was there until it was gone. But honestly, I believe broadcasters tended to avoid most controversial issues. For better or worse, if the FD were still in place, folks like Rush Limbaugh would have never been heard of.

Would Rush not have made it big if he had to present both sides fairly? You might have a point.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Would Rush not have made it big if he had to present both sides fairly? You might have a point.

I don’t think “conservative radio” would have ever been anything, at all. Instead, we’d be stuck listening to those boring, monotonous, “experts”, legislators, business leaders, drone on about whatever milquetoast topic the moderator or the radio station management felt was “safe” to present. Remember those? The ones that would be on on Sunday mornings that no one ever listened too?

 

[MCgrease08]

Photographer Sues To Stop Virginia From Fining Him For Expressing Christian Marriage Beliefs On Business Website

I don't care if you are a Christian or not, this **** is so blatantly unconstitutional it makes my blood boil.

I hope the state gets ***** slapped hard on this one.

 

[actaeon277]

Photographer Sues To Stop Virginia From Fining Him For Expressing Christian Marriage Beliefs On Business Website

I don't care if you are a Christian or not, this **** is so blatantly unconstitutional it makes my blood boil.

I hope the state gets ***** slapped hard on this one.

More people that don't understand the 1st amendment.

 

[jamil]

Photographer Sues To Stop Virginia From Fining Him For Expressing Christian Marriage Beliefs On Business Website

I don't care if you are a Christian or not, this **** is so blatantly unconstitutional it makes my blood boil.

I hope the state gets ***** slapped hard on this one.

I dunno. If SCOTUS hears it, I'm sure Roberts will have his **** twisted over it.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Tik Tok is down, prompting speculation that it's been banned.

Technically a 1A violation, unless they can make a case that it actually is a malicious app. I think they may be able to do that.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Tik Tok is down, prompting speculation that it's been banned.

Technically a 1A violation, unless they can make a case that it actually is a malicious app. I think they may be able to do that.

That's a worry. My granddaughter posts little videos on there.

 

[BugI02]

Tik Tok is down, prompting speculation that it's been banned.

Technically a 1A violation, unless they can make a case that it actually is a malicious app. I think they may be able to do that.

It's unlikely there is an app anywhere in any store for which you couldn't make that case. I believe I read recently that a flashlight app was banned for leaching user data and shipping back to the company server

No one is innocent

 

[Phase2]

It's unlikely there is an app anywhere in any store for which you couldn't make that case. I believe I read recently that a flashlight app was banned for leaching user data and shipping back to the company server

There are dozens if not hundreds of flashlight apps on the Android store. Most of them have things like access to the network and data storage, etc. (perfect for reading your data and sending it out). I had to go through and hunt for one that didn't want ridiculous access rights. It did need camera access since that is tied to the light.

 

[actaeon277]

[video=youtube_share;zTjQkY-7Ms8]https://youtu.be/zTjQkY-7Ms8[/video]

 

[actaeon277]

Not sure if this was the thread I posted in previously.
Update.

[video=youtube_share;J59fnh62oxQ]https://youtu.be/J59fnh62oxQ[/video]

 

[actaeon277]

YouTube making changes again.
I know. "Private Company".
Well, if they have 230 protection because they can't moderate, YET they are moderating...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdHJAly0sws

 

[jamil]

YouTube making changes again.
I know. "Private Company".
Well, if they have 230 protection because they can't moderate, YET they are moderating...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdHJAly0sws

In the Netflix documentary The Social Dilemma, they talk about the purpose of their algorithms is to change people's behavior to be what they want. The question was raised towards the end about tech companies being able to fix themselves, and the "insiders" were not optimistic about that. Regulation will need to come from outside. I tend to agree with that because they're too big and powerful for the invisible hand to correct the problem. Especially THIS problem because the "consumers" are the product. They're being manipulated in a way that they're unaware, and even unable to stop if they were aware. Many of the tech insiders who know how all this **** works found themselves being manipulated by the very algorithms they wrote. An average consumer on social media stands no chance.

So the algorithms manipulate behavior to get you to do what they want, which is for you to keep your eyes on their screen, and then you click the things they want you to click, so that they can make money. The byproduct of that is what I've called a positive feedback loop driving people to the extremes. Social media, and even news media companies have figured out that social/political anger is the behavior that makes them the most money. So that's where they drive you regardless of the impact on individuals and society.

This "private company" line is rooted in a belief in the invisible hand theory. If it ever were true, it's not true here. Social media companies have figured out how to most efficiently hack into people's minds and effect behavior. Of course that's nothing new; advertisers have been doing that for years. But putting the idea in your head to crave a snickers bar when you're hungry is small potatoes compared with the manipulation social media is doing. Watching a snickers commercial with Betty White doesn't turn people into far left or far right radicals. Imagine if heads of tyrant states had access to this capability, to indoctrinate people through social media? When an industry can change people's temperament to this degree, it's not just a private company, it is a public threat.

So social media's answer to this problem is not to change the algorithms. It's to censor certain content. And it appears to be mostly a one-direction deal. Facebook is trying to shed responsibility for all this by blaming it on "fake news", when they algorithms are designed for fake news. So they push it off onto 3rd party fact checkers (who aren't bipartisan). And then YouTube's answer is to stifle some speech it doesn't like. The age content filter is just an excuse to make it seem innocuous to the people who aren't paying attention.

 

[actaeon277]

Facebook Zuckerberg being questioned again.

1. I don't take Viva La Frei's statement about constantly starting with "Senator" to be 100% correct.
2. I don't like the assumption that because someone says "yes or no" means that the answer can only be yes or no.
3. That being said, Zuck doesn't seem to be answering the question.

[video=youtube_share;XXuk-WSDDRw]https://youtu.be/XXuk-WSDDRw[/video]