The censorship has been a part of this polarization and it still is. It really enrages people and thus polarization grows even stronger.
I think we need to get more used to free speech, we probably think we are but we are not. It has diminished step by step.
In Sweden the muslims are very angry because free speech is new to them, we can either give in and create censorship and new laws to not anger them and they (and their allies) will demand more and more laws, censorship until we have total fascism and they're in control of what's truth, justice, science etc. Or we can have total free speech and those that opposes it can either move or accept it, but yes it takes time, people will get hurt etc. Imo its still worth that in comparison to fascism.
All of that is true, censorship is a part of polarisation, but it doesn't mean that social media by itself is benefical to free speech. It isn't, with or without censorship.
The muslism getting angry at free speech is not a social media issue either. I can draw muhammed caricatures and show them in school or in a journal. That is an expression of free speech.
What I'm saying is that the inherent technical structure of social media enhances polarisation in society and is detrimnental to the expression and developement of personal opinions diverging from these poles. Its basically a way of getting people to stop discussing their opinions and keep them emotionally binded to some ideology.
That doesn't mean, social media can't be used to follow stuff we like or stay in contact with people etc. Those are good things. But on a political level, they promote echo chambers and ideological division. I wouldn't even say thats their objective, its just in the way these systems work.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
[edited, forgot a 'not' which changes the meaning of the sentence]
I still think personally the right to free speech, in no way obligates others to repeat or relay your speech for you.
I 100% truly believe you have a right to think, say, and preach whatever you wish. But no one is bound or obligated to help you get that speech out to others.
From my perspective, say your govt is 100% free speech. Take the US. (well SUPPOSE to be legally protected). Let's say it was hypothetically working as it should and they do not stifle, suppress, or tramp on anyone's rights to.
Still doesnt mean you walk into a govt building and go "I got something I want to say. I need to use your printer to print off 10,000 fliers, and I need you to hand them out to people" and them saying no, is not violating your right. Just the govt isn't forced to use their resources and manpower/time to amplify yours.
Same online to me, anyway.
Personal right to free speech, truly free speech. Doesnt equal others lose of right to say they dont want to help you tell people what you think.
Now it's not that black and white in reality. In some places online social media is a way to bypass suppression of it and to get out the word by other means making others aware of situations that are being covered up.
But (to me) that is a different discussion than right to free speech online, that's a discussion of governmental repercussions of having/using your free speech in that country regardless of the online part (as it has been a problem before online came around, so different topic of the problem).
IF that makes sense...its about your countries horrible abuse of you right to free speech, vs whatever online format of choice you use obligation to help you have an outlet to do it instead.
its CLEARLY the right thing to do to allow you. But its not required of them to.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
All of that is true, censorship is a part of polarisation, but it doesn't mean that social media by itself is benefical to free speech. It isn't, with or without censorship.
Beneficial in comparison to what? I don't see why it should be different to a debate on TV or a speech in a public place etc. People should be allowed to free speech as long as it doesn't break the law (e.g threats or similar).
Quote:
The muslism getting angry at free speech is not a social media issue either.
Never said its social media's fault that muslims doesn't accept free speach.
Quote:
I can draw muhammed caricatures and show them in school or in a journal. That is an expression of free speech.
In school? no way. Schools are way less tolerant than Twitter (was). I think it's the same in both US and Sweden. Of course it might depend on the teacher and the school, but the public schools are very left leaning in both countries, which means very little respect for free speech..
Quote:
What I'm saying is that the inherent technical structure of social media enhances polarisation in society and is detrimnental to the expression and developement of personal opinions diverging from these poles. Its basically a way of getting people to stop discussing their opinions and keep them emotionally binded to some ideology.
I see people discussing, having opinions all the time in the Facebook group for my city, for example. But sure there's a lot of group thinking in social media, but you would see the same thing in a school or in a workplace too, it's just how we are.
I don't think social media is any different, but it's also easier, safer, for everyone to have a voice on there. Easier than perhaps in the workplace or in school where there might be a few loudmouths and you never get a say in anything or you'd be beaten up! Social media is fantastic in that way. I use it all the time to express opinions (e.g stuff my city does that i like or that i don't like) sometimes generating many hundreds of likes which of course can attract the responsible people's attention (that can be good, or bad...). Something i wouldn't do without it, i'm a very introvert guy, i don't do public speeches
I can draw muhammed caricatures and show them in school or in a journal. That is an expression of free speech.
I beg to disagree, and this is kind of the issue at hand:
You LEGALLY can, of course, but you will be pressured not/forbidden to do it by the school authorities.
They will say it's unhelp/hurtfull, and that it will stoke/start a fire.
Those people don't care about all that, they just don't want to get beheaded/shot by some asshole for sanctionning this decision. Or worse: alienate a solid part of an electorate (which is every large city in Belgium (and for it's scale), if you go to the political dimensions of such societal topics.
This example is extreme, of course, but you could replace that by anything controversial, really. Take Trump.
They pushed forward people shitting on him, saying things about him waaay past crazy, because it was the safest pole to find yourself at. They will always bend to the majority opinion, and do so based on the stats they can extract to support those choices FROM THEIR OWN PLATFORM ITSELF, making it all the easier.
It really depends on the way the BoD sees things, combined with their financial imperatives/goals.
So if they want to use that data to make money, they will, since not even Ipsos could get as high as Twitter's toes when it comes to polling metadatas.
Let's not forget the immense power that such platform wields, and that is solely in the care of non-elected officials, worse, venture capitalists, instead of focusing too much on which content will be allowed.
If Musk is good at making money buying ideas/companies, it's because he's REALLY playing 4D chess: his ulterior motive is profit, control, and channels that validate his vision (whatever that is).
Whatever people think he did it for must make his psychotic self laugh, and hard.
If this change means what's best for Twitter in general, I'd bet my left nut that it would just be a "lucky, welcomed" byproduct of his actual plan.
@HubU I actually did show those caricatures at school. Granted we only have few muslims here and they are fairly moderate.
@vurt I'm not saying you shouldn't use it to express your opinions. Of course you should but the way I see it, social media has severly worsened ideological divisions in many countries and this not only because it was used as an ideological tool by whoever controls it or its data but simply by the technical way it functions.
I am sure that if many social media didn't rely so much on ad revenue, generating clicks (again this is true for many online stuff, including journos), promoting attention seeking narcicisstic behaviour, we would have more civilized discussions and generally more nuance and compromise. But that doesn't create attention, while tribalism, fear, hate, hyperbole etc. etc. work alot better at getting people into it. Its probably, if it weren't for the controversy and the strong emotions and tribalism, people wouldn't even use it that much.
Again, not aimed at you specifically just a general observation I made about social media these last years. Hence why I'm feeling content on not using it. I like to speak to real people and sometimes on this forum.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
Only if both ran in opposite directions.
For in the US anyway. Both sides loudest have went to full sprint to crazy town.
Unless for examples AOC (liberal poster child for yell for attention) vs Marjorie Taylor Greene (conservative poster child for yell for attention) is extreme distance vs not.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Last edited by DXWarlock on Fri, 29th Apr 2022 00:12; edited 1 time in total
Unless for examples AOC (liberal poster child for yell for attention) vs Marjorie Taylor Greene (conservative poster child for yell for attention) is extreme distance vs not.
Stupid people have been around since people. ALL sides have them.
People 'around for a while in the US' vs extremist attention seeking vocal ones of those, is the point of the image..is it not?
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
If one side goes crazy, then of course the opposite will react. But never in my life have I seen some of the lunacy coming from the left since ~2014. Meanwhile, rational people in the middle are suddenly right wing because of how far these maniacs have moved the goal posts. On the other side, they've always been like that, and vocal too.
On the other side, they've always been like that, and vocal too? So..the left just finally caught up? So shouldn't the red line be long to start with?
I get it I do the left on social media is retarded in the US. And in media, and in Hollywood at times. And streaming services trying to appeal to the biggest denominators here and there. As well as pushing for social changes faster and harder than they should expect, then getting mad it doesnt happen overnight and expecting people that didn't make happen that quick get fired. And outraged over equal representation and want people to 'make up for it' by tripling the amount.
While the right started a whole new social media because of censorship, where anyone that talks bad about THEM is banned (people was banned from truth social for mocking trump). Saying the TSA should keep the 15 year old body scanning tech that needs the operator to input the sex of the person [to account for breast implants that might exist, or false flagging penile pump implants..etc] , because to move to the newer one that doesn't require it, is a 'trans agenda'.
Blocking traffic with semis over...petty shit. Calling the catholic church being ruled by satan for helping migrants. And outraged about 1st graders being taught about gay sex (Which never was a thing to start with, or is going to be).
For the extremist on both here in US: Two equally comical clown colleges throwing pies is all it is.
BOTH sides are equally as suddenly vocal, toxic, and zealously opinionated as often as they can be, over frivolous things lately.
If you react to someone acting like a bulldog idiot, by acting like an opposite bulldog idiot...you are now both just idiots.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Dunno, where are you starting? Since America was founded? Quite a few things have happened along the way that would shrink that red line by a lot, don't you think? How would the average Joe from the 1950s/60s fare in society today if nothing has significantly changed after all of these years and movements? Probably not well, I'm guessing.
Which is exactly what it's pointing out. Even after all of this time and progress, these morons have taken things so far that being a reasonable member of society isn't enough. You have to subscribe to all of it or nothing, lest you be a nazi/alt-right/whatever the fuck.
Which is exactly what it's pointing out. Even after all of this time and progress, these morons have taken things so far that being a reasonable member of society isn't enough. You have to subscribe to all of it or nothing, lest you be a nazi/alt-right/whatever the fuck.
That's my point. At least in the US both sides can have this and they do with the gross generalization of the other side as 'something' if you disagree with any one of the dozen stances they have.
I've been called some version of a "Biden loving bleeding heart libertard' because I said I dont think people NEED to have loaded rifles to open carry in walmart.
OR that I support some forms of abortion as a "Left wing nutjob that is pushing the LGBTQ agenda" (not sure how many LGBTQ are getting aboritions....).
I guess it depends which way you lean, on who is the worst, simply because the other sides worst is ALL worst "thats extreme and I dont get the point", while your sides worst has some "that's a bit extreme, but I get the point".
Maybe its just me
I feel:
Calling the catholic church under satan's control because you disagree with a thing they do.
Calling for the literal hanging of the vice president for calling an election in a way you do not like.
That any liberal that supported confirming biden be arrested (like him or not as a president aside..that a different topic),
Refusing bag check at the capitol building..you work in, after a civilian raid on it...and then setting off the metal detector alarms because you are bringing in a gun (to a place that never allowed them before that) then shouting its your right, and this is a totalitarian regime to demand such checks.
Saying that wildfires in california is a result of defunding the police, simply for virtue points with supporters of police (police dont fight fires).
[And we can make just as many examples for the far extreme left]
Is just as retarded as the other side has gotten for its village idiots.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Its only accurate on what you can consider ethical or societal issues like integration of minorities, feminism, lgptqbbq, pronouns, abortion rights, familiy values, national identity. (Some of which are even important, but less than most people imagine)
Its not accurate on what you can consider economical issues, where especially in the US but also in many european countries, social nets have been undermined by neoliberal (e.g. capitalisti) policies in favor of international competition, deregulation etc. etc.
Its also not accurate in the rise of nationalism and right-wing populism in many western countries by parties that rationally 0 credibility at least in their economic visions but still manage to rally many people lost in anger, since the national-capitalist approach is economically doomed to fail in a globalised world and only profits the national elites, while the poor will remain poor anyway (but get their anger fueled). edit: And DXWarlock has a point. The Republican party in the US has radicalized itself alot too. Its not just one side. I think if people were honest with themselves they'd notice this easily.
I would argue that many left-wing parties use the ethical or societal issues to pander to specific populations because they do not dare touch the neoliberal policies or even enforce them. The social democrats have basically left the economic game and chose aesthetics over economics which is why their classic voterbase is angry and votes the idiot nationalists.
The gross simplifications like Musks post are typical of social media understanding of the world though. There is not that much thought in yet it feels accurate.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
Yes Winston is spot on, unfortunately. When it comes to China i believe he's right, Elon is first and foremost a businessman and not some free-speech activist, he can be that for the western world perhaps (at least initially, they'll get to him eventually..) but heh, good luck when it comes to China..
still people bilieve he is a smart businesman like people still bilieve trump is a smart real estate ass. But in essense they funded all their gains by daddys money or a lucky fluke share holding ( elon got FIRED from paypal but somehow got to keep his stocks) and then had the american goverment subisidize and american people pay for their super risky ventures, most being not nearly as profitable as they make out to be and always on verge of bankruptcy counting on finding the next sucker invester/bank ...
Did u know twitter has more operating costs in personel, management n technology, then fucking apple .... a billion+ yearly cost for many years now in a row ... , Linus tech tips thought they had maybe at max 20 million expenses ...
a billion, and what do they have, a bunch of bot farm accounts ... n what have they done these past three years for 3 billion .... , amazon bought twitch for one billion roflol
Elon musk made the dumbest purchase ever , his whole team knows it, the market knows it, and rigght now he is desperate to get rid of it or hope daddy Xi comes hrough with what underhanded deal he made with china, which if it comes to light, will crush his american fanboys
Even if he fires HALF the staff n management, he still is well over half a bill a year in costs and the cost to his reputation for firing all these people will be felt in the market too
he walked straight into twitter boards trap, the bimbo at the bar playing hard to get waiting for the sucker to pay her dinner and the most expensive bottle, and pretend to fighting it setting the bate for the idiot elon is, only this bimbo costs a billion a year in fixed costs. They litterally found the last sucker to make a profit off, the richest man in the world. There is no other sucker now ... end of the line
( and this bimbo: Twitter's decision to close its video sharing service Vine , vine compilations was the most popular searched thing on youtube for a long time, and now look how tiktok exploded, ) Twitter, which bought the company for a reported $30 million in October 2012 , only to shut it down in 2016 , imagine they hat put a billion into it and had made tiktok roflol
the man gave (burned) 20% of his networth to please daddy xi, little does he know daddy xi wants it all and the american people, majority of his customer base, have no love for a china ass kisser
the future will show.... i have no love for china or commies, and i don't think Elon has either if im honest.. people said he and jack dorsey were best friends too, i never got that vibe at all..
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
n what have they done these past three years for 3 billion .... , amazon bought twitch for one billion roflol
