Big Tech Oligarchs

[ClearedHot]

Other threads have touched on the actions of Facebook, Twitter and other big tech and social media companies as a result of their actions during the election.  We have also talked about the pros and cons of eliminating the protections they enjoy from section 230.

Twitter suspended a major news organization (NY Post), because they didn't like the Hunter Biden story and labeled it "fake news" when parts have now been proven to be true.  Twitter and Facebook have also killed President Trumps accounts. 

Now Facebook is in a war with an actual country as the battle for control heats up.  Facebook Unfriends Australia

Interested in the thoughts of others.

[jazzdude]

I don't think Facebook/Google/Twitter are doing anything different than any other large multinational company. They are doing things traditional news and media outlets already do.

This is old news, Google did the same thing in Europe, and prevailed there. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out in Australia.

What the news outlets (really, Murdoch has been pushing this issue internationally) want is for Facebook to pay anytime it links to a news site in its news feed. So if a headline is shown with a link to a news site on Facebook, that news site wants Facebook to pay them for use of the headline. Even though the news site increases its visibility and likely the number of people going to their site by showing up on the Facebook newsfeed.

All Facebook is saying is that they don't want to buy the link from the news site, and removed the links it would otherwise have to pay for in Australia. Facebook is not blocking anything; it's choosing not to buy a product from another company and provide it as a (free) service on Facebook. Australians are free to navigate to the news site directly and still obtain the news.

The safety aspect mentioned in the article (emergency alerts) is a red herring. Essential emergency government services should not rely on a platform they have no contract with not pay to provide a service (in other words, no control over services provided to them by a business), because their access can be cut off without notice. Sure, try to be where the people are, but it shouldn't be the sole method of emergency alerts.

A corporation that large, with the amount of money the big tech has (and not just big tech, but in other sectors as well), wields a significant amount of power and influence. This influence includes the market, and government.

What's missing from this conversation is how much reach and influence traditional media outlets *already* have, and how it's lobbying to keep that influence and profit.

I'm curious how this would affect smaller news aggregators; will they go out of business since they may not be able to afford paying to include outside news links on their site?

[jazzdude]

Looks like some stuff in Europe changed somewhat recently for Google and news:

https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/business/google-plans-to-pay-publishers-1-billion-over-three-years-for-their-content/amp_articleshow/78426856.cms
https://www.reuters.com/article/alphabet-publishing-eu-int-idUSKBN26M5O4

Google gave in and is going to pay news publishers in certain instances for news on a new Google news app, and it also just decided to take the same deal in Australia.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/17/google-pay-news-corp/

Facebook is still pushing back, since their business model is different than Google's. Facebook doesn't want to pay for news shared by users, so it's easier and cheaper to just not show news. Google killed it's social media platform (Google plus) long ago, so it's much easier for them to control what content is shared is distributed, and ensure that costs are kept under control.

It'd suck if platforms had to pay to link to a news article, especially if the link is shared by a user. I know there's been a lot of good discussion here in BaseOps with links to articles to further some great debate; it's really hamper that debate if BaseOps had to pay a news provider for each link shared.

[mp5g]

I haven’t read any of the articles yet about the FB and news site link posting yet, but are they completely removing the hyperlinked site from their pages, or could you post the main body of the link but delete off the “https://“ at the front of the link? 
 

The hyperlink obviously wouldn’t work but that’s an easy cut and paste into a search engine and then just add in the prefix (if you will), and voila. Discussion and debate is back. 
 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/yada_yada_yada

becomes

www.washingtonpost.com/yada_yada_yada

edit: spelling 

Edited February 19, 2021 by mp5g

[jazzdude]

I haven’t read any of the articles yet about the FB and news site link posting yet, but are they completely removing the hyperlinked site from their pages, or could you post the main body of the link but delete off the “https://“ at the front of the link? 
 
The hyperlink obviously wouldn’t work but that’s an easy cut and paste into a search engine and then just add in the prefix (if you will), and voila. Discussion and debate is back. 
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/yada_yada_yada
becomes
www.washingtonpost.com/yada_yada_yada
edit: spelling 

It's both, the link, and "snippet" content. Sure, by doing what you mention makes it harder for automated tools to catch (or doing things like sanding spaces to links, like s I t e n a m e . c o m), but it looks like Facebook or Google would have to pay if they or users point to a specific article. It essentially attacks fair use of published news content.

[Booj]

https://popehat.substack.com/p/section-230-is-the-subject-of-the

From Popehat "Very simply put, Section 230 is the law that says that, if I post something defamatory on Twitter, the victim can sue me, but not Twitter. It also says, again put simply, that Twitter has the right to moderate stuff on its site as it sees fit. The language of Section 230 is fairly clear, for something written by Congress. There is very little controversy amongst actual courts about what it means. The legal impact of Section 230 has been well-established by courts for decades, and efforts to evade it have been consistently rejected.

Audio form: https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2019/08/deplatformed-social-media-censorship-and-the-first-amendment/

You really like reading? https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml

 

I will agree that tech companies inconsistently enforce their terms of service. However, it is unlikely that giving the government more power to regulate the internet will do anything to improve that.

[ClearedHot]

Zuck was trying to get out of the spotlight by running ads putting the blame on the government, when that failed he changed the platform name.  Some very interesting items buried int he SEC report including a research study Facebook Manipulation that shows just how and biased the platform is.  Something has to change and 230 needs serious modification or elimination.  We will just ignore the $400M he dumped into shaping local elections.  This nerd has far too much say in shaping your life.

[Lord Ratner]

While I agree with jazz dude initially, the problem is that companies like Facebook are making money through advertising before and after the links that a user posts. And the very act of users posting links to other news sources is what keeps eyeballs on the Facebook newsfeed. If users were no longer allowed to post links to other sources then other Facebook users would be less likely to spend as much time on facebook, meaning Facebook would not be able to advertise as much. So while it is not a direct relationship, Facebook is very much making money off of those links. I don't know what sort of payment model is required for Facebook to continue this arrangement, but it's not accurate to compare it to a web board like base ops, because fundamentally Facebook models themselves around making money on those exact interactions.

 

As far as influence goes, I'm afraid I don't have a great answer for that either. We're clearly now in a middle ground between the government's constitutional obligation to defend free speech in a private organizations constitutionally protected right to run their business as they see fit. Honestly I don't find Facebook as comparable in this dilemma as I do the government. Too many elected and unelected officials have been using the social media companies to do what they cannot. If this trend continues, I suspect the only solution would be to subject the social media companies to the same constitutional obligations that the government is subject to.

 

And then we have the third problem of personalization and tracking. It is problematic that every individual user experiences a different internet based on an algorithmic encapsulation of all of their previous browsing behavior. It's creating a social problem, while at the same time making social media companies billions in profits. I think we probably need legislation that bans tracking users across websites and domains. If Facebook wants to track users actions on facebook, and adjust their Facebook experience accordingly, I have no issue with that. But what you do on Facebook should not translate to what you see on a Google search, or an Amazon product search, or what advertisements appear on CNN. These algorithms are ultimately tuned for one purpose, to keep your eyeballs where they are. The second and third order effects are a rapid increase in conspiracy theory and distrust/hatred of neighbors with opposing viewpoints. I'm not sure the live-and-let-live philosophy of individual liberty can survive in a society where profitable algorithms and self-serving media/political figures prevent us from knowing and loving our neighbors with different views.

 

It's healthy and normal that you cannot control who you bump into in the broader world. It exposes you to a diversity of experiences and ideas. These algorithms are having the exact opposite effect, while the internet is more and more becoming a part of the public space. I think it is probably in our best interests to maintain some element of unpredictable encounters if we don't want that split into multiple societies with myopic views.

Edited October 30, 2021 by Lord Ratner

[jazzdude]

. So while it is not a direct relationship, Facebook is very much making money off of those links. I don't know what sort of payment model is required for Facebook to continue this arrangement, but it's not accurate to compare it to a web board like base ops, because fundamentally Facebook models themselves around making money on those exact interactions.

Most online discussion boards also rely on a similar revenue strategy as Facebook, the sale of ads to support the site. Another methods are affiliate links (website gets paid for referring traffic trip another site). Unless they have a benefactor doing it out of the goodness of their heart/love of the community, or charge subscription fees (paywalls). But server space, hosting software, tech support all cost money.

Facebook (and Google) just happen to work on a bigger scale and have an in house advertising technical expertise, and do so with the goal of making a profit.

And either way, the news agency still gets more traffic (and in turn, ad revenue) than if there was no links in social media (broader audience than just people who go to the news website). Should you have to pay CNN to post a link to a story on their page?

And then we have the third problem of personalization and tracking. It is problematic that every individual user experiences a different internet based on an algorithmic encapsulation of all of their previous browsing behavior. It's creating a social problem, while at the same time making social media companies billions in profits. I think we probably need legislation that bans tracking users across websites and domains. If Facebook wants to track users actions on facebook, and adjust their Facebook experience accordingly, I have no issue with that. But what you do on Facebook should not translate to what you see on a Google search, or an Amazon product search, or what advertisements appear on CNN. These algorithms are ultimately tuned for one purpose, to keep your eyeballs where they are. The second and third order effects are a rapid increase in conspiracy theory and distrust/hatred of neighbors with opposing viewpoints. I'm not sure the live-and-let-live philosophy of individual liberty can survive in a society where profitable algorithms and self-serving media/political figures prevent us from knowing and loving our neighbors with different views.

Smaller websites may not have the expertise to monetize their site (even if the goal isn't to make money, but just to pay for hosting), and turn to Facebook or Google as a service to sell ads on their site in return for a cut of the ad revenue to support their site. That brings Facebook and Google to the far reaches of the internet, and they would be dumb not to use the data they have to sell more ads and make more money. Alternatively, they could just take a bigger cut off the ad sale from the website using their ad service.

Privacy concerns also go much further than just social media in our society, so if we concerned about reselling personal data, we have to fix it in more than just social media platforms. Sure, we can see effects as individuals more readily on social media platforms when we see ads that follow us a the internet. But your ISP can watch and sell your internet usage habits, to include what you're viewing on the internet (as well as "free" VPNs), and prioritize traffic for companies that have deals with the ISP over those that don't. Credit card companies can sell spending data (hence all the cards for different companies that aren't banks). We used to have a degree of privacy because it was so labor intensive to collect data on individuals, but technology has made it easier to aggregate data, as well as search through the data.

I think one thing we will have to come to grips with as a society is that now there's a longer memory for your statements and actions. Social media just offers a place to keep the past alive, and for significantly more people than in the past. So dumb things you said/did 10-20 years ago can be drug up in present day conversations, and we seem to be less willing to believe that people grow and opinions change.

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

Most online discussion boards also rely on a similar revenue strategy as Facebook, the sale of ads to support the site. Another methods are affiliate links (website gets paid for referring traffic trip another site). Unless they have a benefactor doing it out of the goodness of their heart/love of the community, or charge subscription fees (paywalls). But server space, hosting software, tech support all cost money.

Facebook (and Google) just happen to work on a bigger scale and have an in house advertising technical expertise, and do so with the goal of making a profit.

And either way, the news agency still gets more traffic (and in turn, ad revenue) than if there was no links in social media (broader audience than just people who go to the news website). Should you have to pay CNN to post a link to a story on their page?



Smaller websites may not have the expertise to monetize their site (even if the goal isn't to make money, but just to pay for hosting), and turn to Facebook or Google as a service to sell ads on their site in return for a cut of the ad revenue to support their site. That brings Facebook and Google to the far reaches of the internet, and they would be dumb not to use the data they have to sell more ads and make more money. Alternatively, they could just take a bigger cut off the ad sale from the website using their ad service.

Privacy concerns also go much further than just social media in our society, so if we concerned about reselling personal data, we have to fix it in more than just social media platforms. Sure, we can see effects as individuals more readily on social media platforms when we see ads that follow us a the internet. But your ISP can watch and sell your internet usage habits, to include what you're viewing on the internet (as well as "free" VPNs), and prioritize traffic for companies that have deals with the ISP over those that don't. Credit card companies can sell spending data (hence all the cards for different companies that aren't banks). We used to have a degree of privacy because it was so labor intensive to collect data on individuals, but technology has made it easier to aggregate data, as well as search through the data.

I think one thing we will have to come to grips with as a society is that now there's a longer memory for your statements and actions. Social media just offers a place to keep the past alive, and for significantly more people than in the past. So dumb things you said/did 10-20 years ago can be drug up in present day conversations, and we seem to be less willing to believe that people grow and opinions change.
 

 

You're missing the point, and getting the relationships backwards.

 

I'm not inherently against ads being selected for you based on browsing history and consumer profile. That was the original genius of Google. 

 

The problem is that once infinite scrolling became a thing, and thus infinite ads, the model changed. Now the *content* is modified in order keep you on the site, keep you scrolling, and keep more ads on your screen. And yes, those ads are also customized for you.

 

This forum doesn't change which topics show up based on your previous activity, or activity from other unrelated sites. This forum is not continually tweaked, automatically, to measure which topics result in the longest engagement time for *you specifically* and then provide that type of content at a higher priority to you.

 

They just aren't the same, and to conflate the two is to miss the real threat. Web forums have been around a long time. Algorithm-based social media has not, and it coincides perfectly with the rise in tensions.

 

The privacy concerns are also important, but not related to the topic at hand. I don't like the direction we're going with cancel culture and an overall lack of grace. But what we're talking about here is the distortion of reality through selective exposure. The intent has always been there, but the tools have not. Learning algorithms and computers have changed the game. Politicians and media figures were simply not interesting enough to a wide enough range of people in order to engage everyone enough to warp the public consciousness. But now these algorithms can customize messages to millions of people simultaneously, each receiving content designed specifically for them, while never even realizing that there are a plethora of opposing views and facts.

 

Even this in and of itself wouldn't necessarily be a problem if there were good intentions. But there aren't good intentions, there are only monetary intentions. This isn't even a Democrat vs Republican thing, because if it was Facebook/Twitter/YouTube wouldn't allow the overwhelming proliferation of conservative news sources on their platforms. Even though most of the executives working at these tech companies have a deep hatred for conservative ideology, they allow the content to stream largely unfettered because more engagement means more advertising means more money.

 

This is not healthy. I do not blame the social media companies, just because they are steering the ship doesn't change the fact that the ship didn't exist until very recently. But just as pure libertarianism is impractical upon meeting reality, the solution is probably legislative. There are just some types of power that should not be wielded by anyone. It's not a new concept, the power to censor was the fear du jour when our country was founded.

 

Right now everybody is focused on who gets to control the content, but I think the real problem is the algorithm. And it's something we can address without treading deeply on the liberties of the involved companies. Yes, they will make less money, because making more money is how we got into this mess. But it is a very targeted approach that will not stifle innovation or brew resentment amongst the very people we are trying to help, unlike banning individuals such as Trump or Alex Jones.

 

So my "simple" solution is that you cannot tailor content on your service using data collected from other services. It is reasonable that someone who has spent years on Twitter would understand that the content they see on to Twitter is tailored for them. It is not logical for that person to assume that their Google searches are also being influenced by what they did on Twitter.

 

This would greatly increase the chances of randomly bumping into content you are not familiar or aligned with, just like how you randomly bump into people at work, in your neighborhood, on vacation, and at school that you don't already agree with from your previous relationships. I think.

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

You're missing the point, and getting the relationships backwards.

 

I'm not inherently against ads being selected for you based on browsing history and consumer profile. That was the original genius of Google. 

 

The problem is that once infinite scrolling became a thing, and thus infinite ads, the model changed. Now the *content* is modified in order keep you on the site, keep you scrolling, and keep more ads on your screen. And yes, those ads are also customized for you.

 

This forum doesn't change which topics show up based on your previous activity, or activity from other unrelated sites. This forum is not continually tweaked, automatically, to measure which topics result in the longest engagement time for *you specifically* and then provide that type of content at a higher priority to you.

 

They just aren't the same, and to conflate the two is to miss the real threat. Web forums have been around a long time. Algorithm-based social media has not, and it coincides perfectly with the rise in tensions.

 

The privacy concerns are also important, but not related to the topic at hand. I don't like the direction we're going with cancel culture and an overall lack of grace. But what we're talking about here is the distortion of reality through selective exposure. The intent has always been there, but the tools have not. Learning algorithms and computers have changed the game. Politicians and media figures were simply not interesting enough to a wide enough range of people in order to engage everyone enough to warp the public consciousness. But now these algorithms can customize messages to millions of people simultaneously, each receiving content designed specifically for them, while never even realizing that there are a plethora of opposing views and facts.

 

Even this in and of itself wouldn't necessarily be a problem if there were good intentions. But there aren't good intentions, there are only monetary intentions. This isn't even a Democrat vs Republican thing, because if it was Facebook/Twitter/YouTube wouldn't allow the overwhelming proliferation of conservative news sources on their platforms. Even though most of the executives working at these tech companies have a deep hatred for conservative ideology, they allow the content to stream largely unfettered because more engagement means more advertising means more money.

 

This is not healthy. I do not blame the social media companies, just because they are steering the ship doesn't change the fact that the ship didn't exist until very recently. But just as pure libertarianism is impractical upon meeting reality, the solution is probably legislative. There are just some types of power that should not be wielded by anyone. It's not a new concept, the power to censor was the fear du jour when our country was founded.

 

Right now everybody is focused on who gets to control the content, but I think the real problem is the algorithm. And it's something we can address without treading deeply on the liberties of the involved companies. Yes, they will make less money, because making more money is how we got into this mess. But it is a very targeted approach that will not stifle innovation or brew resentment amongst the very people we are trying to help, unlike banning individuals such as Trump or Alex Jones.

 

So my "simple" solution is that you cannot tailor content on your service using data collected from other services. It is reasonable that someone who has spent years on Twitter would understand that the content they see on to Twitter is tailored for them. It is not logical for that person to assume that their Google searches are also being influenced by what they did on Twitter.

 

This would greatly increase the chances of randomly bumping into content you are not familiar or aligned with, just like how you randomly bump into people at work, in your neighborhood, on vacation, and at school that you don't already agree with from your previous relationships. I think.

It's as small as the detail that FB will take your geolocation, and if it sees you near a friend who has a similar geolocation it will stop showing you their feed. How many times did you see a picture from a buddy a day late and said "if I knew you were there I would have met up with you!?!" Well FB knows because it wants to keep you from meeting up. If you meet that friend for coffee you will probably put your phone down and be more social. If the phone goes down, you aren't looking at FB. So it does every it can go influence your social behavior to keep you apart. It's bizarrely coercive in that respect. 

[jazzdude]

If a service is "free" chances are the product they are selling is you (or your information).

What about personal responsibility? People can choose to limit their use, or to just not use the service. Facebook doesn't *make* you keep reading or clicking on the links.

Maybe the answer is better education on recognizing when you are being manipulated. First step of fighting being manipulated by propaganda is recognizing you are being fed propaganda.

Of course the reasons social media companies do what they do is monetary, that's literally the capitalist system we have. They have no requirement to act in the best interests of society. Even laws aren't a hindrance if the punishment for breaking the law is just a fine, especially if the company can still reap a profit. But too often the cry from the right is that anything affecting their sources of money/power is socialism. And the left is guilty as well, usually slapping the label of fascism on anything that affect their sources of money/power.

I take the problem as a different one. At some point, we lost sight of the fact that we're all Americans in this country and in it together, for better or for worse. We have allowed the political parties to sell a narrative that the other party is what is dividing the country and therefore the enemy. That's what is dividing the country, and social media just adds fuel to the fire.

All that being said, what you propose is a worthwhile debate to be had in our country. But I don't expect Congress will take any real action for the benefit of the citizenry, just whatever benefits whichever party is in power

[JackWhite]

As we can all see corporations like Facebook and Google are pretty much dictating their will on the internet. Their monopolies allow them to do their own things without big restrictions. That's an unfortunate situation, to be honest, but I hope that will change very soon.

[ClearedHot]

This happened on my friend's feed yesterday.

 

[Biff_T]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

This happened on my friend's feed yesterday.

 

To be fair.  That guy on the horse looks very menacing.  He doesn't even have a man-bun.  

[Lord Ratner]

29 minutes ago, Biff_T said:

To be fair.  That guy on the horse looks very menacing.  He doesn't even have a man-bun.  

I bet he whips immigrants with those reins 

[BashiChuni]

19 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

I bet he whips immigrants with those reins 

you win the internet today 🤣

[disgruntledemployee]

But who is suffering, the Cowboy, the Calf, or the Horse? 

Oh, its Faceytwits that suffer.  Sorry for asking.

Edited October 14, 2022 by disgruntledemployee
I figured out the suffering

[ClearedHot]

Zuck at it again...

[Swizzle]

On 11/16/2022 at 10:16 AM, ClearedHot said:

Zuck at it again...

https://www.life.church/metaverse/

https://www.dailyfreeman.com/2022/01/31/faith-in-the-metaverse-a-vr-quest-for-community-fellowship/amp/
 

This couldn’t possibly lead to legal battles or Freedoms of anything if restricted …I’ll wait, but not in a Meta-Pew. Wonder if MetaVerse will host dancing with Meta-snakes from Tennessee?

[ClearedHot]

The latest Twitter file dump should concern every American regardless of political party.  It shows the FBI and the Justice Department in association with the Intelligence community, having possession of and knowing the contents of the Hunter Biden Laptop was real, tried (and successfully), discredited the authenticity of that information in order to sway a Presidential Election. 

[tac airlifter]

54 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

The latest Twitter file dump should concern every American regardless of political party.  It shows the FBI and the Justice Department in association with the Intelligence community, having possession of and knowing the contents of the Hunter Biden Laptop was real, tried (and successfully), discredited the authenticity of that information in order to sway a Presidential Election. 

On track to be the greatest scandal in US history.  Implications are astounding.

[Prosuper]

21 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

On track to be the greatest scandal in US history.  Implications are astounding.

Beware of the JFK file dump, it could make the US population distrust their govt even more.

[HeloDude]

6 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

On track to be the greatest scandal in US history.  Implications are astounding.

And yet hardly anything today about it on the “mainstream” news.  

[FLEA]

24 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

And yet hardly anything today about it on the “mainstream” news.  

FBI probably already telling CNN anchors this is fake news and they need to discredit it.