The ‘Silicon Six’ spread propaganda. It’s time to regulate social media sites.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg testifies at a House hearing. (Erin Scott/Reuters)
I get it: I’m one of the last people you’d expect to hear warning about the danger of conspiracies and lies. I’ve built a career on pushing the limits of propriety and good taste. I portrayed Borat, the first fake-news journalist, along with satirical characters such as Ali G, a wannabe gangster, and Bruno, a gay fashion reporter from Austria. Some critics have said my comedy risks reinforcing old racial and religious stereotypes.
I admit that most of my comedy over the years has been pretty juvenile. However, when Borat was able to get an entire bar in Arizona to sing “throw the Jew down the well,” it revealed people’s indifference to anti-Semitism. When, as Bruno, I started kissing a man in a cage fight in Arkansas and nearly started 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 a wide acceptance of Islamophobia.
The ugliness my jokes help reveal is why I’m so worried about our pluralistic democracies. Demagogues appeal to our worst instincts. Conspiracy theories once confined to the fringe are going mainstream, fueled in part by President Trump, who has spread such paranoid lies more than 1,700 times to his 67 million Twitter followers. 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 thrives on shared lies, is on the march. Hate crimes are surging , as are murderous attacks on religious and ethnic minorities.
Relayed: Intellectual Honesty
Tags
Who is online
55 visitors
I admit that most of my comedy over the years has been pretty juvenile. However, when Borat was able to get an entire bar in Arizona to sing “throw the Jew down the well,” it revealed people’s indifference to anti-Semitism. When, as Bruno, I started kissing a man in a cage fight in Arkansas and nearly started 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 a wide acceptance of Islamophobia.
The ugliness my jokes help reveal is why I’m so worried about our pluralistic democracies. Demagogues appeal to our worst instincts. Conspiracy theories once confined to the fringe are going mainstream, fueled in part by President Trump, who has spread such paranoid lies more than 1,700 times to his 67 million Twitter followers
And Crooked donnie supporters wonder why we cringe that he is in fact the president. He treats the office like it's a joke, he is rude, crude and just a disgusting human being. And it's scary how many of his supporters lap up the shit he spews daily and take it as truth. I SMH that his supporters look at him with rose colored glasses.
Its pretty amazing how gullible some people can be.
It's scary that some are on this site, that no matter what he says, tweets, lies about, gets caught in a lie, brags about stuff he accomplished and he had NOTHING to do with, they still think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. He's a bully and a braggart and IMO that is NOT how a president should act.
"Social" media does that to folks !
I think it's far more genuinely scary that Americans think speech controls are a good idea.
I think is far more genuinely scary that we have a toddler for a president who rips anyone apart that disagrees with him. Does the man ever act like an adult.
Then your priorities on this issue are woefully misguided. In either one year or five, Trump will no longer be president, but when you take away freedom of speech, it will be gone forever. And when that happens, you won't have the freedom to call the new president a toddler. They'll likely shoot you if you do.
Conspiracy theory much. Oh please. Crooked donnie acts like the toddler he is and you cheer him on
Why would that be "scary"? What's he going to do, tweet you to death?
There is a reason the very first of the Bill of Rights is the freedom of speech.
And you don't think people should have the right to do so?
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are both utter lying sacks of shit with regard to single-payer healthcare. Should Facebook censor them?
I, for one, wish the internet was never invented. I don't mean that we need to go back to the days when travelling troubadours went from town to town to spread the news, but somehow life seemed more peaceful when I was young. We didn't hear about kids committing suicide because of things about them being posted on the internet, or so much false news being proliferated, or easy recruitment of terrorists, publishing how to make a pressure cooker bomb, etc.
And I say this notwithstanding that the internet is my window to the western world of my birth.
I can agree at first blush but the lying lamestream media would have remained unquestioned and hillary would be president. we would now be under the tpp and paris agreements and globalism would have only grown from there. trump stopping the tpp and paris agreements was a god send.
in short? if the internet was not invented we'd be fuked proper by now.
I'm talking about Crooked donnie and his bs tweets that people lap up like flies on shit.
Sorry, but I don't blindly suck up his lies like others do.
Can you explain the negative effects you might suffer from these ?
I think you should study the history of speech in America and the rest of the world. Here's some food for thought:
Lèse-majesté
Well, for starters, he might withdraw troops from Kurdish areas in Norther the Middle-east, thus allowing the bloodthirsty Turks in to massacre the Kurds (perhaps the grou8p that has done the most to defeat Daesh (AKA "ISIS").
fewer jobs, new and higher taxes. and regardless what the federal govt said or tried to tell us to do... this country will never submit to a global govt without one hell of a fight coming from the states first.
(none of that sounds fun to me.)
cheers
Actually I think there's been a lot of controversy historically each time some new form of technology appears. There are positive as well as negative aspects to each new thing.
(Although I would agree that the Internet seems to be an especially powerful force for changing the world-- and its negative influences are indeed powerful)
Along with "Smart? Phones" too.
We were more free when phones were "tethered" and "Paper" was the way to get information.
Nothing drives me crazier than having a client call me when I'm driving, I tell them I'm driving, and they ask me if I can open up the set of plans so we can discuss them.
I've always said the internet, texting, smart phones are a blessing and a curse.
Having to try to fix things myself, the internet especially Google and Youtube are a blessing.
I was able to fix my dryer and replace my sump pump check value due to Google and Youtube. Otherwise I would have had to call a relative or repair person.
Youtube is great for those DIY projects ya need to get done on the cheap. For Entertainment too. I use youtube a lot.
And for being able to be on this site too.
LOL. My NON-smartphone cost me the equivalent of US$40, has no internet or movies or music, nor ability to pay for anything, but I can make and receive voice calls and text messages. It does have a camera I've never used, and a clock and an alarm and a couple other things I've never used. As well, I still know how to use a dial phone if I had to.
I had one of those older cell phones for a long time. My wife and kids kept bugging me to upgrade. To me, if it works, don't fix it. Well....they all got me one of them dang smarty phones without me knowing it. I grumbled under my thank you smile.
Was the plan to leave US troops stationed there forever?
Was the previous president "a toddler" when he withdrew troops from the region?
Sooo..... "scary"....or "not scary"?
me too.. it lasted about 20yrs.
left it out in the rain two months ago.. game over.. LOL
That sucks.
I luv'd my flip phone. My family didn't.
Best part about my old phone was....I could say I don't do texts, when someone says they texted me, and because the old phone was a bear to text on, I was actually telling the truth.
mine was not a flip phone but it was so small it could fit in the credit card slot in my wallet. I still miss that.
I still have a pantech, the smallest phone out there. I stop using it years ago and now have an Iphone XR.
And they WORKED !
To me, that was most important. Now I have some hand held computer thingy that seems to need to upgrade itself alot.
It's so demanding.
Every day it becomes clearer to me that I made the right choice not to have a cell/smart phone. This December will be 20 years for me since I had a cell phone, other than a few short months when my wife was pregnant with our first daughter and she reactivated one of her old phones for me during the last two months before she was due. It was a flip phone and even then I only used it once.
Besides all the monthly cell phone fees I've saved, the amount of headaches I've avoided are likely immeasurable. My wife is basically on call 24/7 where friends and family, co-workers, everyone she knows, has access to her all day every day. I do not envy such a way of life.
Mine was supposed to be for "Emergencies" only. It just didn't work out that way.
Word got out I actually had a "Cell Phone" .
I like it. I had a 6 that still worked great but Apple is stopping with security updates, so I upgraded. I'll keep this one until the same thing happens. I don't need a new one every year.
ah the good ol days.. ha.
mine was a 20 dollar "go phone" bought it at a gas station.
had I not left it in the rain it might have lasted another 20 yrs.
The first phone I bought when I came here was a flip phone like that one.
Almost 4 years ago I bought my present NON-SMART phone for the equivalent of about US$40 - full price, no contract required, and paid about the equivalent of US$35 for 200 minutes usage. It is an indication of how much I use my phone that I still have about half those minutes left.
Tell it to Trump:
A draft executive order from the White House could put the Federal Communications Commission in charge of shaping how Facebook ( FB ) , Twitter ( TWTR ) and other large tech companies curate what appears on their websites, according to multiple people familiar with the matter. (Read it all)
What’s actually interesting to see is that the lefties here don’t see the great things our President has done for us and our country and he has. It’s actually entertaining to us to see them rant so much about him in the knowledge that we intend to re elect him regardless what they think about it.
We are used to them all over on line including here.
I’m still using an original 6 and I still get updates. When are they cutting off support for it?
If on line platforms are going to curtail free expression and express bias and use IFCN and their Soros affiliated foundations to gate keeper content perhaps they all deserve to be regulated by the federal government...an interesting concept for Alphabet, FB, Twitter, and the rest to consider.
Tacos!..... They still think Obama had the most transparent administration in history. LOL
I guess they were right in one respect, we could see right through it.
he already knows that stopping assholes from censoring conservative voices does not violate anyone's free speech.
hint: the freedom of speech does not include the right to silence others.
write that down it will be on the test.
This article has the information.
After I read this article I talked with the person where I work who deals company phones but they are only for the higher ups (their plans are really low in price) and she told me to wait until the new Iphones come out before switching to a newer model because the prices were going to drop.
I waited and the XR dropped in price buy quite a bit so I pay $20.00 a month. I have AT&T.
that is a good deal. no doubt.
I just dropped at&t because they kept switching me to paperless, 3 times without even asking me.
so now, spectrum, 14 dollars per month - unlimited talk and text.
had two phones with at&t now have three = and still saved about 700 per year
Happily.
Correct.
But just because you can say whatever you want does not mean you can say it wherever you want.
For example, I have the right to throw your ass out of my living room if you scream insults at my wife. I have the right to throw your ass out of my office if you're interfering with our business, or if you're wearing a pink vagina hat. And I have the right to block you commenting on the blog on my company website. Why? Because I own them.
And triggering America’s intolerant progressives with our stated support for his policies and achievements makes our support ofhim all the merrier. 🎉😂
Yum yum 🦗💩
unlike those massive tech companies.
your house, your business, and your blog are not considered part of the public square.
in other words, what you said is irrelevant.
cheers )
also,
if your business violates my rights? I can sue your company into oblivion. depending on what state we are in, if you can not pay the damages awarded me I might even wind up owning all your stuff. but since you are in texas im going to assume your home is homesteaded.. and untouchable. (unless you have two houses... or two cars / then one will be mine.
google, twitter, and facebook should be treated no different.
Read what you cite. The decision limits the power of government to pass laws prohibiting people from using social media. You know... the most popular phrase in the Constitution...."Congress shall make no law".
The ruling says nothing about Facebook, Twitter, or anybody else's "terms of use", which they can and do control.
I'm sure it appears so if you haven't actually read the article you cited.
Sure. But throwing you out of my office because you refuse to behave is not violating your rights. No shoes, no shirt, no manners, no service.
Similarly, Facebook banning you because your behavior violates terms of service to which you agreed is not violating your rights.
The argument is are these services service providers like a phone company. If they are service providers their censorship is the same as your phone company listening to your conversation and cutting the line because they don't like what you're are saying.
things change... and they will. ask the phone companies who tried to treat different customers differently - they got their asses regulated from end to end. those giant tech companies of today have the same fate in store for them.
but as "you say... google, twitter and the like have no need for the current legal protections from lawsuits so they won't miss them one bit once removed. or, will they?
true. but if you're treating me different than every other customer? id bankrupt your business.
does facebook terms and service say "no conservative opinions allowed? I think not.
cheers
I understand that. I just disagree.
Phone company/utility legislation is a holdover from the days when they were government-protected monopolies. Social media companies are not.
at the moment they are indeed govt protected... but that can and probably will end soon enough.
we don't care if you agree.
If your behavior is different than other customers, yes.
I'm sure you would try.
No, that's NYT and Huffington Post.
But you open the larger conversation about why things are removed and why they are not. We can use our very own NT right here as an example.
There are two ardent liberals who post on here who are well known for their abusive posts. When those posts are removed, these people whine extensively about how unfair it is that their "liberal" views are "censored"....which is complete and obvious bullshit.
Owners of forums and social media sites should and do have the right to tell people to take their nonsense elsewhere.
my behavior is no different than anyone else.
censoring people simply for conservative opinions is wrong. period.
unless you only sell pussy hats, and safe spaces your business would not last long if you kicked out everyone who was conservative for no other reason except that they were conservative. you would be buried in lawsuits.
As it should. They're private businesses.
*eyeroll*
Have you been censored on FB?
The point is that MOST people who complain about "conservative views" being censored are in fact being censored for totally different reasons.
so was the phone company. and then, they got their asses federally regulated as well.
now the phone companies must treat everyone the same.... such a nightmare... LOL
.
well then, they should have no problem proving that in court when they get sued.
problem solved
They got regulated when the government prohibited other companies from competing against them. Has the US govt passed legislation prohibiting you from opening your own social media site?
You imagine govt intervention will somehow protect your speech. I think the risk you run far outweighs the potential benefit.
Liberals especially have shown zero reticence when it comes to using government offices to suppress speech with which they disagree. Lois Lerner? Kathleen Sebelius? You don't remember the Obama Administration asking for people to "report misinformation" about the ACA?
And you want one of these people to have the power to determine what is acceptable on Facebook or Twitter?
It's far better than the other option. There is a reason that a person with 40 years in Washington lost to the "New Guy" twice.
I keep saying this. If social media does not regulate itself then regulation will be, nay must be, imposed upon social media...
I totally agree.
(In fact I'm surprised that the CEOs of some of the social media companies don't realize that...)
if they can get trump out and a progressive president in? they will remain protected by the govt.
they have nothing to lose until they are actually regulated
Censorship ?
If the important "News" can put out crap, and then allowed to apologies later, why can't the others do the same, without MORE regulation ?
If the important "News" can put out crap, and then allowed to apologies later, why can't the others do the same, without MORE regulation ?
Up until now the law has treated them differently-- here's why:
Social Media and Censorship
The large internet companies have maintained that they are simply neutral platforms on which their users can exchange information freely with one another. As such, they do not have an obligation to filter that content for accuracy, social consequences, and the like.
They are supported in this position by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which exempts these companies from liability for what appears on their sites provided they do not play the role of traditional media companies like the New York Times , the Wall Street Journal , CNN, or Fox News.
Section 230 was put in place both to protect freedom of speech and to promote growth and innovation in the tech sector. (Read it all)
Good question!
But Trump wants the government to censor social media sites:
Describe your ideas for "regulation".
Don't forget to have the police patrolling the parks, streets, and sidewalks of America. We can't afford to have wrong speech anywhere now, can we?
a great way to regulate social media is to remove their legal protection that allows them to censor legal speech and fine them into bankruptcy.
if they keep up with the bs? that is their future.
Well then-- what about the "Mainstream Media"-- for example sites such as CNN, MSNBC or Fox News?
I have never had cnn, msnbc or fox censor my speech
enlighten me... how do they censor our speech? their comment section?
I say, if they censor "legal speech" to stifle political speech they do not like? they should be fined as well.
the first amendment is there to protect political opinions and related speech other people may not like / with no exceptions
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't saying that the media censor our speech-- rather that there's been a lot of discussion about the degree to which the government should censor the media.
a lot of discussions by whom?
I don't support censorship of legal speech even if I don't like it and regardless of where it comes from.
I didn't know you were a Socialist.
Go over to fox news and say something negative about Trump...your comment will most likely be deleted.
have not been to foxnews comment section in years so just for fun I had a look... picked an opinion article at random.
.
there are anti trump posts at a steady pace no matter how many times I click "show more comments"
so, lets downgrade this....
to this....
[delete]
Now who is going to be the Censorship Judge, Judge Schiffty, The Washington Post, The New York Times or maybe the girl with the purple hair holding up the protest sign?
MBFC
If the government regulates the web hopefully the dark web will thrive.
The "dark Web" already thrives-- you can easily get everything from illegal hard drugs to racial hate literature to bomb-making instructions there.
Never been to the dark web, but if the government regulates the web, it will soon become a wasteland of gibberish. Well, it's pretty much that already, but maybe we could get some advice from one of those countries who do regulate the web and everything else for that matter. And they wonder why we don't want them in power.
To 'regulate' the social media will be impossible.
After all, how would regulation deter or convince those that truly believe Hillary Clinton and cohorts ran a child sex ring from the basement of a pizza parlor? For those that accept that sort of information, maybe the problem isn't so much 'the media', but rather portions of our population instead.
When we accept this obvious fact as truth, we can start to work on the problems in our society.
Until we accept this obvious fact as truth, nothing we do is going to help.
( We accept ) ? Sure.
Are you advocating that instead of regulating social media sites, we should focus on brainwashing-- those folks who have ideas that the gopvernment doesn't like?
Huge leaks are exposing Xinjiang's re-education camps. But don't expect Beijing to back down
The Chinese government's carefully constructed narrative around its Xinjiang detention centers appears to have been shattered by hundreds of pages of leaked documents published by Western media over the last two weeks.
Exactly the opposite. I see no need to regulate social media.
"Regulating" social media sites attempts to control the way people think by controlling the information they receive.
I cannot imagine how anyone thinks this is a good idea.
The problem is not the message. The problem is the quality of the person receiving them...or lack of quality, in many cases.
The vast majority of our societal problems are rooted in the lack of intelligence and education of our populace. Until we address that, we're not serious about improving anything.
To clarify, you posted
I agreed with that.
Under the kind of system he's endorsing, he wouldn't be allowed to even tell his jokes. People who propose censorship and the elimination of free speech never consider that their own right to speak might vanish.
But what about speech that is for a good cause-- for example restrictions on folks like, for example, AOC who advocate evil political systems such as Socialism?
Or worse yet-- strengthening background check so that the insane and convicted felons can't purchase guns?
we don't want to shut them up...
they helped elect trump and will help re-elect trump in 2020 all while destroying the democrat party from inside while we watch. is good fun
Who are you referring to-- Social media?
Facebook, Twitter, etc?
all of it and everyone. everything they said and everything they have done whether they be in office, online, or in the streets has only awakened those who simply will not have any of it.
7 million obama voters voted for trump thanks to today's lunatic left / moderate dems are bailing out at a phenomenal rate.
progressives, liberals, socialists, and marxists matters not what flag they fly, they all played a part. "the left" did it to themselves and they still blame everyone and everything except themselves which means they will only continue.
it was predictable, I did just that in 2009 and it is still hilarious
You know that's socialism, right?
not embracing our first amendment right to free speech and censoring political speech because one does not agree is a progressive/socialist/marxist thing.
I support free speech even when I don't like it. meanwhile, the left has been trying to shut people up for well over a decade now because "feelings". we know their game. and it aint gonna work. it only gets worse for the left from here on out.
thanks for playing
Are you aware of the fact that Right-wing dictatorships do the same thing? (i.e. censor anti-government speech).
Are you aware of the fact that Right-wing dictatorships do the same thing? (i.e. censor anti-government speech).
of course, both sides of the political spectrum do it. history has many examples either way.
however, I was speaking about this country, at this time in history, when no one on the right with any clout is trying to censor anyone on the left. we want the left to speak freely and show their ignorance so we can put it on youtube... LOL
censorship today in this country: is predominantly a democrat thing. who happen to be progressives, socialists, and marxists
One of the core beliefs of socialism is the governments role in private business. What YOU described is socialism to a "T". Playing? Hey, you're the one that pointed it out.
however, I was speaking about this country, at this time in history, when no one on the right with any clout is trying to censor anyone on the left.
What about Trump?
The Trump administration drafted an executive order to censor the internet
CNN has obtained a draft of an executive order that could potentially censor huge portions of the internet. In an attempt to stop a perceived “bias” against conservatives, Trump’s plan attempts to strip certain protections from companies like Facebook and Twitter, particularly those protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).
Although it’s still in its early stages, and subject to change, the details it contains are a paradox that involve fighting censorship with more censorship.
Any order pushing for political neutrality, however, is sure to raise questions of constitutionality. Enforcing a change that would amount to making the internet politically neutral would certainly infringe on users’ First Amendment rights. It’s quite likely the order would be viewed as political overreach, thus ensuring a lengthy process of litigation.
removing their legal protections from lawsuits for censoring legal political speech they do not like, is censorship?
don't even bother to answer that... LOL
ya bring a story about the president trying to stop LeftWingWingNuts from censoring conservative voices.... and say that is an example of censorship. truely, unbelievable,
thanks for the laugh
Where is it? You know, Krishna, if I put something on this site, I'm expected to provide some sort of link or evidence of what I'm saying is true. Now, I'm not saying you're lying or anything like that, but all these MSM sources keep coming up with anonymous sources, people involved, those close to and other sources, but they seem to keep getting away with telling the stories without providing any real evidence. So where is the the draft? I want to see it. CNN says they have obtained it, but I couldn't find it in their article. My eyesight isn't that good, so maybe I overlooked it. Could you look for me and see if you can find it. I want to see the draft, not CNN's interpretation of it.
Anything that censors the web needs to be thoroughly examined. Censorship is a long way from speaking your mind. Twitter and Facebook are guilty as all get out for bias censorship. That's not a secret. I wouldn't support Trump promoting any censorship, but I would support eliminating selective censorship against a group of people.