Technology

And on the brain... Worms!

Regardless, the lawyers win.

Get em wormy

Yet another tool that uses “freedom of speech” incorrectly

Often freedom of speech is a moral ideal, a moral aspiration, and dismissing it on legal grounds is missing the point.

If I say "people should have a right to healthcare", and you respond "people do not have a legal right to healthcare", you are correct, but you have missed the point. If I say people should have freedom of speech and you respond that the first amendment doesn't apply to Facebook, you are right, but have again missed the point.

In general, when people advocate for any change, they can be countered with "well, the law doesn't require that". Yes, society currently works the way the law says it should. But what we're talking about is how society should work and how the law should change.

There is no freedom of speech guarantee in private or public enterprise.

And the consequence of this policy is a back-door path to censorship. A combination of surveillance, selective-admittance, and media saturation allow certain ideological beliefs to suffice the "marketplace of ideas" while others are silenced.

“I want to force people to listen to my bullshit.”

Its more that privatized media infrastructure allows for a monopolization of speech.

Big media companies still force people to listen to bullshit, by way of advertising and algorithmic promotion. Go on YouTube, click through their "recommended" list a few times, and you'll quickly find yourself watching some Mr. Beast episode or PraegerU video, simply because these folks have invested so heavily in self-promotion.

But there's a wide swath of content you won't see, either because YouTube's algorithm explicitly censors it for policy reasons, because the media isn't maxing out the SEO YouTube execs desire (the classic Soy Face thumbnail for instance), or because you're not spending enough money to boost visibility.

This has nothing to do with what the generic video watcher wants to see and everything to do with what YouTube administration wants that watcher to see.

RFK Jr is a nasty little freak with some very toxic beliefs. But that's not why he's struggling to get noticed on the platform, when plenty of other nasty freaks with toxic beliefs get mainstream circulation.

I remember seeing be was a guest on Rogan and thinking, "Oh, wow. I guess I'll listen to Rogan again this one time to hear a Kennedy talking."

Turns out it was right on fucking brand for Rogan.

IDK, I think it can be an effective tool against trolls because it wastes the time they'd otherwise spend harassing people.

But that's not what RFK is, he's a legitimate candidate for president and should be given the same consideration other candidates are, not shadowbanned because someone doesn't like his message.

it’s gotta be posturing for his base “lone hero stands up to big tech”

He lets the worm do the thinking.

It’s ok. He can’t get elected anyway

He's an unhinged anti-vaxxer and all around conspiracy theorist. Summarizing him as an environmental lawyer is being real generous.

No, because he’s actually quite mad and belongs nowhere near any kind of power. I can see his conspiracy theories appealing to the Q type, but most of them are going to go for Trump. He’s polling this highly because he’s an unknown. As more people start paying attention to who he actually is, he will be the Herman Cain of the race.

According to Kennedy, Meta is colluding with the Biden administration to sway the 2024 presidential election by suppressing Kennedy's documentary and making it harder to support Kennedy's candidacy. This allegedly has caused "substantial donation losses," while also violating the free speech rights of Kennedy, his supporters, and his film's production company, AV24.

In this case, Meta and the Biden administration are claimed to be co-conspirators colluding to block citizens from promoting their favorite presidential candidate.

We can very much dislike both while also agreeing that this is fucking stupid. While we continue to very much dislike both, one is clearly in the wrong on this issue and pointing out the sheer stupidity of Kennedy’s actions is not “siding” with Zuckerberg.

I don’t care what his profession is/was - he’s wrong and it would be disingenuous to give him a pass because he did a thing at some point in his life that I agreed with.

I don't think anyone "hates" him. He's just an absurd human that no one takes seriously. And we all agree we have much more dire things to discuss than what rich white people are calling managers about now.

Nah he's great. He should take the rest of those brain worms, I think the worms should be in charge!

Shadowbans should just be illegal as a thing

I bet you scream about your first amendment rights being violated whenever a moderator deletes your posts.

Shadowbans help prevent bot activity by preventing a bot from knowing if what they posted was actually posted. Similar to vote obfuscation. It wastes bot’s time so it’s a good thing.

You think hes better than Biden? Why?

Private companies should not be able to do whatever the fuck they like. They have a very important responsibility, and they will not consider ethics over profit, unless we as a society force them to.

Sadly, that’s not the only conspiracy he’s into

https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/10/10/rfk-jr-launches-independent-2024-run-here-are-all-the-conspiracies-he-promotes-from-vaccines-to-mass-shootings/?sh=53fa64e3cef7