docno42

nicholfd said:
Just NO!

No one is forced to use any company's social media platform.  They own it.  It's their rules.  Don't like it, don't use it, and the whole world would be a better place.

If they were to give up their section 230 protections then I would be right there with you.   However if they are going to get protection they shouldn't be able to act like a publisher and not face the consequences.  

If they want the protections then they should have to at least offer a level playing ground, and they should be forced to do it in public.  Otherwise no section 230 and they should be able to be sued just like any other site. 

GeorgeBMac said:
While the Free Press is the foundation that democracy stands on, it is being used by unscrupulous characters to dismantle the democracy that both depends on it and supports it.

Free press - ha!  When is the last time anyone in the mainstream media has talked about Sweden in regards to COVID?   Oh no, we can't bring them up because it blows the current fear generated narrative out of the water.

Look at the recent Kyle Rittenhouse trial.  Kyle is white, shot white aggressors and isn't even a conservative let alone a "proud boy" (if there ever was a dog whistle/straw man any time some idiot in politics or the media brings up the proud boys watch out).   Yet you had multiple reports that got all of that and the above wrong - and are continuing to get it wrong even post trial when there are now legal rulings on much of this crap.  I hope Kyle becomes VERY rich off of all the assholes who distorted his story for their own political gain.  

You know what the greatest foundation of democracy is?  Freedom - period. Full stop.  Not freedom for some protected classes - but universal freedom.  And chief of all - freedom from those who think they have the only version of "truth" that should be heard.  

America became successful because it was the closest thing to a universally level playing field the world has ever seen.  It never ceases to amaze me how many are fervently working to reverse that - and the biggest group of liars are the "diversity is our strength" crowd.  It's Jim Crowe all over, but wrapped in fancy terms like systemic racism and pseudo intellectualism like the 1619 project.   Saving us from racism via noble bigotry.    Ideas so stupid that only the overly educated could mistake them for sophistication. 

AppleZulu said:

No, I don't want social media platforms choosing between opinionated preferences for Ludwig von Mises or Karl Marx. I also don't want social media algorithms promoting opinion-based hokum that contradicts science-based facts because the hokum generates more clicks. 

Why do we tolerate social media platforms inserting bias of any kind?  However noble or ignoble that bias may be?  Give me the tools to pick and filter the content I want and stay the hell out of everything else.  It's time for the FCC to grow a pair and enforce Section 230 as written - selective enforcement is just another fancy word salad to obfuscate for editorial control.  Section 230 was only meant to apply to carriers of others content, not those who exercise editorial control of content.  As soon as any service starts picking and choosing the content on their service, especially when done with vague policies that are enforced in secret, that's editorial control - it's no longer strictly the authors or 3rd party, unaffiliated content - the site is now also claiming ownership of that content.  As soon as sites do that, IMNSHO, 230 should no longer apply - just as it doesn't apply to the New York Times or other sites that publish their own content.  

If a service wants to hide behind 230 protection and still edit what flows through their platform, then at a minimum all their content policies should be required to be made public, and the rational behind all content moderation decisions (as well as showing how the rational ties to those public content rules) to prove they are applying their own rules consistently and not selectively.  Right now you have RAMPANT selective moderation.   And I'm not even talking political/conservative/liberal; just look at Twitch and how sexual content is basically unmoderated for women but if a male gets even vaguely near something sexual.  Anyone who advocates that there isn't rampant selective moderation is either grossly uniformed or a gasslighter of the highest magnitude.  

As for the overall usefulness of social media - I used to use Twitter all the time - but with a third party client (tweetbot) that was free of all the Twitter massaging of the timeline.  I could mute topics and keywords that weren't interesting - and in that capacity Twitter actually wasn't awful.  I have no idea how anyone uses any of these service through their default interfaces; they are utter garbage.  But unfiltered and with the tools to slice and dice the content you are interested in they can be quite useful.

The core problem is we have turned over all of our content and interactions to a handful of very large sites all in the name of convenience.  It's time to get back to the decentralized web.  If you are dumb enough to ditch your own web site and move all your business to Facebook or one of these other tech giants than sucks to be you when their automation or political biases cut you off.

DuhSesame said:

Either way, I explained on the post above, he clearly doesn't understand why and I don't want to waste my time.

I understand plenty - chief of all that most of your points are utterly irrelevant with Apple silicon.  

DuhSesame said:

Oh, and if Apple really wants, they can extend their PCIe support as well so your ports won’t be limited to just external storage.

I’d like see what they would do there, having way much potential than self-proclaimed pros will ever do 😂

The ports aren't limited to just external storage right now - not sure what you are jabbering on about.
If you were only as clever/articulate as you seem to think you are