On the one hand, I hope he loses.
On the other hand, I hope Meta also loses.
Something tells me we are the ones who lose.
And on the brain… Worms!
Regardless, the lawyers win.
And for once I’m OK with that
“When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers”
I am the one who walks away from Omelas.
I can’t see how Meta could lose. 1 unreliable information, and 2 they can deny access to anyone they want if they are a private company last I knew.
The brain worm is up to something…
Get em wormy
That lil dude goes hard and saved my ass multiple times
That lil dude goes hard and saved my ass multiple times
-RFK jr probably
deleted by creator
There is no freedom of speech guarantee in private or public enterprise. Only government.
Yet another tool that uses “freedom of speech” incorrectly to basically mean “I want to force people to listen to my bullshit.” How these people running for office don’t get the first amendment is amazing.
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.
Okay, but you don’t win lawsuits based on how the law ought to be
That’s lovely, and I appreciate the sentiment. It doesn’t change the fact that someone abuses the term in order to force others to listen to BS. I’m not opposed to the ideal, I am opposed to the expectation that people have a right to make you listen to them.
I’m okay with algorithms not recommending certain posts. I just don’t like shadowbans because the platform is lying to the user, the user interface is essentially telling the user “your post is available for viewing and is being treated like any other post” when it really isn’t.
There’s a balance between the free speech of individuals and the free speech of the company. I think a fair balance between the two is, once a company is big enough to control a significant percentage of the entire nation’s discourse, the company at least has to be up front and avoid deceptive practices like shadow-banning. (This should only apply to large companies, once a company is large enough it has a responsibility to society.)
I’m opposed to the idea, we’ve got enough people that think their ideas need to be broadcast to everyone in the world.
The thing is people shouldnt have that level of “freedom of speech”
No one is above reproach.
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.
Yeah. That’s also a problem. But then you have to upend corporate ownership of the control of speech, and we’re already facing that problem.
Really don’t need to hear anything coming from this guy. It’s always batshit crazy and it’s a waste of time.
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.
Ha ha ha
It’s always hilarious to read and worth a laugh imo
So what? How does he think Meta is liable for anything here?
it’s gotta be posturing for his base “lone hero stands up to big tech”
He lets the worm do the thinking.
They’re oppressing him! The chatbot said so!!
So, what do we do about the fact that major social media outlets are the only effective means of mass communication? Why should they get to pick and choose our leadership?
Removed by mod
Man talking to himself accuses company of action they are allowed to perform
deleted by creator
Let them fight. I want a discovery on this
I’m betting this gets dismissed before discovery
You can’t get elected without big tech bribes, and he just bit the hand that feeds.
It’s ok. He can’t get elected anyway
He’ll never recover after the death of his running mate: VP Brain Worm.
Yes, because Americans would never consider electing a President with health issues.
For a second I thought pences fly had a grub
Shadow banning is definitely too much imo. It’s simply unethical no matter how you look at it.
First, it doesn’t do anything to prevent bots. It takes less than a second for a bot to check whether they are shadow banned. It’s simply a tool to bully and gaslight people - just block them. Why these abusive games?
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.
Nothing legit about him. He has no chance.
He’s legit in that his campaign went through the process to get on the ballot in certain states. That has nothing to do with his chances.
I suppose in a strict legal sense, fuck him though.
That’s fine. But he shouldn’t be silenced. If he gets some traction, debate him to show voters what’s wrong with his ideas, that really shouldn’t be hard.
Takes time and money to explain the truth. Lying is free.
Would you really argue that he’s been silenced as we sit here discussing him in the comments for an article written about him?
I don’t know, I guess we’ll need to see how the lawsuit turns out. I’m sure RFK Jr. will bring some evidence that’ll help us understand what Meta may or may not have done.
Ah yes because debating Trump exposes him to people so well
I’d love to see Trump and RFK Jr. debate. Two old nutjobs duking it out, with Biden just sitting back eating popcorn.
Effectiveness is irrelevant here. Breaking troll’s kneecaps would be very effective too.
This mental manipulation and gaslighting has no place in our society. We’re literally suffering the consequences of this right now.
Could you name an example of those consequences?
The rise of alt-right and conspiracies would be a one obvious one.
But how is that a consequence of shadowbanning?
You don’t see how opaque manipulation fuels conspiracies and paranoia? Come on dude.
It seems to me that’s it’s often the conspiracy-theorists that get shadowbanned.
So, you’re suggesting that shadow banning has caused the rise of the alt-right and their conspiracy theories, which implies that they wouldn’t exist without shadow bans.
Or they already exist and are in such a fragile state that even an explicit ban makes them upset (which it does.)
I never said it was a singular cause just a contributor
Again, if you’re already that far down the rabbit hole, anything that tells you, “No, you’re wrong” is going to upset you. That includes a shadow ban, explicit ban, or somebody just telling you that you’re wrong.
If you think I’m wrong and you think shadow bans especially push people towards being alt-right and believing conspiracy theories, then I’d love to see a study that says so because that’s what would likely convince me.
Like any tool, it’s bad when used improperly. Shadowbanning should be used to waste trolls’ time; it’s especially effective for cheaters in MMOs (lump the cheaters together so they don’t bother anyone). Shadowbanning shouldn’t be used to control the discussion, like silencing an unpopular or undesirable (to the platform) individual.
I think we’re doing too much of the latter, but that doesn’t mean shadowbanning as a tool is morally bankrupt.
It’s definitely morally bankrupt imo and we can agree to disagree here as I don’t think this topic can be expanded further.
bro he looks like the heavens gate guy
he really does, doesn’t he
For real!
He could have been a great dude but he just HAD to go down the antivax rabbit hole. Fuckin’ shame.
Sadly, that’s not the only conspiracy he’s into
Yea, which is crazy. I don’t agree with him but I like him. Something about him is engaging him. I’d love to see him chat with Steve Novella or someone like that.
Real life Connor Roy soldiers bravely on.
deleted by creator
Not the onion.
Thought about posting it there but I had already made one RFK post there last night and didn’t want to do 2 in a day lol
Meta is a private company and can do whatever the fuck they like.
This guy shouldn’t be let anywhere near a position of decision making, let alone the highest office in the nation.
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.
Okay sure, but there’s nothing on the books that says that meta has to allow people to use their platform. You are not entitled to unlimited access to a private service.
Ever single person from RFK and Donald Trump to you and me all sign the exact same fucking EULA and TOS when you register for an account. Stop holding these people above the law by pretending that the rules shouldn’t apply to them.
The fact meta has received 2 billion dollars in taxpayer gov’t money should entitle every single taxpayer to their 1st amendment.
Meta is not the government. Something being government funded does not make it an apparatus of the government. There has been no curtailing of 1st amendment rights here.
There has indeed been curtailing of 1st amendment rights. We all remember the twitter files I’m sure. You can bet anything that same crap happens on meta platforms. Surely there is an argument to be made on the curtailing of 1st amendment rights and whether these social media companies are an apparatus of the gov.
But yea according to all these expert lawyers in the comments nothing to see here.
nothing of what you wrote has anything to do with the first amendment.
No, they have to follow laws.
Which law are you referencing?
You agree to their EULA and TOS when you make your account. In that, there exists a clause that states that you can be banned for any reason or no reason at all at the site administrators discretion.
So explain to me again how meta is in the wrong here?
All companies have to follow laws. It’s not rocket science.
Again, what laws are you referring to? I want to hear you explain it.
Laws, the ones that countries and sometimes bigger entities enact as rules
Okay, so you have no clue what you’re talking about. Got it 👌
Corporations have to follow laws. It’s pretty simple? I am refuting your statement that they don’t have to follow laws. It’s up to you (once you grasp the concept) to continue the debate here
Private company in what way? The company is publicly traded - there are rules and regulations that organizations have to abide by. it’s not totally lawless current state … They’re legally beholden to shareholders to maximize value. They can do what they like but probably don’t want them allowing certain folks to have a platform (moderating the platform). Meta uses the grey area to manipulate and addict users, that’s just their business practice to drive value and generate views/engagement with their platform.
Agree this dude is unhinged.
private company in that it is not owned by the government. Those are the two categories.
Either they’re owned by the government or they’re owned by private citizens. Being traded on the stock market, or traded privately, or not traded at all makes no difference to them being a private company
EDIT: publicly traded still means privately bought and owned by private citizens and private businesses/companies. At no point does the government become involved.
They sure have received a lot of government/taxpayer money for being such a private anti free speech company.
Tesla just got $17 billion from the government, is Musk now owned by the USA government? No.
A coal miner just got laid off work and is collecting his first unemployment check while he looks for new work. Because he got support from the government between jobs, does that mean the government owns him like a slave?
Or perhaps you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about? Yes, that seems to be the case.
I’m just saying there can be a case made in front of a judge about the government funding these companies and then using these companies to reprive people of their 1st amendment rights as they have been proven to have done on X.
But whatever you say… Coal miners… Unemployment… Between jobs… Slavery… Wtf are you talking about?
There is no case, because they’re not the government. End of discussion. 1st amendment has nothing to do here.
as for “what I’m talking about” - the same thing you are. Government giving money.
Tell me, how is the government giving money as an unemployment check different to the government giving money to a company? And if your logic is “if the government gives you money, that means the government owns you, that means 1st amendment”, then tell us all how someone who is getting money from the government isn’t just as owned and controlled?
Because you’re an idiot, that’s how.
