A Guitar And Gear Support Forum

Let me start that I do not want this post to get political. It is just my opinion and latest action.

Big-tech (Google, FB, Twitter, etc.) has been bugging me for a while. I willing went along with them spying on me for marketing purposes, but they crossed the line for me with their 'fact checking' and censorship, including blocking, changing or labeling posts. Oversimplifying, there are two schools of thought: 1.) Let data free-flow which assumes everyone is qualified to process it or discount it. 2.) Assume 'too many' people are unqualified and need others to provide them the 'right' opinion on data, which requires censorship.

I land squarely on #1. So when Big-tech gets absolved from liability and obligation as a public forum under Section 230 yet inserts fact-checking and censorship, my alarms go off. To me that is an opportunity of extreme power to manipulate data in a way to control people, by controlling the narrative. I say who has been found to be omnipotent to know what is fact or not? Having been high up in the corporate world and having a financial background, I know that even generally accepted numbers and information are subject to bias to the intent they were collected. To me - you are your best fact-checker and you know your truths, which are not as universal as most people assume.

In response: I took down as much personal information stored on Big-tech sites. I replaced Google (except Gmail) with Duck-Duck Go. I never opened a Twitter account. I closed my FB account and found a Twitter-like application to replace it, which does not collect or track your info and allows very close to pure freedom of speech (yes, you have to think for yourself and scroll past the irritating stuff).

Getting off FB has been more refreshing than I imagined. My wife is not ready to get off FB, so I will use her account to sell on Marketplace on the rare occasions I need to. FB got really toxic (especially during the elections by my immediate family - who were behaving extremely bad) and she came close to leaving, but chose to unfriend people vs. my leaving.

I've also been very select on what news agencies I get info from, including stuff on YouTube.

Anyone else experiencing the same?

With all due respect, and as much as I'd love to discuss this with all of you...

I don't see how we can do it without addressing politics, since those are the social media posts getting warning labels. Some of us are not willing or perhaps able to remain objective and completely unproductive arguments will likely ensue. That being said...

My kids have had a lot of questions this year. I told them to always look at all sides of an issue and take in everyone's opinions, then decide with their hearts. I warned them that social media has it's good points and bad, and reminded them that if they only ever look for info supporting one side of an issue - that's all they'll ever find.

I told them don't just read the "pro," read the "anti" for any issue before deciding where they stand. Look at who's providing the info, and consider what they have to gain by sharing this particular info. Listen to what they say and think about why they are saying it - but pay specific attention to what they do. A person/group can say anything - read what they do.

I'm finding that most people today are acting as a feedback loop. They only view or listen to info they agree with, so of course it resonates louder and louder in their thought process - and there are plenty of sources to reinforce your personal views, plenty of folks out there willing to post exactly what you want to hear. More to your point: "1.) Let data free-flow which assumes everyone is qualified to process it or discount it." Yes, but by and large, people aren't willing to actually process it, simply accepting what they hear at face value and never looking for the possibility for any validity to any opposing viewpoint. "To me - you are your best fact-checker and you know your truths, which are not as universal as most people assume." I agree with this, but the problem is that most people aren't doing any independent fact checking - which is why you're seeing the warning labels everywhere. There are folks who are blatantly lying to large numbers of followers out there across the social media platforms. It's the lesson of the emporer's new clothes all over again. I've been looking up and researching things when I see the labels and I think they're doing pretty well in asking you to think about what's behind them.

I don't love the labels either - but I dislike the thought that they'd need to be there in the first place even more.

On social media: it doesn't matter what can be proven, it only matters what they can get you to believe.

I'm no fan of facebook, and I don't have a twitter account. I'm leary of Instagram, but I like art and visual imagery - so I take that in with a grain of salt. I dislike the manipulation involved in trying to keep my eyeballs glued to a screen, and very much resent those actions. I take any/all of it in with a grain of salt. Anything on social media is being presented with no regulation - no one to fact check but the end user. We're not talking to each other anymore - and worse - we're not listening. We're just watching screens, and that's a problem. Follow a social media rabbit hole and no one will ever argue with you or ask you to consider an opposite viewpoint. That's what's dangerous in my opinion. Entire nations have been convinced to follow horrifying ideals when no one questioned what they were hearing.

andrewsrea wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 12:15 pm Let me start that I do not want this post to get political. It is just my opinion and latest action.

Big-tech (Google, FB, Twitter, etc.) has been bugging me for a while. I willing went along with them spying on me for marketing purposes, but they crossed the line for me with their 'fact checking' and censorship, including blocking, changing or labeling posts. Oversimplifying, there are two schools of thought: 1.) Let data free-flow which assumes everyone is qualified to process it or discount it. 2.) Assume 'too many' people are unqualified and need others to provide them the 'right' opinion on data, which requires censorship.

I land squarely on #1. So when Big-tech gets absolved from liability and obligation as a public forum under Section 230 yet inserts fact-checking and censorship, my alarms go off. To me that is an opportunity of extreme power to manipulate data in a way to control people, by controlling the narrative. I say who has been found to be omnipotent to know what is fact or not? Having been high up in the corporate world and having a financial background, I know that even generally accepted numbers and information are subject to bias to the intent they were collected. To me - you are your best fact-checker and you know your truths, which are not as universal as most people assume.

In response: I took down as much personal information stored on Big-tech sites. I replaced Google (except Gmail) with Duck-Duck Go. I never opened a Twitter account. I closed my FB account and found a Twitter-like application to replace it, which does not collect or track your info and allows very close to pure freedom of speech (yes, you have to think for yourself and scroll past the irritating stuff).

Getting off FB has been more refreshing than I imagined. My wife is not ready to get off FB, so I will use her account to sell on Marketplace on the rare occasions I need to. FB got really toxic (especially during the elections by my immediate family - who were behaving extremely bad) and she came close to leaving, but chose to unfriend people vs. my leaving.

I've also been very select on what news agencies I get info from, including stuff on YouTube.

Anyone else experiencing the same?

Yeah, I've been on that boat for a while now... Especially since last year when YouTube starting censoring, demonitizing and deleting accounts by the thousands for nothing more than expressing "contrary" political views. Free speech does not exist on YouTube, and creators have to be very careful of what they say in order to avoid being slapped down by the bots. For one example; you're not allowed to say the words "Corona Virus" or say anything that's critical of China, unless you want to have your video demonitized, or have your channel deleted. If they're going to censor what people can say, then they're not an open, public platform. You can say: "They're a private company and can do what they want", and that's fine, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If they're going to censor their users, then they're a publisher, not an open platform, and they should lose their protection under Section 230.

Big Tech wants to influence the way you think, and they have the power to do it. This is not a conspiracy theory. Leaked videos of Google staff meetings, inter-office communications, and the work of Project Veritas and other investigative journalists have exposed their agenda. Facebook's deliberate attempts to emotionally and psychologically manipulate their users has been exposed several times by former employees, and I know from personal experience that Twitter is nothing but an echo chamber where they silence you without you even realizing it (shadowbanning). It doesn't matter where on the political spectrum you fall. This is not a left vs right issue. Silicon Valley is the driving force behind all the political divisiveness that has sprung up in the last four years, and propaganda, manipulation, and the gate-keeping of information have no place in a free society, no matter what side of the fence you stand on.

Agree on our stance on Section 230, @Mossman! If they are operating like a restaurant or store, in that they can choose who and how they provide service, then they need to be open with their biases and need to be dropped from Section 230 protection.

I hadn't thought about Youtube, but noticed I get a ton of news recommendations from sources I never use and rarely get recommendations for those I do. It is like YouTube is trying to bias me opposite of my leanings.

andrewsrea wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:07 pm Agree on our stance on Section 230, @Mossman! If they are operating like a restaurant or store, in that they can choose who and how they provide service, then they need to be open with their biases and need to be dropped from Section 230 protection.

I hadn't thought about Youtube, but noticed I get a ton of news recommendations from sources I never use and rarely get recommendations for those I do. It is like YouTube is trying to bias me opposite of my leanings.

YouTube has abandoned the creators who made that platform what it is today, in favor of pandering to mainstream media. That's mostly what you get in "trending" recommendations these days, with a few "approved", token YouTubers sprinkled into the mix. Legacy media is dying, and for good reason, but YouTube is doing everything in its power to prop them up at the expense of their own users. They're more than happy to benefit from part, or all of the advertising revenue that creators bring in, but they'll always give preferential treatment to the media giants who need it the least. YouTube was meant to be the alternative to mainstream media, not its biggest supporter.

They should change their name to "GoogleTube", because it's not about "you" anymore.

Yeah, this is a hard topic to not get political on. I was in the camp of you where I supported a free stream of uncensored information going through the internet, which is why I still support net neutrality.

However, through Russia's disinformation campaign over the past 5 years as well as groups here in the US, misinformation can be detrimental and in the case of virus and medical information, it can be deadly. If people are making posts that can be objectively refuted, I have no problem with social media platforms flagging the post with a link to refutable sources that challenge the information. You're not deleting and censoring, you're offering solid information that challenges the misinformation.

Honestly, these tech companies are in a hard spot. Either they have to monitor and censor information (which on principle, I don't like), or you let people use your platform to spread misinformation and pollute the minds of an entire country/world.

You can also go onto shadow-banning of people that the platforms disagree with, and I think that's dangerous as well.

Learning about Russia's troll farms was fascinating. The Russian government saw the internet as dangerous to their power because it allowed free information to get to their people. Instead of doing the China route and trying to control the internet, they decided to pollute the internet with misinformation as well as hate and polarizing people such that the internet comes across as vile place you don't want to be.

Disinformation also gives a sense that you don't know what to believe, which comes with a lot of consequences. Unfortunately, those campaigns come within our own country now instead of just externally.

@RockYoWorld I understand your point about disinformation. Me personally due to my experiences, I see how easy it is to create objective information.

Lol, I just told my 84 year old dad that I am getting old an cynical.

No way this doesn't get political in two shakes, so In before the lock

A few points
1. Never underestimate how fragile a democracy really is.
2. Never underestimate how stupid the average person is, and how easily manipulated they are.
3. Societies with loose association for truth tend to deteriorate quite quickly. Some of the most downtrodden countries are very fond of their conspiracy theories.
4. Lies that are repeated often enough, become indiscernible from truth to the masses.

We are living in an unprecedented age, where unfounded lies can literally spread at the speed of light. It used to be that the media was a gatekeeper of truth (though far from perfect). A media source that would spread lies would get discredited, and ultimately collapse.

While I agree with you that there is danger in censorship, in most cases it is better than the alternative.

I may well be misunderstanding, but I thought dropping Section 230 could easily lead to state-controlled media..?

the problem with big tech is how completely full of crap and hypocritical they are. Build your businesses in the worst possible area instead of moving to some place with the water and more ample natural resources just to be in nice weather and they wonder why CA is burning to the ground at an unprecedented rate...

Move your crap to Nebraska, Arkansas, Iowa or basically anywhere in middle america if you actually gave a crap about the environment and fighting climate change. Stop forcibly overcrowding California so that the water supply can be used more properly for agriculture. When Silicon Valley finally does that, maybe I'll listen to them about anything to do with anything...

Easy, no politics. Like this: sometimes I will "google" a topic just for fun. And if I see 2 pages worth of "fact checker" sites denying something, I'll take it as a strong data point that it's probably true

"Never believe something until it's been officially denied" - old Soviet wisdom.

And don't forget humor. It keeps you sane.

A private company can do whatever it wants and be biased in anyway it wants. However If its going to pretend to be unbiased and con half of the country into making it a near monopoly that is fraud. If half the country supports it and posts all its content for them to monetize for years and let people build business on its platform that is fraud. When one day when its big enough it rips the rug out from under people and they find they were not actually a partner the big tech was against all of their interests that is fraud. Multi billion $ fraud.
Imagine if years ago facebook said we will do everything possible to undermine, malign, lie cheat and steal to stop your beliefs but not until they gain a monopoly on your backs. Would you have ever signed up? Imagine if those on the left were to find out years after building their digital life on a platform they decided to have fox news start fact checking them? Then during a critical time during an election they ban info and demonetize your pundits?
I'm looking forward to the lawsuit where half of their whole infrastructure is taken away and we form a new company around it where both sides can be heard equally. I will be a 1/10000000000th share owner but they defrauded me and I want my cut in the class action suit.

I can't find my 10 foot (3.048 meters) pole, so I guess I'm not gonna touch this

Good stuff here, guys.

This thread is evidence again that I'm not really paranoid, just ahead of the curve. I started covering my video cameras 20 years ago and people made fun of me. I suggested this crap 4-5 years ago and was told that I was paranoid. I'm not exceptionally smart or clairvoyant. I just don't trust anyone that I can't develop into a one-on-one relationship. It has served me well. I have very strong opinions about the subject but will refrain from posting due to the political ban. I'll just say this: We are all fucked. We have gone too far to ever get our real freedoms back. It turned steeply downhill with the Patriot Act and has never leveled out again. And now, we are at the point where people will believe what they are told instead of believing their own eyes, ears and instincts. Amazing to watch. I'm glad that I am closer to the end than the beginning.

So places like Photobucket who offered free pic hosting, then years later they held everyone's pictures hostage unless they paid a fee, that's fraud? It might be but chances are the terms of service were slowly rewritten to conform to their agenda.

Sad how people are allowed to get addicted to something and then molded to conform to a preconceived motive. I'm only on Facebook because the owners of my CNC pickup winder company deleted all the questions and bad things about their product. So I started a knowledge base of sorts for us who own the product.

I can't go too deeply into it without getting political either mostly because of the Cambridge Analytica scandal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook% ... ta_scandal

While one delve into politics about who hired these people and who benefitted, that shouldn't be the point.

The lesson should be learned that if the company doesn't charge you for the product then you are the product. Generally, it's advertising, but data is required to make that advertising effective.

And even after saying this, I don't consider it to be a fundamentally immoral business model if better safeguards are put in place.

Raindog wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:11 pm I started covering my video cameras 20 years ago and people made fun of me.

At work they gave us "gifts" of little tiny sticker that has a brand logo of the latest server they installed and it's a little sliding door that covers the laptop camera - you can open it when needed and close when not. Very nifty. It stays closed 99% of the time, I don't even bother turning on video for the daily work meetings. Nobody's ever said anything.

While we're on the topic: for those who've used video conferencing like zoom, have you noticed that if you're on mute and you happen to sneeze or start speaking, it tells you "you're on mute, turn on your mic"? Well, that means that the other participants don't hear you but the software "hears" you. Always.

I know it doesn't do anything but I like to occasionally search for absolute gibberish (it takes a moment to invent something). Raindog is right on.