• MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    138
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • Buttons@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      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.

      • Dkarma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        The thing is people shouldnt have that level of “freedom of speech”

        No one is above reproach.

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • Buttons@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          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.)

        • Dark ArcA
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          I’m opposed to the idea, we’ve got enough people that think their ideas need to be broadcast to everyone in the world.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

  • BigTrout75@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Really don’t need to hear anything coming from this guy. It’s always batshit crazy and it’s a waste of time.

    • Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

  • gregorum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    So what? How does he think Meta is liable for anything here?

  • _lilith@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Man talking to himself accuses company of action they are allowed to perform

  • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    6 months ago

    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?

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      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.

      • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

              • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                6 months ago

                You don’t see how opaque manipulation fuels conspiracies and paranoia? Come on dude.

                • kn98@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  It seems to me that’s it’s often the conspiracy-theorists that get shadowbanned.

            • Jestzer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.)

                • Jestzer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  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.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            It’s definitely morally bankrupt imo and we can agree to disagree here as I don’t think this topic can be expanded further.

  • Crikeste@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    He could have been a great dude but he just HAD to go down the antivax rabbit hole. Fuckin’ shame.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      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

  • Furbag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • Muffi@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • Furbag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • MentalGymnastics@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          The fact meta has received 2 billion dollars in taxpayer gov’t money should entitle every single taxpayer to their 1st amendment.

          • Furbag@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.

            • MentalGymnastics@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.

      • Furbag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        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?

          • Furbag@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Again, what laws are you referring to? I want to hear you explain it.

            • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              Laws, the ones that countries and sometimes bigger entities enact as rules

              • Furbag@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                Okay, so you have no clue what you’re talking about. Got it 👌

                • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  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

    • pedestrian@links.hackliberty.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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.

          • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.

            • MentalGymnastics@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              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?

              • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                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.