• MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    89
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 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
    40
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 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
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 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.

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 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
          10 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.)

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 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
        3
        ·
        10 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
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 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.

  • _lilith@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

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

    • Fapper_McFapper@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      Correction, a man and his brain worm are having a conversation and accusing a company of action they are allowed to perform.

  • gregorum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

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

  • Crikeste@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

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

  • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    10 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?

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 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
    9
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    10 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
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 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
        ·
        10 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.

  • Nobody@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    47
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Does everyone hate Bobby Kennedy so much that they’ll side with Facebook and Zuckerberg over a career environmental attorney because he’s running for president?

    • vividspecter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

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

    • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • Nobody@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        24
        ·
        10 months ago

        Would you agree that Bobby Kennedy would draw more voters from Trump as it stands?

        A “conspiracy theorist” is rejected on the left until government-sanctioned evidence is provided. The right doesn’t have that constraint.