Government's relationship with/against social media companies

Forgive me if there's already an official topic on this subject, but I didn't see one.

I'll kick it off with this fun little question.

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2023/03/13/mark-kelly-asked-if-social-media-companies-could-censor-citizens-to-prevent-bank-runs/

Let's ignore freedom of expression because it's expedient. Just what I'd expect from a politician. I mean, how can the elite expect to make money from inside information if ordinary people are permitted to know the truth? We need moar regulationz!!!

TravelinMan wrote:Forgive me if there's already an official topic on this subject, but I didn't see one.

I'll kick it off with this fun little question.

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2023/03/13/mark-kelly-asked-if-social-media-companies-could-censor-citizens-to-prevent-bank-runs/

Let's ignore freedom of expression because it's expedient. Just what I'd expect from a politician.  I mean, how can the elite expect to make money from inside information if ordinary people are permitted to know the truth?  We need moar regulationz!!!

Seems like it would be easier for banks to have the authority to refuse to allow withdrawals if they would decrease its liquidity below some percentage of deposits, like it was when I was a kid.  The passbook I still have states that in black & white.  Withdrawals may be withheld by up to 30 days.

Still, it would have been smarter to not to repeal parts of Dodd-Frank in 2018.

As for social media companies, they are private business and within the context of what they allow on their sites the 1st does not apply.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:Forgive me if there's already an official topic on this subject, but I didn't see one.

I'll kick it off with this fun little question.

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2023/03/13/mark-kelly-asked-if-social-media-companies-could-censor-citizens-to-prevent-bank-runs/

Let's ignore freedom of expression because it's expedient. Just what I'd expect from a politician.  I mean, how can the elite expect to make money from inside information if ordinary people are permitted to know the truth?  We need moar regulationz!!!

Seems like it would be easier for banks to have the authority to refuse to allow withdrawals if they would decrease its liquidity below some percentage of deposits, like it was when I was a kid.  The passbook I still have states that in black & white.  Withdrawals may be withheld by up to 30 days.

Still, it would have been smarter to not to repeal parts of Dodd-Frank in 2018.

As for social media companies, they are private business and within the context of what they allow on their sites the 1st does not apply.

Social media companies are private businesses that influence the daily lives of millions, and are deeply in bed with government officials. When the government can control these private businesses to manipulate the messages to the citizens, that's disturbing. And while I'm under no illusions that this hasn't been happening for years, it makes it nonetheless repulsive and slightly scary.

NigelUno wrote:RIGHT BIAS
These media sources are moderate to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information reporting that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.

Overall, we rate the Arizona Daily Independent Right Biased based on story selection and Mixed for factual reporting due to poor or no sourcing and publication of misleading information.

So are you saying Kelly didn't ask this question?

Bank run(s) in 1929 got inertia from telephone calls from those who had telephones, had access to a phone (like in the hall of apartment halls) and word of mouth.  

I don’t see a whole lot of difference between private phone calls and private chats on social media.  

The big difference is as opposed to The Great Depression bank runs, bank officers and select depositors have the advantage of after hours electronic transactions.

Dodd Frank had still been law Signature Bank and Silicon Valley Bank wouldn’t have been in around or structured much differently.

Benjamin Franklin said a secret is safe with 3 people if two are dead.  No secrets were safe then and certainly not now.

GRR Spartan wrote:Bank run(s) in 1929 got inertia from telephone calls from those who had telephones, had access to a phone (like in the hall of apartment halls) and word of mouth.  

I don’t see a whole lot of difference between private phone calls and private chats on social media.  

The big difference is as opposed to The Great Depression bank runs, bank officers and select depositors have the advantage of after hours electronic transactions.

Dodd Frank had still been law Signature Bank and Silicon Valley Bank wouldn’t have been in around or structured much differently.

Benjamin Franklin said a secret is safe with 3 people if two are dead.  No secrets were safe then and certainly not now.

Agreed. And yet elected officials like Kelly are still trying to stifle information.

TravelinMan wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Bank run(s) in 1929 got inertia from telephone calls from those who had telephones, had access to a phone (like in the hall of apartment halls) and word of mouth.  

I don’t see a whole lot of difference between private phone calls and private chats on social media.  

The big difference is as opposed to The Great Depression bank runs, bank officers and select depositors have the advantage of after hours electronic transactions.

Dodd Frank had still been law Signature Bank and Silicon Valley Bank wouldn’t have been in around or structured much differently.

Benjamin Franklin said a secret is safe with 3 people if two are dead.  No secrets were safe then and certainly not now.

Agreed.  And yet elected officials like Kelly are still trying to stifle information.

He asked a question; It probably was a stupid question.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Seems like it would be easier for banks to have the authority to refuse to allow withdrawals if they would decrease its liquidity below some percentage of deposits, like it was when I was a kid.  The passbook I still have states that in black & white.  Withdrawals may be withheld by up to 30 days.

Still, it would have been smarter to not to repeal parts of Dodd-Frank in 2018.

As for social media companies, they are private business and within the context of what they allow on their sites the 1st does not apply.

Social media companies are private businesses that influence the daily lives of millions, and are deeply in bed with government officials.  When the government can control these private businesses to manipulate the messages to the citizens, that's disturbing.   And while I'm under no illusions that this hasn't been happening for years, it makes it nonetheless repulsive and slightly scary.

So, you are saying that people whose lives are affected by lies in social media shouldn't have the recourse to informing social media companies that they are allowing lies to be propagated on their networks?

And you are objecting to the US intelligence agencies, whose mission is to protect the American people from propaganda, among other things, shouldn't be informing social media companies when they are allowing lies damaging to America to propagated on their networks?

Just asking for a friend of mine with the initials TM.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Social media companies are private businesses that influence the daily lives of millions, and are deeply in bed with government officials.  When the government can control these private businesses to manipulate the messages to the citizens, that's disturbing.   And while I'm under no illusions that this hasn't been happening for years, it makes it nonetheless repulsive and slightly scary.

So, you are saying that people whose lives are affected by lies in social media shouldn't have the recourse to informing social media companies that they are allowing lies to be propagated on their networks?

And you are objecting to the US intelligence agencies, whose mission is to protect the American people from propaganda, among other things, shouldn't be informing social media companies when they are allowing lies damaging to America to propagated on their networks?

Just asking for a friend of mine with the initials TM.

Yes, I guess I'm saying that the government shouldn't be allowed to manipulate social media.

Protecting the American people from propaganda? Like the Wuhan Lab Leak?

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

So, you are saying that people whose lives are affected by lies in social media shouldn't have the recourse to informing social media companies that they are allowing lies to be propagated on their networks?

And you are objecting to the US intelligence agencies, whose mission is to protect the American people from propaganda, among other things, shouldn't be informing social media companies when they are allowing lies damaging to America to propagated on their networks?

Just asking for a friend of mine with the initials TM.

Yes, I guess I'm saying that the government shouldn't be allowed to manipulate social media.

Protecting the American people from propaganda?  Like the Wuhan Lab Leak?

Do you know you are using loaded words or has your mind been so numbed by the MSM that you just do it unconsciously?

Does your position change if the "government" is someone in government running for an elected office verses a government agency tasked with policing propaganda being pushed into social media by foreign governments or powerful interests withing our country?

Do you know that markets are controlled by those with the gold and the same is true for social media, thus an open social media with no editorial safeguards will pour into our brains whatever the wealth & powerful want us to believe, and that mostly will not be the government doing that?

As to the covid origin issue, the "government" does not have a position on that. What we have is MSM & social media hyping theories to gain clicks.

NigelUno wrote:Trump Threatens To Shut Down Social Media After Twitter Adds Warning To His Tweets

Yes! Another great example. Now I think Trump is too stupid to really pull something like that off. But I could see a DeSantis administration absolutely threatening social media companies at the drop of a hat.

TravelinMan wrote:

NigelUno wrote:Trump Threatens To Shut Down Social Media After Twitter Adds Warning To His Tweets

Yes!  Another great example.  Now I think Trump is too stupid to really pull something like that off.  But I could see a DeSantis administration absolutely threatening social media companies at the drop of a hat.

So maybe we need clear regulations on social media, and what they must do via government requests, what independent agencies in the government can make those requests, etc.

It has been clear since the 2016 election that foreign governments are using social media to try to affect the outcome of our elections, are you really okay with that?

TravelinMan wrote:Protecting the American people from propaganda?  Like the Wuhan Lab Leak?

There you go again.  

Just when I think you might not be the jerk who's at the water cooler everyday trying to start something you prove me wrong

The safeguards that the speed of information and actions used to be slower. IMO slowing transactions down is the safety net.

NigelUno wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Social media companies are private businesses that influence the daily lives of millions, and are deeply in bed with government officials.  When the government can control these private businesses to manipulate the messages to the citizens, that's disturbing.   And while I'm under no illusions that this hasn't been happening for years, it makes it nonetheless repulsive and slightly scary.

Has the owner of Twitter limited freedom of expression?

Thanks in advance.

Would we know if they did?

NigelUno wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Social media companies are private businesses that influence the daily lives of millions, and are deeply in bed with government officials.  When the government can control these private businesses to manipulate the messages to the citizens, that's disturbing.   And while I'm under no illusions that this hasn't been happening for years, it makes it nonetheless repulsive and slightly scary.

Has the owner of Twitter limited freedom of expression?

Thanks in advance.

A quick Google will tell you that at least some people think so, yes.

https://www.newsweek.com/fbi-colluded-twitter-suppress-free-speech-where-outrage-opinion-1768801

IB4 analysis of Newsweek as a right wing baby hating propaganda organization.

TravelinMan wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Has the owner of Twitter limited freedom of expression?

Thanks in advance.

A quick Google will tell you that at least some people think so, yes.

https://www.newsweek.com/fbi-colluded-twitter-suppress-free-speech-where-outrage-opinion-1768801



IB4 analysis of Newsweek as a right wing baby hating propaganda organization.

Not NW.  Former Ohio politician.  Too much speculation, not enough detailed reporting.  Also basing his argument on the right for politicians to lie isn't a good look.

edit - the unedited internet has turned Into the mob rule that the opponents of direct democracy worried about.

What's everyone think about this Tik Tok banning thing?

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65042762

Full disclosure:  I am not a Tik Tok user.

I can understand where the government, or certain employers, would want to restrict employee access.  But to ban it outright for the general public?  That seems pretty severe.  Makes me nervous when the government starts shutting down access to parts of the internet.  Feels a little to China/Russia to me.

Edit: Also, I have no doubt China spys on us via apps and other methods. I don't think I'm all that interesting to them. I did have a security clearance years ago, but even under torture, I couldn't tell you anything interesting about anything except my cats, cars, and fine liquors.

Motown Spartan wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:What's everyone think about this Tik Tok banning thing?

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65042762

Full disclosure:  I am not a Tik Tok user.

I can understand where the government, or certain employers, would want to restrict employee access.  But to ban it outright for the general public?  That seems pretty severe.  Makes me nervous when the government starts shutting down access to parts of the internet.  Feels a little to China/Russia to me.

They want to ban it because China/TikTok could weaponize our data.

Okay, that's fine. Can we ban the weaponization of...weapons?

I get that.  Which is why I understand limiting access to certain government and businesses.

But to wholesale attempt (and I use that word specifically, because of my doubts of their ability to do so) to ban it from the general public?  Feels sketchy to me. Maybe that's just my anti-government biases creeping in and a fear of slippery slopes. I can get that way sometimes.