Congress Pats Itself On The Back Via Social Media For Its Opportunity To Slam Social Media

from the so-that's-how-it-works? dept

As you may have heard, this week there were three Congressional hearings in two days, allowing various Congressional committees to drag out officials from Facebook, Twitter and Google and slap them around for the fact that some bad things happen on those platforms. The general sentiment appeared to be sputtering anger that social media companies haven't magically figured out how to "stop bad stuff" on these platforms.

Perhaps the strongest statement came from Senator Dianne Feinstein during one of the hearings, in which she stated:

I must say, I don't think you get it. You're general counsels, you defend your company. What we're talking about is a cataclysmic change. What we're talking about is the beginning of cyber warfare. What we're talking about is a major foreing power with the sophistication and ability to involve themselves in a presidential election and sow conflict and discontent all over this country. We are not going to go away, gentlemen. And this is a very big deal. I went home last night with profound disappointment. I asked specific questions, I got vague answers. And that just won't do. You have a huge problem on your hands. And the US is going to be the first of the countries to bring it to your attention, and other countries are going to follow, I'm sure. Because you bear this responsibility. You created these platforms, and now they're being misused. And you have to be the ones who do something about it... or we will.

We've gone over this before, because it's one of those things that everyone seems to think is easy to solve, when the reality is that most attempts to solve the "problem" of "bad stuff" results in a bigger problem. Yes, it's probably true that these companies could be more forthcoming and transparent, but part of the problem is not that these companies just want to hold their cards close, it's that (1) there are no easy answers and (2) almost any "solution" is fraught with even more problems that will almost certainly make the problem worse. At the very same time that tons of people are complaining about these platforms failing to stop loosely defined "bad speech," you have another group that is complaining about bad/bogus takedowns/censorship. How do you balance those two things? If you think there's an easy way, you're wrong.

On top of that, the idea that "bad" content is obvious is ludicrous on multiple levels. First, the scale of this issue is massive. And that impacts things in multiple ways. It means it's impossible to carefully review every piece of content, meaning that a ton of "bad" stuff will always slip through and people will complain that the platform is failing or not taking the issue seriously. At the same time, a bunch of errors in the other direction will be made (taking down stuff that should be left up). It's the classic issue of Type I and Type II errors -- and at the scale these platforms operate, you will inevitably have so many of both as to make the entire effort appear completely ineffective.

And, to make the situation even more ridiculous, even if there were some regulatory regime that could accurately manage the issues discussed above, they would almost certainly be cost prohibitive for all but the largest of players. And thus, the end result of this regulatory "attack" on Facebook, Google, and Twitter may be to lock in those three companies as the dominant players and lock out any innovative startups.

And then there's this: While these Senators were attacking these three companies, they were relying heavily on Twitter and Facebook to talk up and promote the fact that they were in a hearing bashing Twitter and Facebook. While the article linked here suggests that this isn't ironic because it just demonstrates the power imbalance, there's a more subtle issue at play. These platforms became so useful in large part because they were free to innovate and to experiment and to allow for lots of different uses. And, sure, some of those uses are ones that many of us find distasteful, offensive, or even potentially dangerous. But before we leap in with wild abandon with Congress mandating solutions that will be policed by these very same platforms, shouldn't we be at least a little careful that the end result will create a lot more problems than it's supposedly solving? And, yet, so far, there has been little indication of what exactly Congress (or anyone with the anti-tech pitchforks) have in mind other than "take responsibility" or "stop the bad stuff." And that's not even remotely productive, and has a high likelihood of being harmful.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 9:47am

    Do those idiots in congress not realize that the more you suppress the ability of people with different viewpoints to express their viewpoint, the more extreme their viewpoints are likely to become. Also more isolated that they feel, the greater the risk of lone wolf attacks, or the more likely they will be encouraged into a suicide attack by those who will abuse others for their own ends.

    The more open the conversation is, the easier it is to monitor the high risk individuals, and the more likely it is that their views will be moderated by those with a less extreme viewpoint.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 10:30am

      Re:

      That's not what this is about. I don't give a fuck what the Russian viewpoint is in an American election. They should not have free reign to do what they did. The released advertisements are damning.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 10:43am

        Re: Re:

        Yeah only US should have the ability to interfere with the politics of other countries.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZunZuneo

        But really what difference does it make if a user is told Clinton is the devil by Trump or a Russian meme? The unspoken inference with this argument is that voters are not capable of evaluating sources of information and are mindless sheep responding to whatever propaganda manages to reach them.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 10:50am

          Re: Re: Re:

          By your logic the stupid FBI "stings" where they fabricate terrorist plots through suggestions to idiots are perfectly valid, because what difference does it make if they came up with the idea or were just told about it? The answer is there's a big difference, and incitement is a thing.

          As for your link, yeah cool whatever. Nevermind, the US does it too. Pack it up, everything's kosher now, apparently.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 11:46am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            neither of you are wrong, but dancing around the issue.

            If you are dumb enough to buy propaganda you deserve to be its victim. The ideal is freedom if speech, crushing it because it came from outside your sphere of influence means you don't really believe in that ideal much at all, well unless you need it for your own gain.

            yadayadayada yaaaaaaaa. *fingers in ears* lalalalalaaaa but me me me mee!

            get over it, people are dumb and susceptible to propaganda because that is just the way things are.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 11:54am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              ^ This guy gets it.

              When you have freedom of speech, you have speech that you are not going to like and will likely try persuade to come to their point of view. Whether that is influencing an election or buying the latest iPhone.

              Facebook, Google, et al are just platforms, just like standing on a street corner with a sign is a platform. People can do and say what they want within legal limits on both but you don't see legislators getting all huffy with concrete companies because they put the street corner there for people to stand on in the first place. This is literally no different.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 12:52pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                and ... here we are - with a real need for unbiased (lol) news sources while at the same time the present administration is working hard to quickly remove all such possibilities.

                If they want to regain the ummm .. not trust - I guess it could be called the publics willing suspension of disbelief - then they had better rethink their strategery.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Bergman (profile), 2 Nov 2017 @ 7:14pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                By these congress-critter's own logic, if the owner of the platform is responsible for the 'bad' message people are using it to communicate, then Congress itself would be liable if someone on a street corner were to speak a 'bad' message, because it's ultimately Congress that owns that platform.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 12:30pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The US HAS TO COMPLETELY DESTROY NORTH KOREA(.)

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 12:27pm

        Re: Re:

        If you think that this will not be used against US fringe organizations, by crying fake news, well I have this bridge for sale.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 10:55am

      Re:

      The "us" versus "them" mentality is getting harder for a lot of people to shake. Blocking "negative" opinions can only worsen this kind of thinking and a lack of desire to engage the "opposition" as human beings instead of "monsters".

      Once you've gone that far, you have no chance of relating to the other side, because you will inherently think of your side as "good" and theirs as "bad". That kind of arrogance turns people off because it's humiliating to experience.

      If marginalized people feel no connection with others, they're far more likely to commit crimes, a lack of empathy and respect from others is what makes them feel: "Well fuck, what do I have to lose from hurting people? Talking got me nowhere."

      Also, keep in mind that joking about horrid things is how the Internet deals with them. It's the blackest of black, patently offensive comedy and many don't understand it: Roaming Millenial - The Internet for Dummies | Pepe, Kekistan & Normies

      (Not an endorsement for this channel's opinions wholesale, just the facts in this one video. Don't fall for the last segment... it is satire at that point. :P)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 12:12pm

      Re:

      If congress stops Russia's Status 6 remote 100 megaton drone submarine from completion then I say pat yourself on your backs all you want. Paying so much attention to us fucknuts on social media platforms is diabolically LUDICRIS

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 9:48am

    Apparently weaponized memes are more dangerous than nukes.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    crade (profile), 2 Nov 2017 @ 9:56am

    "Because you bear this responsibility" - Baseless.

    "You created these [tools], and now they're being misused" - Irrelevent

    "And you have to be the ones who do something about it" - ridiculous

    "or we will" - do it! It's your responsibility! get the NSA to get their act together. This is their damn job.

    You *should* be the ones to do something about it. They are just plain trying to shirk responsibility and lay it on some innocent companies just because they are popular.

    Get real. These companies are not internet gods for you to pray to for a solution. Do your jobs!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 9:58am

    Why are these congress critterz chastising these folk for doing exactly what was asked of them?

    The pretend outrage is fake ... fake outrage - sad

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 2 Nov 2017 @ 10:18am

      Re:

      Because what they actually want is a scapegoat. They demand the impossible, then grandstand on top of the failure of companies to achieve literal magical results. It's the intersection between being seen as "doing something" and being "tough" when their impossible demands aren't met.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 12:58pm

        Re: Re:

        "intersection between being seen as "doing something" and being "tough""

        So - playing to their shrinking base. Everyone else sees it as the intersection between greed, lack of ethics and opportunity.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          TrickyRickDreamsOfScreams (profile), 2 Nov 2017 @ 5:01pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Not to mention laziness. So many politicians want to simply be paid for sitting on their laurels and accepting legalized bribes, while all of their unpaid interns do all the paperwork and everything else for them, meanwhile the financial elite run away with the country. The only reason these companies are being scapegoated to begin with is because they have high ranking employees and exec's that are actively outspoken against this kind of corruption and boisterous sham brand of farcical grandstanding/pretending to care and do things, whether or not they say one thing then do another aside. So it's hypocrites thumping their chests and puffing up like animals squaring off for dominance, punishing other hypocrites for literally not being able to acquiesce to demands from the first set of hypocrites that are utterly impossible to attain. <sarcasm> What a lovely little shit show THAT is. Wonderful system, folks; keep up the good work. </sarcasm>

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 2 Nov 2017 @ 9:59am

    What?!? Bad things happen on social media?

    Does congress mean that bad things happen on social media, such as congress using it to pat itself on the back? Or do they mean bad things such as how Twitter is used by the president?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 10:07am

    Wait a sec! I'm in BOTH your alleged "groups".

    "At the very same time that tons of people are complaining about these platforms failing to stop loosely defined "bad speech," you have another group that is complaining about bad/bogus takedowns/censorship."

    I example "bad speech" as calling someone "ignorant motherfucker" -- especially when it's out of the blue, NOT part of going discussion. YOU, dismiss that vile comment -- from your own paid writer, NOT an ordinary user -- as "a joke".

    I example "bad/bogus takedowns/censorship" as Twitter banning Roger Stone (apparently permanently) for using a few vulgarisms while NOT banning others for same.

    Therefore I don't see the problems that you do. If "platforms" are too big to moderate as civil society requires, CUT THEM DOWN TO SIZE. Corporations don't have any damn right to even exist if not serving society.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 10:07am

      Re: Wait a sec! I'm in BOTH your alleged "groups".

      Your position has been/is that these mega-corporations have NO responsibility to police sites, YET can ban anyone at any time for any or no reason, thereby cutting off speech from major outlets. You are clearly on the corporate fringe.

      And a key problem is that these "platforms" don't take down obviously "bad speech" even when flagged.

      By the way, it's maintained here that "the Community" knows which persons should have their comments hidden. Yet you state it's impossibly complex and sure to be wrong. I agree that Techdirt has got it BACKWARDS: your fan boys should have THEIR comments hidden, and their home IP addresses banned, NOT mild-mannered me. So while you're consistent, it's only because deliberately BACKWARD.

      Anyhoo, doesn't follow that I expect any good out of Congress. Tried to tie this grilling into the Russia assertions, sheesh.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 10:09am

        Re: Re: Wait a sec! I'm in BOTH your alleged &quot;groups&quot;.

        And last, your attempted point that Congress using social media while attempting to regulate it better is somehow contradictory, that's just your usual feeble straw color crayon, not even a real straw of an entire strawman.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 2 Nov 2017 @ 10:14am

      Re: Wait a sec! I'm in BOTH your alleged "groups".

      What's worse? Your inability to speak proper English, your insistence on having a conversation with yourself or the fact that half your claims have no basis in verifiable reality?

      Well, this keeps you off the streets, I presume.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 10:27am

      Re: Wait a sec! I'm in BOTH your alleged "groups".

      If "platforms" are too big to moderate as civil society requires, CUT THEM DOWN TO SIZE.

      Neuter the social media platforms, and you will reach far fewer people with you ravings.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 11:58am

      Re: Wait a sec! I'm in BOTH your alleged "groups".

      Corporations exist because people want to make money, they have no legal or moral obligations to 'serve society' just because they exist. As long as people and corporations follow the law, they can make money however they want, serving society be damned.

      We live in America, it's called Freedom, get used to it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 1:03pm

        Re: Re: Wait a sec! I'm in BOTH your alleged "groups".

        LOL

        No moral obligation to serve society ... yeah we all get that as it is quite clear.

        What many fail to acknowledge is the fact that these corporate monsters need both workers and consumers otherwise they go out of business. When they treat same poorly, guess what happens? It may take time, or it could be immediate - either way they will not like it and they blame the easy targets while ignoring the oncoming train which will certainly wreck.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 8:18pm

      Re: Wait a sec! I'm in BOTH your alleged "groups".

      Like the RIAA, which you love so much.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Matthew Cline (profile), 2 Nov 2017 @ 10:12pm

      Re: Wait a sec! I'm in BOTH your alleged "groups".

      If "platforms" are too big to moderate as civil society requires, CUT THEM DOWN TO SIZE.

      It's not, in and of itself, the size of the platforms/companies, but the the sheer volume of messages that would have to be moderated. If (for example) you split Twitter up into a thousand companies, each with 1/1,000th of the resources and handling 1/1,000th of the message volume, none of those mini-Twitters would have the resources needed to handle the volume of messages as the would be (proportionally) in the same boat as the original Twitter. The only way to "moderate as civil society requires" would be some combination of throttling the amount of messages users can send and charging users per message sent, so that their army of paid moderators would be up to the task of handling the message volume.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 10:16am

    Wait is this hearing about "bad speech" or about the accepting of rubles for US election ads? Because it seems like that should have raised a flag somewhere that ads targeting the United States and with political content were paid for with non-US currency.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 2 Nov 2017 @ 10:19am

      Re:

      Because people outside the US can't get hold of US currency? Really?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 10:29am

        Re: Re:

        But that's not what happened in a lot of cases. A Russian location used a Russian payment method to buy US political ads using Russian rubles, and the tech companies threw up their hands and said "how could we have possibly known lol".

        You're absolutely right that there are methods of obfuscating things...but the point is that the tech companies were more than willing to look the other way in exchange for the mythical non-VC money to show their boards and investors. Twitter's hands in this mess are particularly dirty. They offered a substantial chunk of US political advertising to RT.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 10:33am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Plus there are various campaign finance laws. If Facebook, Twitter, etc just can't seem to manage to figure it out, then they shouldn't be selling *any* political ad space. But I'm sure they'd get *right* on backing out of that market.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Ryunosuke (profile), 2 Nov 2017 @ 10:36am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Not sure, but don't Facebook/Twitter rent out ad space to ... ad companies who put in an assortment of ads from various sources?

            I cannot confirm this cause I ublock origin EVERYTHING except a few select sites.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 10:42am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Political ads are a different beast. That said they were able to figure out just how pervasive the infiltration was, so it's clear they just weren't doing their homework as long as the money flowed.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                crade (profile), 3 Nov 2017 @ 9:35am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Those laws you are talking about apply to those buying the ads not to those selling them. They don't have laws that say everyone who sells ads space needs to check to make sure their customers aren't using the space for political ads. There is nothing even remotely like that.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 11:35am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              OP of the Thread here... I actually traffic digital ads (sometimes in facebook). To place ads on facebook you actually have to link your ad manager account to a normal facebook account. I'm sure it would be trivial to set up a fake fb account to do thisbut still as far as I know Facebook ads need to go through the facebook platform.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Ryunosuke (profile), 2 Nov 2017 @ 10:31am

        Re: Re:

        actually, this should be bringing up a good point that I'd like to see TD expand on. Extra-territorial political actions/speech or endorsements in regards to traditional print media as well as the interconnected world via the internet. What kind of laws are there for/against various media types, Who is allowed to say what, that kind of thing.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 11:02am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Who is allowed to say what"

          Let's take a page from China and mandate all political speech be correlated with a National ID, then we will be sure no foreign propaganda reaches our senses.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2017 @ 11:18am

      Re:

      The problem is they were not "election ads" they were "political issues based ads" They were not "Vote Trump" ads they were memes of widows crying at a flag draped casket with text that slammed Hillary or called for people to show up to a rally to have Texas leave the US .. crap like that. I really do not think it is as black and white a thing to stop as people assume when they see "rubles for election ads" in the headline.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    JD, 2 Nov 2017 @ 10:42am

    The American Way

    I can't believe that Russia tried to use untraceable money to buy issue ads and propaganda to influence the election ...

    .... without first laundering their money through a 501(c)(4) to a SuperPAC which could then make a coordinated ad buy for the campaign.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      EXACTLY, 2 Nov 2017 @ 11:43am

      Re: The American Way

      Precisely!!!! If they'd only done this, according to the Supreme Court it would have been protected speech!

      Look, at the end of the day, there is only speech. Not good speech, not bad speech. The adjectives describing speech exist as the 'reality' for each listener. These platforms have become the de facto town square, and should be held in public trust the same way the sidewalks in the USA are held in public trust per Frisby.

      If people would get over themselves and stop thinking they needed the government to protect them, and would embrace the responsibility of using their rights rather than shutting down everyone else's, this 'problem' would go away. Who cares what the next idiot is saying, as long as she's only saying something, not actually doing a thing. When they do a thing, then if it is an illegal thing, use the existing laws to deal with it.

      Words are not things. If you are easily hurt by words, stay inside, cover your ears and disengage from the dialog. Don't use the government as a bully stick to silence the things you don't like -- on either side of the issue.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonmylous, 2 Nov 2017 @ 11:54am

    Uhm....

    Isn't it against the TOS of these social media sites to attack said site on its platform?

    Would that make their continued use of said platforms a violation of the CFAA? I'm asking for a friend >.>

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    McGyver (profile), 2 Nov 2017 @ 1:19pm

    Where was congress when all these Russian trolls were ramping people up with divisive ads inciting all sorts of crazy ideas... As long as it made the other side look bad they kept their mouths shut... Did they get together beforehand and say "look this is no way for Americans behave"... "Let's not get hysterical"... It's such bullshit hypocrisy that they try and find a scapegoat... They couldn't give two shits where the ads came from if it help their side... Russian trolls or not.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      orbitalinsertion (profile), 2 Nov 2017 @ 5:27pm

      Re:

      Same place they have been since far crazier thing have been done in other countries since circa 2007.

      The problems from the government end of things is that their cyber is always about offense, even when they are calling defense. No part of government dare actually secure their systems much, or so little as mildly suggest corporations or critical systems secure more and expose to the public internet less. Now the legislative arm wants some companies to flippin' filter posts and ads for the same kind of bullshit they spew themselves. (Well, they occasionally use the truth also, but in a way to maximize divisiveness rather than push for a positive change.)

      I am sure they are super happy with their super reinvigorated Eastasia as much as Russia is with them. Heaven forfend they actually do any real thing about this stuff, like making critical thinking a part of education. Too much autocracy envy, though.

      If they had said "this is no way for Americans to behave" at the time, they would have pretty much had to empty out great whacking swathes of government to lead by example.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), 2 Nov 2017 @ 5:47pm

    _What we're talking about is a cataclysmic change. What we're talking about is the beginning of cyber warfare._

    Holy crap, what planet has she been on for the last 10 years? Other governments deal with far worse, constantly, without yelling at platforms so much.

    Also, cyber this.

    _What we're talking about is a major foreing (sic) power with the sophistication and ability to involve themselves in a presidential election and sow conflict and discontent all over this country._

    Uh. They took our jerbs?

    _We are not going to go away, gentlemen._

    Goddammit, yeah, we noticed already.

    _And this is a very big deal. I went home last night with profound disappointment. I asked specific questions, I got vague answers._

    Omg jerb competition again.

    _And the US is going to be the first of the countries to bring it to your attention, and other countries are going to follow, I'm sure._

    You may want to check on the net for those last ten years you spent off-planet or whatever. (Or is this just another case of "US first" regardless of what actually happens anywhere?)

    _You created these platforms, and now they're being misused. And you have to be the ones who do something about it... or we will._

    Is it finally time to ban tracking and targeted advertising then? There are a lot of other, smarter things that could be done, i am sure, but unfortunately not involving your chosen scapegoat platforms in the way you imagine.

    You could also stop manipulating "your own", as well as the populace in other countries. I double fucking dare you.

    __(2) almost any "solution" is fraught with even more problems that will almost certainly make the problem worse.__

    Yep. It's called "making sure the enemy / terrorists / whatever wins". Again. Go ahead, and give them exactly what they want. While making less than no headway toward your stated goals.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 2 Nov 2017 @ 8:38pm

    Mentioned before and again, and over time AGAIN

    Many quotes over the years, Say many things..
    But it those who can NOT describe what they NEED protection from, that Scare me more.

    A person asked about the recent event, HOW could we have saved/protected the Citizens?
    LOCK THEM ALL UP, INSIDE THEIR HOMES..Take away Anything they will HURT themselves with...And throw food at them every few days..

    WE ARE TO DOMESTICATED.. We are Worse then the cattle we milk. That should live 40 years, but die in 5-6. we cant even walk across the street without our HANDS being held. We have the instincts of a House cat..That has Forgotten the wild.

    WHy is it THEIR FAULT?? hasnt MOSt of the bad stuff ALWAYS happened? With or Without the Help of Corps and Countries..

    Why NOT USE this data to Find the idiots breaking laws??
    No Laws broken? Hmm. MAKE MORE UP..

    Anyone consider we are getting as bad as China and the middle East...S. America monitors the net also..
    Why leave it alone, when you can PASS BLAME to something..

    ITS NOT the side affect of being able to be ANONYMOUS?? Is it, that Many are being STUPID?? Comparing ideas and concepts?? SHARING things..

    I only figure that FBI/CIA monitoring the net, ISNT WORKING..

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 2 Nov 2017 @ 10:19pm

    sOCIAL MEDIA AND kIDS..

    Wonderful thing it can be...
    HOW to teach kids how to use words, EXPRESS themselves?

    HOW a person can be a whistle blower and BE ANONYMOUS..

    WHERE are all the old social clubs?? the gathering places?

    WIPED OUT..Infected and beat to death by internal problems..

    do YOU THINK IT will stop anything?? It DIDNT IN THE PAST, when PAPER WAS POPULAR.. I remember the underground papers.

    Its JUST A BACKDOOR LAW, for killing off Classifieds..

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2017 @ 6:53pm

    Fact: the United States government uses social media to illegaly spy on its own citizens and the whole Internet, in order to maintain its 'world dominance'.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.