RugbyRebels

morepork wrote:It's a completely deregulated free for all. Moon landing conspiracies are one thing, but shit like pseudoscience (anti vaccine nutters) and unofficial statements from officials that are germane to policy making are not OK. Social media siphons screeds of data from the public with impunity then profits off selling that data to the highest bidder. What is that bidder happens to be a body of people seeking election, or an elected body of people unduely influenced by lobbyists with vested interest that has the potential to impact on health or sensitive foreign policy? This is fucking insanity. Regulate it. Now.

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
I'm not sure exactly what you're picturing here, but I'm talking about it being a far quicker and more direct source of lots of different news outlets. You can follow the journalists and publications directly. It often arrives ages before anything appears on the BBC (for example) and it's quite helpful to see the skew/bias when comparing the same story coming from different angles.

The problem is there being no clear line between that and the ramblings of somebody who's either very (twitter) famous or simply said something so insane or outrageous that it's spreads like wildfire.

A lot of legit news is now just as much about regurgitating tweets as it is the other way round. It's created this odd situation where an actual fact or incisive bit of reporting might be considered total bollocks by many (I get the sense you are one) purely because it's a screenshot with a blue box around it. Equally you can just take the loudest, most obnoxious, ill-informed voice from the opposing side and use that to represent the entirety of people that disagree with you (or your news station) to get everyone all fired up and retarded.

So I definitely think it has a lot to offer, but people are too fucking stupid and impressionable to not get wrapped up in the vortex of hyperbole and misinformation.

But.....

Online all new sources appear to be equally authentic. I know that’s bollocks as well as you do, but it’s painfully clear many aren’t so sure.

Of course all media outlets have bias. But traditional media needs to be fairly sure of its facts or face legal action. Many alt news outlets don’t have that same degree of scrutiny and post all kinds of shyte. And that’s before we get onto the topic of troll farms.

Using news apps to get a wide input of new stories is one thing, but using Facebook or twitter as your sole means of getting information risks the inability to differentiate between fact and nonsense. Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting you can’t make that judgement. But, equally many people appear to struggle online on this.

It’s also very likely to be an echo chamber.

morepork wrote:Phuck nose. Its not even clear to me how these entities collect data, so it doesn't make sense to let them do as they please with it. It literally influences elections.

Puja wrote:

morepork wrote:It's a completely deregulated free for all. Moon landing conspiracies are one thing, but shit like pseudoscience (anti vaccine nutters) and unofficial statements from officials that are germane to policy making are not OK. Social media siphons screeds of data from the public with impunity then profits off selling that data to the highest bidder. What is that bidder happens to be a body of people seeking election, or an elected body of people unduely influenced by lobbyists with vested interest that has the potential to impact on health or sensitive foreign policy? This is fucking insanity. Regulate it. Now.

How?

Puja

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:

morepork wrote:It's a completely deregulated free for all. Moon landing conspiracies are one thing, but shit like pseudoscience (anti vaccine nutters) and unofficial statements from officials that are germane to policy making are not OK. Social media siphons screeds of data from the public with impunity then profits off selling that data to the highest bidder. What is that bidder happens to be a body of people seeking election, or an elected body of people unduely influenced by lobbyists with vested interest that has the potential to impact on health or sensitive foreign policy? This is fucking insanity. Regulate it. Now.

How?

Puja

Step one: regulate them as media platforms, not technology platforms.

It's like Uber. Challenged that it was, in fact, a taxi service, it threw a hissy fit. AirBnB is not a technology company, it's a holiday home rental company. Facebook is not a technology company, it's a media company. etc., etc.

Digby wrote:Honest Mitch McConell has observed there are problems with rising federal debt, and to address these they need to look at cutting entitlement programmes, which is to say the big social and health care packages, providing they can hive some of the blame onto the Democrats

I don't know if he recalls the unfunded tax cut for rich people he and his boss trumped, but that does look unwarranted and hugely hypocritical when suddenly again claiming to be a deficit hawk

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:

morepork wrote:It's a completely deregulated free for all. Moon landing conspiracies are one thing, but shit like pseudoscience (anti vaccine nutters) and unofficial statements from officials that are germane to policy making are not OK. Social media siphons screeds of data from the public with impunity then profits off selling that data to the highest bidder. What is that bidder happens to be a body of people seeking election, or an elected body of people unduely influenced by lobbyists with vested interest that has the potential to impact on health or sensitive foreign policy? This is fucking insanity. Regulate it. Now.

How?

Puja

Step one: regulate them as media platforms, not technology platforms.

It's like Uber. Challenged that it was, in fact, a taxi service, it threw a hissy fit. AirBnB is not a technology company, it's a holiday home rental company. Facebook is not a technology company, it's a media company. etc., etc.

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:
How?

Puja

Step one: regulate them as media platforms, not technology platforms.

It's like Uber. Challenged that it was, in fact, a taxi service, it threw a hissy fit. AirBnB is not a technology company, it's a holiday home rental company. Facebook is not a technology company, it's a media company. etc., etc.

Slight problem with that, and I agree in principle with you, is that Uber and the like physically operate in the UK. Facebook don’t. Unless you want to block Facebook at a national level, which would be hugely unpopular, then all the UK government can really do is lobbynthr US government to do something. The internet won’t be regulated until there is a global approach.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:
Step one: regulate them as media platforms, not technology platforms.

It's like Uber. Challenged that it was, in fact, a taxi service, it threw a hissy fit. AirBnB is not a technology company, it's a holiday home rental company. Facebook is not a technology company, it's a media company. etc., etc.

Slight problem with that, and I agree in principle with you, is that Uber and the like physically operate in the UK. Facebook don’t. Unless you want to block Facebook at a national level, which would be hugely unpopular, then all the UK government can really do is lobbynthr US government to do something. The internet won’t be regulated until there is a global approach.

Does facebook sell data to uk firms? If yes then it operates here.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:
Step one: regulate them as media platforms, not technology platforms.

It's like Uber. Challenged that it was, in fact, a taxi service, it threw a hissy fit. AirBnB is not a technology company, it's a holiday home rental company. Facebook is not a technology company, it's a media company. etc., etc.

Slight problem with that, and I agree in principle with you, is that Uber and the like physically operate in the UK. Facebook don’t. Unless you want to block Facebook at a national level, which would be hugely unpopular, then all the UK government can really do is lobbynthr US government to do something. The internet won’t be regulated until there is a global approach.

Does facebook sell data to uk firms? If yes then it operates here.

canta_brian wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Slight problem with that, and I agree in principle with you, is that Uber and the like physically operate in the UK. Facebook don’t. Unless you want to block Facebook at a national level, which would be hugely unpopular, then all the UK government can really do is lobbynthr US government to do something. The internet won’t be regulated until there is a global approach.

Does facebook sell data to uk firms? If yes then it operates here.

It certainly sells advertising in the uk.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Slight problem with that, and I agree in principle with you, is that Uber and the like physically operate in the UK. Facebook don’t. Unless you want to block Facebook at a national level, which would be hugely unpopular, then all the UK government can really do is lobbynthr US government to do something. The internet won’t be regulated until there is a global approach.

Does facebook sell data to uk firms? If yes then it operates here.

So you can hammer the UK company but Facebook isn’t UK based so I wish you luck with enforcement. There are no assets in the UK a court could seize.

Sandydragon wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Does facebook sell data to uk firms? If yes then it operates here.

It certainly sells advertising in the uk.

. If it targets UK customers then it’s doing business in genUK. But without UK assets a British Court will struggle to enforce a judgement.

Digby wrote:Trump isn't wrong that Russia flouts its nuclear treaty obligations, but Russia can reasonably cite so too does the USA, and on a much bigger scale

Maybe how Trump acts is how some people view the freedom of an event like brexit, but if the whole world plays the game in such fashion then heaven help us

WaspInWales wrote:Modern day America folks:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45928212

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Does facebook sell data to uk firms? If yes then it operates here.

So you can hammer the UK company but Facebook isn’t UK based so I wish you luck with enforcement. There are no assets in the UK a court could seize.

It has a UK subsidiary, what are you on about?

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

canta_brian wrote:
It certainly sells advertising in the uk.

. If it targets UK customers then it’s doing business in genUK. But without UK assets a British Court will struggle to enforce a judgement.

If they can manage it for online gambling, they can manage it for FB.

WaspInWales wrote:Modern day America folks:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45928212

Puja wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:Modern day America folks:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45928212

{sigh} Why is it that the loonies always get into the press? For reference, this is not what paganism is about and, frankly is against the major tenet of it (which effectively boils down to "Don't be a dick"). This lot are clearly as mad as a sack of hammers and do not represent me.

Puja