boedicca
Uppity Water Nymph from the Land of Funk
- Feb 12, 2007
- 59,439
- 24,108
- 2,290
Newspapers edit and decide what is published so yes they are responsible. Social media does not edit and review everything that is published. They have algorithms that flag, copywrited, vulgar, or dangerous material so there are some filters in place but it is a very different medium than a newspaper or magazineSo what you are saying is that Surveillance Media is Too Big To Succeed, so we should just accept their damaging impact upon people while they monetize our behavior without our consent or knowledge.
No thank you. I'll pass.
I'll pass too, I already did when I refused to have anything to do with that narcissistic shit.
But no, what I'm saying is don't sit there and pretend the Nosebooks are the "publisher". Publishers vet their content before they put their name on a book. Post 267 for an example is not "published" by USMB. It's posted by a specific person. If you want to go after that post you go after Picaro -- not the site.
Ain't rocket surgery.
Scuze moi, but the Surveillance Media have data scientists, algorithms and AI for analyzing all of this content. The only issue is them actually spending money to control content and then forgoing the profits that the monetization of the deleted toxic behavior would have generated.
USMB has mods that delete comments from users who cross the line. We do not see the Doxxing and calls to punch teenager in the face or to get them expelled from school here. The Mega Platforms enable and allow this hideous, illegal behavior...and actually PROFIT from it.
The Surveillance Media are not Too Big To Be Accountable.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand you didn't address the point at all.
That being, *HOW* is a medium responsible for what someone writes on it? If Picaro spray-paints "Injuns go home" on a wall ---- shall we blame the wall? For "not being accountable"?![]()
Is a newspaper responsible for the "letters to the editor" and classified ads it publishes? Yes and Yes.
If Picaro sprays on a wall, he has vandalized the wall - not the same as if the building owner provided the spray paint and stood back and watched.
You lose.
Just because Surveillance Media fails in its review responsibility, doesn't justify that failure. There is plenty of empirical evidence of deletions, suspensions and banishments to show that when they do care, they take action. And the fact that they only do this when they care demonstrates that they are acting in an editorial capacity. Hence, they are content providers and publishers.