• MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 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
    36
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 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.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 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
        ·
        6 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
    23
    ·
    6 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
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

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

  • Furbag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 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.

  • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    6 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?

  • Nobody@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    41
    ·
    edit-2
    6 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?

    • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 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
        1
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        6 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.