SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/#hey-guys
Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die.
I call this enshittification, and it is a seemingly inevitable consequence arising from the combination of the ease of changing how a platform allocates value, combined with the nature of a "two sided market," where a platform sits between buyers and sellers, hold each hostage to the other, raking off an ever-larger share of the value that passes between them.
[...] Search Amazon for "cat beds" and the entire first screen is ads, including ads for products Amazon cloned from its own sellers, putting them out of business (third parties have to pay 45% in junk fees to Amazon, but Amazon doesn't charge itself these fees). All told, the first five screens of results for "cat bed" are 50% ads.
This is enshittification: surpluses are first directed to users; then, once they're locked in, surpluses go to suppliers; then once they're locked in, the surplus is handed to shareholders and the platform becomes a useless pile of shit. From mobile app stores to Steam, from Facebook to Twitter, this is the enshittification lifecycle.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2023, @06:41PM (32 children)
Lost me here:
> ...and we move ever more toward a totalitarian police state...
You falsely imagine a Golden Era when we had more free speech than we do now. We are talking about it now whereas in every other possible time and place in history we have been prohibited and prevented from speaking truth. Acknowledging the existence of prohibited speech is the beginnings of free speech. We can have a conversation about non-protected speech - oh look, we are. That's the opposite of a totalitarian police state.
(Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Wednesday January 25 2023, @07:30PM (24 children)
How about 20 years ago? That was when Twitter, Facebook, etc were young and didn't have all this censorship infrastructure in place and various governments hadn't cared enough to impose the requirement for such infrastructure. And given how much better 20 years ago is that now, forgive us for thinking that maybe it'll get worse 20 years from now - with some part of that harm coming from people who wet their pants over "dangerous tweets".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2023, @08:33PM (11 children)
Show me something that was written 20 years ago that is prohibited now.
(Score: 5, Funny) by kazzie on Wednesday January 25 2023, @09:05PM (2 children)
I can't: It's prohibited.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2023, @10:55PM (1 child)
Well that's fucking convenient for your argument. A Golden Wonderland 20 years ago that was DEFINITELY TEH BESTEST but nobody except a few Elders remember nostalgically. That's definitely not ripe for abuse. May I purchase a red baseball cap too?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by driverless on Thursday January 26 2023, @12:38AM
That's actually what makes MAGA so potent, everyone who's used it since Reagan (he was just the first of many) has recognised that it's effective because everyone decides for themselves when America was "great". Whether it was pre-Civil War with the darkies singin' in the fields and pickin' cotton or the late 1800s when a select few were getting rich off the suffering of others or the 1940s when we had the bomb and no-one else did or the 1950s when uppity women knew their place, everyone gets to chose the time they want to dream about.
And, presumably, the demographic they at that time they want to be part of, because you certainly didn't want to be anything but a higher-level boss or owner during the Gilded Age.
(Score: 1, Informative) by khallow on Wednesday January 25 2023, @11:48PM (4 children)
The entire Twitter history [politico.com] of Donald Trump. Seriously, Twitter announced in April 2021, that it wouldn't let the National Archives make available former president Trump's tweets available. The entire history, including a couple decades of stuff that didn't get banned, was completely censored. That account lasted about 12 years [timesofisrael.com].
(Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2023, @12:04AM
Sorry, sloppy writing.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2023, @08:13AM
That ain't prohibited you retard. That's your problem you didn't save them on your own hard drive rather than expect someone else to host that shit. You can read Trump's Tweets to your hearts content in any public space in this country. Shame on you - fuck you - for associating your precious expectations with oppression.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:26PM (1 child)
Here ya go, first result on google. [thetrumparchive.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday January 27 2023, @04:53AM
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 26 2023, @02:19AM (2 children)
Help me please, I am a good Christian Nigerian Prince who has been cast out by evil men in my country. I have a considerable fortune tied up in the U.S. banking system and I humbly ask your assistance in retrieving it. For your troubles I will reward you with 10% of my US$247 million balance. All we must do to retrieve my fortune, and your fee, is give me your account number...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday January 28 2023, @07:06PM (1 child)
In Europe it's pretty routine to give people your bank number, so that they can deposit money in it.
So the normal practice isn't to write a cheque to pay someone; it's to send your bank a request to transfer money to their bank.
It has the effect of eliminating NSF cheques.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday January 28 2023, @08:35PM
Oh, this is just the first step, the ones that respond to this are far more likely to take the next step and pay a "small fee" to release the funds.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday January 26 2023, @03:54AM (11 children)
Maybe if you directed some of your ire towards those that were making tweets dangerous instead of digging your heels in to defend them...
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2023, @04:40AM (10 children)
I'd be wasting my time. Even if they were to change which is unlikely, someone new would take their place. There's not much point to caring in the first place either since dangerous tweets are about the same as non-dangerous tweets in terms of danger to others.
And besides, the real problem here are the people who are willing to crack down on everyone's speech because there are mean/stupid people somewhere in the world.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Tork on Thursday January 26 2023, @04:54AM (9 children)
Because people were hurt. This distinction is important because it's the reason lots of people scream about being CeNsOrEd when in actuality a private entity opted to sever their relationship with them. 🙄
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:21AM (8 children)
By those tweets? Prove it.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Tork on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:40AM (7 children)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:43AM (6 children)
While I've defended such people, they didn't merely tweet. You're moving the goalposts.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Tork on Thursday January 26 2023, @06:01AM (3 children)
Your energy would be better spent focused in the right direction.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2023, @06:34AM (2 children)
In other words, if things went as you claim, the talking actually made the situation safer by giving information to authorities which would stop further criminal acts.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday January 26 2023, @07:25AM (1 child)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2023, @01:19PM
Except of course under a variety of circumstances such as providing a public space (restricting their ability to restrict political speech, for example) or advertising their openness for who they do business with. My take is that this is in large part a bait and switch. This arbitrary censorship and massive personal data collecting isn't what users signed up for, but that's what they're getting now.
And if they're censoring people in exchange for benefits from a US-based government, the First Amendment comes into play. So no, there are constraints on that freedom. I think some of those come into play for major social media sites.
Perhaps.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:37PM (1 child)
Seditious Conspiracy is a plot to overthrow the government. They did their plotting via tweet. And they were convicted of this crime by a jury of their peers.
Four Oath Keepers convicted of Jan. 6 seditious conspiracy [apnews.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2023, @07:24PM
And? The story has better:
That's real evidence but notice that key phrases "the weapons were never used" and "lack of evidence that the Oath Keepers had an explicit plan" (presumably the prosecution disagrees). Basically, if law enforcement on the scene had acted brutally, then we might see some real though disorganized sedition. But neither happened.
And that's a story of seditious conspiracy I'm willing to buy should we find more evidence for it (which might be in the court documents though no one has mentioned it yet): that there was intent by this group to use these protests to push the defenses of the Capitol hard enough that the escalation of large scale shooting started. That would provide ideological cover for the guns to come out of storage (they did have those "rapid deployment teams") and mass sedition/civil war to start. But so far, I still have yet to hear more here than a bunch of ITG (Internet tough guys) ranting about how awesome they'll be when the civil war starts and organizing their part of the January 6 protest (definitely not spontaneously!). The firearms could just as well be part of a paranoid, ill-thought self-defense plan (though that would be during the commission of at least felony trespass and unlikely to hold up in court as self-defense).
I still have yet to see the damning evidence of seditious conspiracy, but they do show remarkable bad behavior and numerous other crimes committed. They did plan their actions ahead of time which would be necessary for any sort of conspiracy charge. And if the police acted in the way that they expected or worried about, there probably would be a lot more deaths.
Again, this doesn't show a need for censorship of social media. Instead, I'd say social media helped defuse the situation by more rapidly bringing down public condemnation of the protest. There was remarkable professionalism and restraint on the part of the police involved versus the thuggish behavior of the protesters - much which was available unfiltered through that social media. And as a result, the protesters failed hard and more thoroughly than if they could have offered the excuse of censorship as to why they looked bad.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2023, @10:58PM (6 children)
Not sure who you are, but you're definitely someone who takes things to extremes. "Black-or-white" thinker, a.k.a "binary thinker" you are.
It's a dynamic, in motion, moving toward totalitarianism. But, because you're obviously on the side of wanting more censorship, you defend censorship, and generally the side of "some speech will land you in prison".
Nobody's arguing in favor of it being okay to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. It's a matter of drawing lines; shades of gray.
I can't wait until they start censoring your beloved (but crazy) ideals being uttered or (gads!) written.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 26 2023, @07:26AM (5 children)
So incitement to violence is fine then?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2023, @01:41PM (4 children)
What incitement to violence? I think there's clear signs that this is already being misapplied badly.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 26 2023, @01:54PM (3 children)
I give you, just as a random example, the entire leadup to the January 6th insurrection. Stop playing dumb, asshole. No one's fooled.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2023, @06:42PM (2 children)
And that's relevant why? The lead up didn't commit any crimes except allegedly that of seditious conspiracy. It wouldn't count as incitement to violence since the participants all had plenty of opportunity to reflect on their future actions. That's a legal thing [ncac.org].
Moral of the story: learn what legal phrases mean before you drop them in an internet conversation where everyone has access to Google.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 27 2023, @01:47AM (1 child)
"Stochastic terrorism" is a bit too advanced a concept for you I see. No one so blind as he who will not look, of course :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 27 2023, @04:45AM
More too bullshit a phrase. I see serious use of the phrase as a sign of weaseling.