In a fiery speech Thursday, director and comedian Sacha Baron Cohen called out social media companies that he argued had boosted extremism and conspiracy theories with little regard for their impact.
That was probably the most coherent, straightforward, and relatable argument for social media regulation I have ever come across.
F’ anyone who supports a platform for Holocaust deniers. I had no idea that was Facebook’s stance on the issue. How can deniers be “unintentional” idiots? That is crazy ridiculous.
Wow, I agree entirely. I don’t know what if anything will come of it, but I would love to make the Silicon six respond to its arguments in a Congressional Hearing or two or four or six.
Didn’t Zuckerberg recently have a little dinner tete a tete with Trump at the WH?
I’ll bet that was special.
Damn. That was excellent.
And in different times and circumstances, Zuck would beg to differ.
And then JUST BEG…
Yeah it’s Friedmann but read it, if nothing else look at the maniacal image of Zuckerberg.
People still do not understand what a Demagogue can do.
The Demagogue makes people feel better when they listen…on a level that is highly emotional and highly oppositional to those not in a designated group I voted for Barack Obama twice. I never felt the way Trump’s followers feel when I listened to Barack.
I admired, I was inspired, I felt better about the world…about others…about the country.
But I never left any of his rallies hating anyone
Three rules that are always true
I can’t imagine any laws or regulations of the type Cohen discusses in his text would be even remotely in compliance with the First Amendment. Obviously, it would be great if the platforms cleaned themselves up. But they’re the ones that can do viewpoint discrimination in the United States, not the government.
Bravo, Borat. Bravo.
Exactly.
Awesome. Props to Borat.
Please let this be the segue to a movie where he goes around pretending to be an Internet douche bag.
Isn’t this a Big Fucking Deal?
That’s not clear to me. It depends on what kind of speech fb is considered to be. The same rules that let them decide in detail what viewpoints they stifle and what viewpoints they amplify in their search for dollars could be what ultimately hoists them. It’s all commercial speech, not a public forum.
Cosigned!
You need a more active imagination. It’s not the utterance of this or that lie that poisons the national discourse, it’s the promotion of availability of the most outrageous through the algorithms that convert hatred to cash. You think regulation of those algorithms would be a violation? I do not.
The lack of a source, although requested by many, makes me skeptical…
BoRat is cooL