You all realize this forum is social media right? As is every other forum on the internet.

Dictionary:
Wikipedia:
But as to the question in the topic, its just a stupid question in the first place. Cuz it starts out "if social media is bad" which is really hard to imagine when you post it on social media in the first place, and anyone reading it, and certainly replying, probably doesn't feel that way or they wouldn't reply. But okay, IF it was bad, why would that make something else bad? One thing bad doesn't make something else bad. The whole topic of this thread is dumb. And the original post doesn't elaborate or present any argument or discussion of the topic, instead says some other silly sutff and suggests corporations are bad. If you want to discuss benefits of incorporation, that's a completely different topic and nothing related to social media or free speech.

Why is social media bad? I totally disagree with the topic starter, epecially if we take into account that our forum is social media as well. It's looking like an absurd.

Technically, you're right. Though as I'm posting anonymously/under a pseudonym - and most importantly allowed to do so - and I'm not posting pictures of cats or the cake I baked at the weekend, so it's a little different.

Other forums, set up for what ever reason, may require the person post as themselves and may not allow anonymous accounts - that's up to the board administrators - that would then make them more akin to "social media". It's more about how the site is utilised rather than the software it uses.

Similarly I wouldn't call stack exchange "social media" either.

Because "marketing and social media experts" say so?

You appear to have selectively quoted that Wikipedia article - here is the preceeding text:
I'm not going to waste time on the specifics there, but I will point out that [2] refers to a paper which attempts to accurately define the term, whilst the [40] in your quote is about "the extent to which companies are exploiting the potentialities of single or multiple social media platforms" - and from that perspective it's unsurprising if they want to apply the broadest most vague definition they can.


And that's part of the problem with the term "social media"; there is no agreed-by-everyone definition of where the boundaries are. Some people argue all online communication is "social media", whilst others require some form of networking/connect/follow functionality (and possibly other criteria).

Ultimately, I've found whenever people say "social media" there is always a more appropriate and more accurate alternative phrase they could have used instead, that would clarify what they are trying to say.

Which makes the term "social media" a buzzword - where the primary reason for use is to appear hip/fashionable, rather than being a useful definition.

If something useful is being said, clarifying what precisely is being referred to is worthwhile. (Most times, it's not.)

I also know that when AWS began to "de-platform" companies (and therefore, breach their contracts) because of what Amazon felt about them, they lost a lot of business. Companies began buying their own hardware again.

"Social media" companies are also going to be forced to realize that the only way they can continue, at least at their present size and wealth, is to remain neutral. People are going to speak, and they are going to speak freely. If you try to censor that, you're cutting off your own foot because there is absolutely nothing exclusive or proprietary about what you are providing. The present popularity of brand-name sites like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and so forth is really just a happy accident. "Past performance is not a guarantee of future results," and a great many companies find that out the hard way.

Here's the thing about free speech: You can say whatever you like and your neighbour can talk over you and ensure that you're not heard. That's their right. It's also their right to not listen to you, or block you. They're not "censoring" you. They're merely exercising their rights... the exact same ones you have.

It's a double-edged sword.

Unless, of course, you would you rather have rights which only apply to certain classes?

From what I've heard and read about Parler, it's "creators" did in fact, at least initially anyway, intend on it being natural or "center", and not just a "a right-wing echo chamber" as you put it. However from all I've seen and heard, it's very much become a "a right-wing echo chamber" to use your words once again - certainly Trump supporters have more or less "claimed it as their own" so to speak.

However, and while I don't know how much truth there is to this (if any), apparently it's "creators"/"owners" have offered a bounty for "the left wing to join and encourage debate" - for which it was supposedly and originally intended to be - ie. a place where both sides of the political spectrum supposedly have "honest debates".

While I do agree with what you've said to a large extent, and certainly support free speech without fear of repercussions from those that simply don't agree... I also think that those "private companies" do in fact have a responsibility for what they host and should try to minimize any potential harm that might be caused to others. So it's very easy to be simplistic about it, but for one thing, it's just not that simple when you are talking about what many commonly refer to as "social media" - it's a balance.

I think the problem that your post identifies is that; if you say on one hand that "private companies" should be regulated, but on the other, "I have every right to kick someone out of my house for any reason I choose, right, wrong, or indifferent", then do you have one set of rights for companies and another set of rights for the individual? My point is that there is a conflict between a company "accepting their social responsibility" and a company exercising their rights as a private company - eg. withdrawing services to another company or individual for perceived "political reasons/bias". Then it inevitability goes back to "my right to free speech" and "how dare you try to deny me that right!!".

So I think it's a very slippery slope when one set of "rights" outweighs another set of "rights" (eg. "your rights don't mean anything over OURS!!"), and particularly where there is no clear agreement on even just the definition of "social media" in this case - as evidenced by other posts in this thread. It needs to be an even playing field before you can even know who is right, wrong, or indifferent IMHO.

I also think that you are looking at it from a political perspective rather that an objective perspective, but far from the only poster in this particular thread guilty of that, that said.

FWIW, I tend to agree with a lot with the points made by both boughtonp and cynwulf is this case.

I know very little of "Parler". Wikipedia seems to slam it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler

(it's a very biased article which makes no attempt to be impartial)

However, while apologists may say something along the lines of "they have a right, to say what they want to say", I'm sure those same apologists would quite happily see e.g. extreme left or Islamist sites shut down, even if there were no evidence of any wrong doing. Everyone is biased politically. If those same apologists were hosting some extremist propaganda on their own servers - they may also rethink their position...

With much of the web under the control of "Big Tech", it's fairly obvious what is going to happen. Corporations exist to make money, they dislike bad PR, shareholders especially dislike it, so they will in most cases, try to quietly shunt such embarrassments off their platforms. As they strive for neutrality, they achieve only bias. That's because "neutrality" only means following or conforming to the status quo, toeing the government line, etc - and the end result is always bias.

Don't politics and hypocrisy go hand in hand?

They certainly do at LQ if nothing else...

Yeah well it wasn't long before Parler started shutting down the accounts of many people whose views were, shall we say, less than perfectly aligned with the majority of it's user base:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...snt-like.shtml

"The part you're missing is that it's only censorship if it silences speech you like. When speech you don't like is censored that's just common sense, silly. What are you, some sort of commie mutant traitor?"

Gold.

The truly sad thing is that it's always the same the world over... "FREE SPEECH!!!" (as long as we agree with it)
You're right... But for today's dose of cognitive dissonance: Consider which kind of people invest in and hold shares, and what their political views are most likely to be.

Free speech in real world has negative consequences - like getting punched in the face.

Not so much in social media. Spread harmful bullshit, defame people, insult others - not only you will not get any negative consequences, you will get awarded by ad money or w/e. So it breeds bad behavior and generally is a cesspool.

You're conflating free speech with cretinous behaviour and bad manners.