General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJust got an email from Desantis bragging about being the first governor to fight Silicon Valley...
and, of course, begging for money. (Somehow getting on these rightwing email lists brings the strangest things.)
He is upset about Twitter banning Trump and fellow travelers.
I am the #1 enemy of Silicon Valley because I wont let the Big Tech cartel walk all over conservatives without punching back twice as hard.
These social media platforms have played an increasingly decisive role in our elections and have negatively impacted Americans who dissent from their agenda. Thats why Im taking action and becoming the first Republican governor to crack down on Big Tech, with legislation that will take on the monopoly of communications platforms that have sought to monitor and control us.
With that being said, I cant do this alone ? We need to fight back.
The Transparency in Technology Act will fight back against these far-left CEOs by letting users opt-out of their shady post-promoting, shadow-banning algorithms, imposing fines when they suspend political candidates like they did with Donald Trump, and much more.
There is more, but you get the drift.
SunSeeker
(51,378 posts)If he cared about the 1st Amendment he wouldn't have fired then arrested his covid tracker scientist.
OAITW r.2.0
(23,862 posts)Just like his hero, Donald Trump.
Hey, whatever happened to Jeb Bush? Is he even living in FL these days? Fucking coward that he is, he set the table for today's Florida Republican governance.
Rick Rolle
(90 posts)Any law passed by the Florida legislature would immediately be challenged in court. The court would then tell Gov. Desantis to pack sand...Twitter, Facebook, etc. are private companies and, as such, cannot be compelled to post/print/broadcast anything. Desantis is grandstanding, trying to fire up the base.
This is an example of when the federal government SHOULD intervene in a state's affairs...when the state is attempting to infringe on the rights of individuals, in this instance, the owners of the platforms.
Xolodno
(6,341 posts)...he's not trying to lure high paying jobs from Silicon Valley to Florida. Funny, because a number of other red states are constantly trying to do just that. Then again, maybe he wants Silicon Valley South (Santa Monica)? Nah, they don't bring in as much high paying jobs, tax revenue, etc. as Palo Alto.
Leghorn21
(13,520 posts)take it all 💰 💴 💰
Let me know if you need some more, you smarmy pigfuckin motherfucker
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)But upon closer inspection, they are really not.
Just sayin'
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)PAID FOR BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF FLORIDA. NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE'S COMMITTEE. WWW.FLORIDA.GOP
nam78_two
(14,529 posts)If you cannot distinguish between Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page etc. and someone who at least could more plausibly be called far-left (Noam Chomsky perhaps?), you have a serious problem with credible rhetoric.
I don't agree much with conservative or libertarian worldviews, but I can distinguish between say George Will or Bill Buckley and people who take liberties this huge with language and logical reasoning.
I dislike both Zuckerberg and Larry Page, but I can distinguish between either one and say Don Black or Stephen Miller or Steve Bannon.
I would categorize Page or Zuckerberg as libertarian-leaning centrists peddling essentially corrupt business models. They do pose a threat to democracy but in a very different style from violence-inciting extremists like Bannon.
Page and Zuckerberg do not benefit from outright social instability. Their goal is radical deregulation not violent overthrows of governments, though they are willing to look the other way as long as their bottomline is met. Violent radicals otoh want to tear down the fabric of society in a fundamentally different way. The contempt for human rights is arguably a shared pathology.
And Page at least is a legitimately skilled computer scientist. That he is a narcissistic megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur (going by the bits and pieces of info one gleans about him) is a separate issue.
My impression of Zuckerberg is that he is a shallow, mediocre guy with a background in computer science. Being a total sleazebag he was visionary in a perverse way and saw the creepy potential of a souped-up MySpace. He is such an anti-intellectual force that his being a leader of technology is a possible explanation for the world we live in. There is something oxymoronic about the term "Facebook scientist". Not pure hardware engineering, but certainly the dubious behavioral science. At this rate all small-time local perverts, creeps, stalkers, tabloid journalists and village gossips can now claim that they are behavioral scientists provided they use some creepware and tack on a few buzzwords-ai, big data and so on.
The ability to distinguish between different strains of repellant, regressive and anti-democratic elites is a facet of critical thinking. Just as it is important to distinguish between creepy giants and small-time creeps.
In fact it is essential when navigating harmful environments.
As someone who struggles with attention issues and wastes time often, I can see through the "Facebook scientist" because I am pretty strict about what I consider respectable science or work. Sure your local tabloid or for that matter reality television have some insights on human behavior and both make money. But deriving insights from the lowest common denominator is not science for all that.
To quote Ms. March from Little Women "Girls, money is a good and useful thing"...I forget the rest but I think it would support my general view that what Facebook does is science only in a fairly tacky, superficial world. All the talk about fueling extremism overlooks another fact about Facebook etc. It is also primarily shallow drivel catering to the lowest common denominator in human taste. Their own stats should back that but I think it might fly in the face of the sloganeering. It is perfectly ok when you are 14. But taking this guy and his crapware seriously...I mean come on.
I know that about 4 people run animal rescues on Facebook and some DUers use it, but those are the outliers I suspect.
One reason DU is the sole non-work internet use I indulge in is that it is anonymous and it self-selects for activist minded liberals (just as Facebook self-selects for people who can tolerate high school). That makes their behavioral science extra suspect. It is not representative of all people.
Got off topic..that guy just pisses me off. He is such a frivolous charlatan. People who struggle for gravitas in science all the time are bound to find it annoying that this lame and creepy sleazebag is a tech leader. That theoretical physicist is quite right.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/04/opinion/michael-goldhaber-internet.html
Sane people never resent truly admirable people who are successful. But this creep...I mean good grief.
I feel for respectable scientists funded by his philanthropy:
https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-07-03/mark-zuckerbergs-charity-under-siege-after-facebook-scrutiny
It is not as alarming as being funded by Epstein, but it must be hard. Most of their funds seem to go to thoroughly respectable scientists working on completely non controversial stuff. They do need to increase NIH funding so scientists can choose to refuse money from the likes of Zuckerberg. And so many small-time aging creeps use tactics that this creep pioneered. They want their cut. It is the worst part of it all.