this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2023
479 points (99.0% liked)

World News

38758 readers
2890 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kat@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I hope this whole ordeal, no matter how it goes down, ends up being a landmark for "social media as a monopoly". I think there's been a lot of talk about this in past years, with little real interest, because people are more interested in their next dopamine fix no matter how much they say they care about their data being sold. I hope this is the push we need to start considering these things for real. Most of us are uncomfortable with personal information being sold to 3rd parties, or knowing that users of these sites are technically the product being sold. It's more weird and uncomfortable knowing the CEO and other execs are throwing a tantrum because user data and user submissions AREN'T being generated for them to sell to earn money to buy some yachts and golf courses.

Should social media be a public commodity, same way a community center or library is? Something paid for by taxes and regulated by government. I think it's interesting in concept but odd to consider once you get into government censorship and surveillance aspects. Not a good idea either.

[–] mightyfoolish@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I guess I never thought about that. Technically, due to the first amendment of the US Bill of Rights (freedom of speech, press, right to assembly, etc.) the government has less authority to censor a public forum than any company has to censor their own private forum. Still, it would be an easy way to speak propaganda.

Government agencies already sell data (California bureau of vehicles, Florida in general). But I agree that the government would be much less incentivized to maximize profits like the way current social media platform are doing. This would keep the product focused on making conservations better (even the boring ones that don't attract high volumes of people/viewership).

Also, I would think the content would belong to the public. Does this mean bad actors have access to identifying information as well?