Would you accept the Phone Company interrupting your call, when they disliked your topic? How about books being banned, because they could "cause misinformation"?
It looks like a self-appointed right to control discussion and blatant, biased election influence.
Is a bad thing "okay" when it is done by the "right people" or for the "right reasons"?
Allowing the censorship of discussions, may be legal for private companies, but is questionable when it comes to elections.
When did Enlightenment values, become inconvenient, to people who probably think themselves as "Liberal"!?
Our laws need to catch up with reality. These companies want to be the public common and have immunity from punishment, but also be able to censor as they please.
Search should be considered a utility. They should be totally neutral as far as possible.
I'm saying that a utility provider of a public common (where the general public can post at will, without cost) shouldn't be able to censor the users of that public common. If they choose to censor, to charge, or in some other way limit the membership to less than the general public, thereby becoming private, they should be liable for any content hosted by their service.
Is there any example of another publicly accessible utility that works well by being completely neutral though?
The phone system is kinda neutral and it's a disaster, full of spam and scams. The reason Google search is king is because it's usually the best at returning relevant results and filtering spam, i.e. not being neutral.
Congress is already doing that, with Harris leading the charge if she wins.
They threaten changes to section 230, and breakups as "too big", if they don't start blocking harrassment.
And the loudest screetches for blocking or scary warning disclaimers are on statements of their political opponents. Facebook has a policy of leaving that alone for politicians. And what happens? Deafening screaming at them for that position. Direct calls by politians to silence certain posts or tweets by others.
They are selectively disabling it, choosing what can and can't be displayed. If they were to disable it altogether I doubt anyone would have a problem with that decision. That they won't is suspicious by itself.
How the hell is preventing an easily manipulated system from offering suggestions during a time when it's most likely to be exploited for political purposes censorship?
The only misinformation I see is the horse shit narrative you just provided.
Tell me, why do Trump supporters so vehemently support lying vs trying to get people to be truthful? Is it related to the fact that Donald Trump is a compulsive liar?
Can the Republican party not win without constantly lying?
Do not underestimate the value of print statements for debugging.
Don't have aesthetic convulsions when using them, either.
Manifest Hypocrisy (Score:0)
How are people okay with this?
Would you accept the Phone Company interrupting your call, when they disliked your topic?
How about books being banned, because they could "cause misinformation"?
It looks like a self-appointed right to control discussion and blatant, biased election influence.
Is a bad thing "okay" when it is done by the "right people" or for the "right reasons"?
Allowing the censorship of discussions, may be legal for private companies, but
is questionable when it comes to elections.
When did Enlightenment values, become inconvenient, to people who probably think
themselves as "Liberal"!?
Re: (Score:1)
Our laws need to catch up with reality. These companies want to be the public common and have immunity from punishment, but also be able to censor as they please.
Re: (Score:3)
Google has an enormous amount of leverage.
Search should be considered a utility. They should be totally neutral as far as possible.
I'm saying that a utility provider of a public common (where the general public can post at will, without cost) shouldn't be able to censor the users of that public common. If they choose to censor, to charge, or in some other way limit the membership to less than the general public, thereby becoming private, they should be liable for any content hosted by their service.
In Googl
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any example of another publicly accessible utility that works well by being completely neutral though?
The phone system is kinda neutral and it's a disaster, full of spam and scams. The reason Google search is king is because it's usually the best at returning relevant results and filtering spam, i.e. not being neutral.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress is already doing that, with Harris leading the charge if she wins.
They threaten changes to section 230, and breakups as "too big", if they don't start blocking harrassment.
And the loudest screetches for blocking or scary warning disclaimers are on statements of their political opponents. Facebook has a policy of leaving that alone for politicians. And what happens? Deafening screaming at them for that position. Direct calls by politians to silence certain posts or tweets by others.
In the US. Th
Re: (Score:2)
This is Google disabling the auto-suggest feature when you type in the search field, I don't know where you are getting those comparisons from.
Re: (Score:3)
They are selectively disabling it, choosing what can and can't be displayed. If they were to disable it altogether I doubt anyone would have a problem with that decision. That they won't is suspicious by itself.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How are people okay with this?
The only solution I'd be okay with is removing autocomplete entirely. What purpose does it serve?
Re:Manifest Hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
The only misinformation I see is the horse shit narrative you just provided.
bad analogy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me, why do Trump supporters so vehemently support lying vs trying to get people to be truthful? Is it related to the fact that Donald Trump is a compulsive liar?
Can the Republican party not win without constantly lying?