@satoshidoodles is on PowPing!

PowPing is a place where you can earn Bitcoin simply by socializing, for FREE.
Never tried Bitcoin? It's OK! Just come, socialize, and earn Bitcoin.
Check out satoshidoodles's activities
Total Economy: 1.13 USD
I am not a fan of the orange man. But have we not learned anything from history? The dominant social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube were like public squares, until they were not. The blatant suppression, particularly this past year, of dissenting voices of scientists, academics and medical doctors, among many others, has been disturbing to witness. Clearly, it’s now everybody’s problem. Side note: There is obviously a disconnect between the “muh censorship resistance” crowd and their preferred strategy of “moderation”/censorship on Reddit and Twitter. p.s. This is probably my least favourite doodle I’ve drawn ever. Oh, well. Moving right along…
adambowcutt tipped:
don tipped:
erik tipped:
twetch can also ban you right ?
I also see this a bit differently, partly because I have been involved in some of these platforms at a high level from the very start and know some of the architects well. They were never meant to be public squares, the goal was to capture attention. That was it, really. It's true that their inherent biases may have been cooked in there inadvertently, but censorship and controlling the cultural agenda was never a main concern. And of course they were never public squares, they were always privately owned and run. And where only one person at a time can read a burnable book, the technology is such that nearly unlimited people can read electronic media. So they are not trying to quell "dissenting voices of scientists, academics and medical doctors" they are trying to protect their investment by sorting out the misleading quacks and spies from the legitimate sources of information to avoid being regulated. I dunno, this doodle might have a warmer reception on other platforms haha.
satoshidoodles replied:
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Yes, I get that they are privately owned and run. Who gets to decide who are the misleading quacks?
rainonis replied:
Who decides is the question? I think the platform owners are allowed to decide. But if they censor someone popular with a large portion of their users, they will start to lose users to alternative platforms. I think you already see this with the mainstream news platforms. Many people have turned to the internet to get their news.
sandysmoothie replied:
Well we actually have some long established systems for ferreting out valuable information wheat from the chaff. These systems have checks and balances, and the people in them have phds and reputations we can see and consider. There is oversight, editors, auditors, tradition and hundreds of years of learning. The platforms do not want to recreate this scaffolding, that is not the business they want to be in, so they have been experimenting with relying on those structures to determine quality, instead of simply what is popular on their platforms. Literally learning from history. That’s where we are right now. It might not be enough to satisfy legislators.
So to play devils advocate... facebook, twitter etc have never been like public squares. They have always been private companies with terms and conditions. The corner of hyde park is still available for anyone who feels social media hasn't given them the platform they desire. (as an aside, if you did go to hyde park and incited a riot, there's a good chance you'd get arrested for it as free speech is not absolute)
satoshidoodles replied:
Nobody reads the terms and conditions in full, unfortunately (for anything they use, which is rather scary). I've been listening to many sides of the various (American) political narratives lately and it's clear that the incitement is not done by one party or side. Arguably, much incitement to hatred and intolerance has come from those who profess to care about everyone under the same sun and all colours of the rainbow.