Joe Rogan podcast with Jack Dorsey, Tim Pool, Vijaya Gadde

[cytg111]

Well, it is fluff. The free flow of packets across internet backbones and attached networks means your digital speech is in tact. Where those packets go is up to you. When ISP's are allowed to stop or change your packets because they disagree with your free speech, then we have a problem. Guess what republicans have been voting for?

100%

Of course its easy to do the right thing when you know exactly what/who to copy

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-prepares-cyberwar-cutting-domestic-internet-world-wide-web-1326963

"Some commentators have raised alarm bells about the experiment, suggesting that it is the first step toward nationalizing Russia’s internet to crack down on freedom of information. But some analysts point out that the project is still in an experimental phase."

 

[hal2kilo]

Because it is a new problem. We are in uncharted territory here on this particular issue. But the conversation censorship is certainly not a new one. Typically we address it from a perspective of a government on its people but ultimately core is the same.

Soo persecuted.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Curious if anybody else has had a chance to listen and what their thoughts are.

Below is an amusing observation. Pool who rose to fame covering Occupy Wall Street and a was a VICE reporter and covered a lot of environmental stories is about as centrists as it gets. The guy obviously cares about public discourse and the effects that these companies have in everyday life for good and bad. But in the world today none of it matters, all you have to do is call someone a Nazi or in Trumps case make a cute nickname and say "fake news" and you’ve won the argument.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1103092024998330368

I get the arguement that these have every right to control their platforms and I’m in 100% agreement with that. So was Rogan and Pool, they both absolutely agreed what we don’t need is the government sticking its nose in there trying to "fix" the problem, that never turns out for the better and Dorsey and the head of legal at Twitter agreed.

But that’s not to say the conversation isn’t important to have or that we should be ok with the status quo. They raised the point that people on the right have an increasing feeling of frustration and the sense of selective enforcement of the rules and suppression of their own thoughts and ideas. Growing anger and resentment leads to politicians meddling because hot button issues rile upnthe base like nothing else. Regulation is absolutely not the solution but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen anyways.

When a handful of companies control such a huge percent of the means of public discourse it’s good to question. The response is 'build your own' is a valid one for sure, but I can’t help but wonder if the ones making that arguement that private companies set their own rules and can follow them or not however they please to other scenarios. Do they feel a cake shop should be able to establish its own rules about what kind of weddings they are ok with baking cakes for etc.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1103391169671643137

 

[DrDoug]

You’re right and wrong. They’re not but they do have a vast amount of power over the direction of discourse in this country. To deny that the collective of FB, Twitter, FB, and Google have an outside influence on all of us is purposefully naive.

It doesn't matter if they have any effect on discourse in this country, if someone can't abide by the terms of use to get their message out then their messaging sucks balls. That's not Twitter or Facebook's fault, that's on the asshole who wants to ruin everything. Once again, just because a company is huge and has influence does not mean they give up the right to regulate their business as they see fit. You keep wanting this and refuse to acknowledge reality. Get over it already, it's not a free speech issue nor is it censorship.

At this point, it's whining.

 

[compcons]

So we should also be looking at Fox News since they have such a huge impact on public discourse (mostly for dumb people) as well?

 

[UglyCasanova]

It doesn't matter if they have any effect on discourse in this country, if someone can't abide by the terms of use to get their message out then their messaging sucks balls. That's not Twitter or Facebook's fault, that's on the asshole who wants to ruin everything.

It certainly does have an effect in discourse in this country whether you choose to believe so or not. It’s 2019 and social media is enormous part of communication in this country and the world as a whole. The argument being made in the video is that these companies not just have rules which is fine but selectively enforce them and what’s the overall social effect on the country especially given their size and dominance. The potential biases admitted by Dorsey and the twitter attorney range from overt to algorithmic down to geographical (the people tasked with writing the rules all live within the SF bubble). And those biases have similarities from the other Silicon Valley based companies so the effect is simply amplified. It’s not simply "assholes ruin everything".

Once again, just because a company is huge and has influence does not mean they give up the right to regulate their business as they see fit. You keep wanting this and refuse to acknowledge reality. Get over it already, it's not a free speech issue nor is it censorship.

Several of you have accused me in this thread and others on the topic of wanting to regulate these companies or have the government somehow step in to make them. I keep wanting this? Show me.

Get over it already, it's not a free speech issue nor is it censorship.

What in the world is it if not censorship?

 

[DrDoug]

First, I said it doesn't matter whether or not they have an effect on discourse, not that they didn't so you can cut that shit out. Second, as far as enforcing their rules that's still up to the companies and if the boys don't like it then boo-hoo for them. Maybe they could learn a way to get their message out without violating the terms of service? Lots of other people seem to be able to navigate this without issue. Who gives a fuck who they think should be banned, they're banned...lol!

If you don't want the government to step in and do something then just how do you propose to change these companies so they see things your way? Make videos whining about it? Post on forums and demand they do so? Please describe your solution to the problem of conservative assholes who can't control their mouths getting banned from social media platforms. Finally, once again, it's not censorship. These assholes are sure having no problem getting people like you to hear their whining now, are they? Good! That means that they are not being censored.

They're banned from some places for being douchebags and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Just getting started on this stream tonight - but I can already tell 1/10 of the way through this that Vijaya is the dumb-fuck of the dumb-fuck of epic proportions. You could not give more incompetent answers than this moron of epic proportions. Wow. Just wow.

Way to illustrate FOR US how stupid you are. I appreciate the glorious masterpiece you have bestowed upon us.

 

[alcoholbob]

This guy who is complaining about liberals harassing him, then he should get off Twitter. This is a stupid argument and this guy pool is only giving his own perspective which is completely one sided. Rogan is better than this and he is embarrassing himself for having this guy on his show. Dorsey is right when he say that you need to have the context of the situation to make a decision. It’s a private company so they are allowed to make rules to follow. There is an early way out of this.. don’t be a racist asshole on Twitter.

Tim Pool is basically another Dave Rubin. A guy who was "liberal" for a long time then realized he could monetize right wing outrage. So he can't really complain with that much conviction about "liberals harassing him" since that's how he makes his money.

And like Dave Rubin and most of these IDW clowns, they basically rely on Joe Rogan to be their career launching pad.

 

[UglyCasanova]

First, I said it doesn't matter whether or not they have an effect on discourse, not that they didn't so you can cut that shit out.

Ok. How come you don’t think it matters that they have an effect in public discourse? It’s a fair opinion to have I’m just curious as to why you hold it.

Second, as far as enforcing their rules that's still up to the companies and if the boys don't like it then boo-hoo for them. Maybe they could learn a way to get their message out without violating the terms of service? Lots of other people seem to be able to navigate this without issue.

That’s the thing though throughout the podcast he lists multiple examples and scenarios where biases came into play or selective enforcement occurred. It’s not a company enforcing their rules, it’s a company selectively enforcing their rules. And that could be due to conscious or subconscious (or hell purely algorithmic reasons). You’re right, lots of people navigate this without any problem.

If you don't want the government to step in and do something then just how do you propose to change these companies so they see things your way?

I don’t claim to have all the answers.

Finally, once again, it's not censorship. These assholes are sure having no problem getting people like you to hear their whining now, are they? Good! That means that they are not being censored.

Makes no sense. And why are they assholes? Yes it is censorship.

 

[DrDoug]

Ok. How come you don’t think it matters that they have an effect in public discourse? It’s a fair opinion to have I’m just curious as to why you hold it.



That’s the thing though throughout the podcast he lists multiple examples and scenarios where biases came into play or selective enforcement occurred. It’s not a company enforcing their rules, it’s a company selectively enforcing their rules. And that could be due to conscious or subconscious (or hell purely algorithmic reasons). You’re right, lots of people navigate this without any problem.



I don’t claim to have all the answers.



Makes no sense. And why are they assholes? Yes it is censorship.

It does matter as far as their effects on public discourse, which is not what I was talking about. For what you are whining about, it doesn't matter. Why? Because they are still companies and they still have the right to set the rules. Get it? Finally? Yes, they do have an effect on public discourse and no, I don't give a shit that these assholes are being excluded because they could not comply with those rules. As far as selective enforcement, again, who gives a fuck? It's their rules and they can enforce them as they see fit because they have the legal right to do so.

You go ahead and keep calling it censorship and we will just keep laughing at you, OK?

 

[UglyCasanova]

It does matter as far as their effects on public discourse, which is not what I was talking about. For what you are whining about, it doesn't matter.

What exactly is it you see me "whining" about? The effects these companies and their policies have on public discourse is what the podcast and this thread is even about.

Because they are still companies and they still have the right to set the rules. Get it? Finally?

For the umpteenth time I’ve never said otherwise. You keep starting back at square one trying to argue a point I’m not making.

 

[DrDoug]

What exactly is it you see me "whining" about? The effects these companies and their policies have on public discourse is what the podcast and this thread is even about.



For the umpteenth time I’ve never said otherwise. You keep starting back at square one trying to argue a point I’m not making.

These companies are doing what they are because they it si their right to do so as a company. These guys don't like it, nor it seems do you.

What. Is. Your. Solution. To. A. Problem. That. Doesn't. Exist.

 

[pmv]

Facebook or Twitter is not the internet. They're not ISP's, you dont have to use them. The internet itself has become as much of a utility as phone or cable. This is how it is. /Repeat conversation again for the millionth time, blah blah blah.

I do kind of think the situation bears watching.

I used to feel much the same way about the major newspapers, when they seemed to have an effective monopoly (and in this country were predominantly right-wing). Private media is determined by 'the market', but the market is rarely a perfect one. There are all sorts of 'increasing returns to scale' and such like.

But I could never figure out what the solution to that was, and this seems no different. Either the media is controlled by the market, or it's controlled by the state, and the latter doesn't work out terribly well either.

At least social media has at long last reduced the power of those newspaper barons like Murdoch. Maybe you just have to settle for a rough parity across different forms of media? (doesn't the right still dominate political talk radio?)

Edit - and I find it weird and amusing that the right, who were always uncritical fans of 'the market' and the private sector, and who oppose interference in it over, say, healthcare, are now the ones objecting to its imperfections.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I do kind of think the situation bears watching.

I used to feel much the same way about the major newspapers, when they seemed to have an effective monopoly (and in this country were predominantly right-wing). Private media is determined by 'the market', but the market is rarely a perfect one. There are all sorts of 'increasing returns to scale' and such like.

But I could never figure out what the solution to that was, and this seems no different. Either the media is controlled by the market, or it's controlled by the state, and the latter doesn't work out terribly well either.

At least social media has at long last reduced the power of those newspaper barons like Murdoch. Maybe you just have to settle for a rough parity across different forms of media? (doesn't the right still dominate political talk radio?)

You nailed it. You either allow the free market to work, or the government steps in to correct whatever perceived problem there is.

That's why this "conversation" is just fluff. If conservatives don't want to regulate, then start your own social media sites that allows racism, conspiracy theories, or whatever the fuck it is they're crying about. Or just go post at Infowars or fox news.

I don't use Facebook, or Twitter. My life is just fine without them. Free speech still intact.

 

[brycejones]

To summarize this thread:

1, Companies are imperfect in the enforcement of their policies.
2. Social Media is special for some reason not really defined.
3. There is no legal requirement for companies to carry your speech and no ask for there to be one (broad agreement all around even from the OP).
4. OP wants to talk about something about speech on private platforms but see #3 so what are we talking about?
5. If you don't like the policies of these companies start your own or go elsewhere.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I watched some of this earlier. Basically they want to control the narrative was what I got out of it.


Remember when liberals used to be for going against group think, the right to offend, and actual free speech? How things have changed.

 

[pmv]

I watched some of this earlier. Basically they want to control the narrative was what I got out of it.


Remember when liberals used to be for going against group think, the right to offend, and actual free speech? How things have changed.

Remember when conservatives used to be for private property rights and individualism? How things have changed.

(Now private property rights are a problem, apparently, though only when it's liberals who own the property, and electoral representation should be based on representing groups of people, based on geography, rather than individuals).

As I say, the situation merits keeping an eye on. If, for example, big media platforms were to somehow mutate into or merge with ISPs, that would certainly be a problem. Net neutrality is important. And I'm all for people simply staying away from Twitter or Facebook. But right-wing whinging seems pretty hypocritical to me, given their history of snorting with contempt at any suggestion that, say, right-wing newspaper owners should be obliged to give space in their papers to those they attack.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

By the way - for complete morons of AT P&N that immediately shunned me in previous threads for denouncing Southern Poverty Law Center - see this bit and enlighten yourself for half a second.

This is an organizational lobbying group that convinced you buffoons that a FROG MEME is a racist hate symbol. You're all morons. You're sheep. Consider draining your brain cells from this earth for being that incompetent.

 

[DrDoug]

By the way - for complete morons of AT P&N that immediately shunned me in previous threads for denouncing Southern Poverty Law Center - see this bit and enlighten yourself for half a second.

This is an organizational lobbying group that convinced you buffoons that a FROG MEME is a racist hate symbol. You're all morons. You're sheep. Consider draining your brain cells from this earth for being that incompetent.

Boy are you ever triggered. Like major triggerage, dude. Off the charts. To the max.

Lick a toad, you know you want to.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Boy are you ever triggered. Like major triggerage, dude. Off the charts. To the max.

Lick a toad, you know you want to.

Got it. No point. No retort. No argument.

Typical with you liberal cucks. Go lose some more elections.

 

[DrDoug]

Got it. No point. No retort. No argument.

Typical with you liberal cucks. Go lose some more elections.

As you'll notice I'm not going to ever ding you with shit so go ahead and ding me all you want, I don't give a shit.

As far as your insult, I'd rather clean my cat box than give any further response. In fact...

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

As you'll notice I'm not going to ever ding you with shit so go ahead and ding me all you want, I don't give a shit.

As far as your insult, I'd rather clean my cat box than give any further response. In fact...

Then why are you replying?

Better yet, why are you continuing to reply with no argument - which is exactly what my previous post did (and thus you subsequently confirmed it)?

 

[railer]

Listening to this now. Rogan usually has pretty good podcasts, and seems to be in general a relatively pragmatic guy. Reminds me a bit of Stern in his ability to get people to open up., minus the strippers, midgets and other nonsense. First impressions: Tim Pool should have stayed home.

 

[brycejones]

Got it. No point. No retort. No argument.

Typical with you liberal cucks. Go lose some more elections.

Squishy1 is that you?