• @RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    481 year ago

    There is no freedom of speech guarantee in private or public enterprise. Only government.

    Yet another tool that uses “freedom of speech” incorrectly to basically mean “I want to force people to listen to my bullshit.” How these people running for office don’t get the first amendment is amazing.

    • @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 year ago

      There is no freedom of speech guarantee in private or public enterprise.

      And the consequence of this policy is a back-door path to censorship. A combination of surveillance, selective-admittance, and media saturation allow certain ideological beliefs to suffice the “marketplace of ideas” while others are silenced.

      “I want to force people to listen to my bullshit.”

      Its more that privatized media infrastructure allows for a monopolization of speech.

      Big media companies still force people to listen to bullshit, by way of advertising and algorithmic promotion. Go on YouTube, click through their “recommended” list a few times, and you’ll quickly find yourself watching some Mr. Beast episode or PraegerU video, simply because these folks have invested so heavily in self-promotion.

      But there’s a wide swath of content you won’t see, either because YouTube’s algorithm explicitly censors it for policy reasons, because the media isn’t maxing out the SEO YouTube execs desire (the classic Soy Face thumbnail for instance), or because you’re not spending enough money to boost visibility.

      This has nothing to do with what the generic video watcher wants to see and everything to do with what YouTube administration wants that watcher to see.

      RFK Jr is a nasty little freak with some very toxic beliefs. But that’s not why he’s struggling to get noticed on the platform, when plenty of other nasty freaks with toxic beliefs get mainstream circulation.

      • @RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        Yeah. That’s also a problem. But then you have to upend corporate ownership of the control of speech, and we’re already facing that problem.

  • @BigTrout75@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    281 year ago

    Really don’t need to hear anything coming from this guy. It’s always batshit crazy and it’s a waste of time.

  • Sabata11792
    link
    fedilink
    161 year ago

    You can’t get elected without big tech bribes, and he just bit the hand that feeds.

  • gregorum
    link
    fedilink
    English
    121 year ago

    So what? How does he think Meta is liable for anything here?

  • Dr. Moose
    link
    fedilink
    English
    121 year ago

    Shadow banning is definitely too much imo. It’s simply unethical no matter how you look at it.

    First, it doesn’t do anything to prevent bots. It takes less than a second for a bot to check whether they are shadow banned. It’s simply a tool to bully and gaslight people - just block them. Why these abusive games?

    • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      14
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      IDK, I think it can be an effective tool against trolls because it wastes the time they’d otherwise spend harassing people.

      But that’s not what RFK is, he’s a legitimate candidate for president and should be given the same consideration other candidates are, not shadowbanned because someone doesn’t like his message.

      • Dr. Moose
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        Effectiveness is irrelevant here. Breaking troll’s kneecaps would be very effective too.

        This mental manipulation and gaslighting has no place in our society. We’re literally suffering the consequences of this right now.

        • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          Like any tool, it’s bad when used improperly. Shadowbanning should be used to waste trolls’ time; it’s especially effective for cheaters in MMOs (lump the cheaters together so they don’t bother anyone). Shadowbanning shouldn’t be used to control the discussion, like silencing an unpopular or undesirable (to the platform) individual.

          I think we’re doing too much of the latter, but that doesn’t mean shadowbanning as a tool is morally bankrupt.

          • Dr. Moose
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            It’s definitely morally bankrupt imo and we can agree to disagree here as I don’t think this topic can be expanded further.

  • @Crikeste@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    71 year ago

    He could have been a great dude but he just HAD to go down the antivax rabbit hole. Fuckin’ shame.

    • @jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      Thought about posting it there but I had already made one RFK post there last night and didn’t want to do 2 in a day lol

  • @Furbag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    51 year ago

    Meta is a private company and can do whatever the fuck they like.

    This guy shouldn’t be let anywhere near a position of decision making, let alone the highest office in the nation.

  • @Nobody@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -47
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Does everyone hate Bobby Kennedy so much that they’ll side with Facebook and Zuckerberg over a career environmental attorney because he’s running for president?

    • @vividspecter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      591 year ago

      He’s an unhinged anti-vaxxer and all around conspiracy theorist. Summarizing him as an environmental lawyer is being real generous.

      • @Nollij@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        71 year ago

        “Let’s imagine: It’s time to elect a world leader, and your vote counts. Which would you choose:

        “Candidate A: Associates with ward healers and consults with astrologists; has had two mistresses; chain-smokes and drinks eight to ten martinis a day.

        “Candidate B: Was kicked out of office twice; sleeps until noon; used opium in college; drinks a quart of brandy every evening.

        “Candidate C: Is a decorated war hero, a vegetarian, doesn’t smoke, drinks an occasional beer, and has had no illicit love affairs.

        “Which of these candidates is your choice? You don’t really need any more information, do you? Candidate A is Franklin Roosevelt. Candidate B is Winston Churchill. Candidate C is Adolf Hitler.”

        Biased and selective comparisons can prove anything.

        • Flying Squid
          link
          fedilink
          English
          121 year ago

          Okay, but he also has admitted to have decreased cognitive function and memory problems because of the brain worms. I don’t think that it’s a horrible bias to say that people who have decreased cognitive function and memory problems because of brain worms probably shouldn’t be president.

          • @Nollij@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            41 year ago

            I agree, the statement earlier was another example. RFK is a terrible choice for many reasons (the worms thing is almost certainly bullshit though). But everyone has some good qualities you can focus on if you want to promote them. Similarly, everyone has bad qualities if that’s your M.O.

          • dullbananas (Joseph Silva)
            link
            fedilink
            English
            01 year ago

            he also has admitted to have decreased cognitive function and memory problems because of the brain worms.

            Not permanently

        • @Dkarma@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          None of that has anything to do with policy.

          If you pick someone based on this criteria you’re a fucking idiot.

          Politicians are there to set policy you stupid fuck…not be a cult of personality.

    • @PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      391 year ago

      No, because he’s actually quite mad and belongs nowhere near any kind of power. I can see his conspiracy theories appealing to the Q type, but most of them are going to go for Trump. He’s polling this highly because he’s an unknown. As more people start paying attention to who he actually is, he will be the Herman Cain of the race.

      • @Nobody@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -251 year ago

        Would you agree that Bobby Kennedy would draw more voters from Trump as it stands?

        A “conspiracy theorist” is rejected on the left until government-sanctioned evidence is provided. The right doesn’t have that constraint.

    • @PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      211 year ago

      According to Kennedy, Meta is colluding with the Biden administration to sway the 2024 presidential election by suppressing Kennedy’s documentary and making it harder to support Kennedy’s candidacy. This allegedly has caused “substantial donation losses,” while also violating the free speech rights of Kennedy, his supporters, and his film’s production company, AV24.

      In this case, Meta and the Biden administration are claimed to be co-conspirators colluding to block citizens from promoting their favorite presidential candidate.

      We can very much dislike both while also agreeing that this is fucking stupid. While we continue to very much dislike both, one is clearly in the wrong on this issue and pointing out the sheer stupidity of Kennedy’s actions is not “siding” with Zuckerberg.

      I don’t care what his profession is/was - he’s wrong and it would be disingenuous to give him a pass because he did a thing at some point in his life that I agreed with.

    • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      Yeah, I’m no fan of RFK, but I would much rather live in a world where people like RFK can speak their mind instead of this one where Meta gets to decide whose voices are heard. It’s pretty easy to ignore a crazy person, it’s hard to find worthwhile content the major players don’t want you to find.

      So don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, having a free society means we’ll have to deal with people like RFK every so often.