entertainment

Selena Gomez: Big Tech 'cashing in from evil’

37 Comments
By AMANDA LEE MYERS

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.


37 Comments
Login to comment

bring people together and allow people to build community

Yeah, let's "bring people together" and "build communities" by banning people and silencing opinions.

0 ( +19 / -19 )

Yeah, let's "bring people together" and "build communities" by banning people and silencing opinions.

It’s quite a feat how you could read the article and come to that conclusion, unless you only read the opening paragraph and took those 2 phrases completely out of context. Oh, oh I see.

-2 ( +13 / -15 )

ban all social media - problem solved !

then people won’t be able to hide behind their computers. They will have to communicate face-to-face & be immediately responsible for their comments

11 ( +18 / -7 )

Ban social media.

It’s that simple.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

Ban social media. 

It’s that simple.

Isn’t that a ‘hysterical overreaction’ Manipulation of facts is why no one takes the right wing seriously anymore.

-2 ( +11 / -13 )

Manipulation of facts is why no one takes the right wing seriously anymore.

Why do you imply that peddling falsehoods is a uniquely right wing phenomenon? Lack of self-awareness, perhaps?

5 ( +13 / -8 )

They began has social networks, Twitter and FaceBook but became something else. Too much not "social" posts.

Free speech from many people hiding behind their avatars. Is anonymous speech protected under the 1st Amendment? 

Hate and violence should not be part of the free speech.

The social networks should have regulated themselves better before reaching the present situation.

I haven't used any social networks for more than 10 years.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Why do you imply that peddling falsehoods is a uniquely right wing phenomenon? Lack of self-awareness, perhaps?

Didn’t imply anything of the sort. Read it again.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

Why do you imply that peddling falsehoods is a uniquely right wing phenomenon? Lack of self-awareness, perhaps?

"Didn’t imply anything of the sort. Read it again."

"Manipulation of facts is why no one takes the right wing seriously anymore."

How anyone could construe the above statement as not meaning the left wing manipulates facts is beyond me. It's clear in the way Bob Fosse wrote it!

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

Bungle concluded I implied it was ‘uniquely’ right wing. I didn’t. That’s a manipulation of facts.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Actually, the media, and to some extent the social media, is controlled by the group able to pay for it, thus it is primarily a tool of the right, which represents corporate interests, who have the most money. Which is not to say that both "sides" don't spin arguments and cherry-pick evidence to suit their agendas. But I digress - you can see that the media is a tool of the right because every solution proposed to remedy social or economic problems by major media is capitalist/market-based, whether economic stimulation, increasing consumption, reducing waste... Even the idea of universal basic income, derided as socialist, would be balanced by cuts to other social programs. A liberal media would be advocating a socialist or collectivist solution, instead. They don't.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Gagging hate speech and free speech are two totally different things....

4 ( +11 / -7 )

Spoke with my friend on the phone yesterday... So pleasant to speak freely whatever comes to your mind, discuss any sensitive topic and joke around. Had so much fun. However, if I share any part of this conversation on social media, I will lose my job and be banned forever. Checked my Facebook later: just boring soup of self-censored stories.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

The far right be like "why can't I say bigotted stuff anymore"... totally missing the fact that there are entire news networks, radio shows, thousands of online sites for them to spout their hatreds each and every day.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

Social media is a fundamentally broken means of communication. It didn’t used to be like that, Facebook was actually a really beneficial platform until about a decade ago when they subtly switched its purpose from helping you connect with people to using sophisticated algorithms to keep your eyes glued to it for as long as possible. Since then, its just been about feeding people conspiracy theories or whatever dumb crap catches their attention, which is toxicfor society.

They should go back to the 2007 version of Facebook, it was way less dangerous.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Gagging hate speech and free speech are two totally different things....

There is no objective or coherent definition of 'hate speech'.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Isn’t that a ‘hysterical overreaction’ Manipulation of facts is why no one takes the right wing seriously anymore.

I truly hope you aren't going to tweet out to cancel us over all of this talk here.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

I truly hope you aren't going to tweet out to cancel us over all of this talk here.

I have never used Twitter and never will.

All this talk of canceling and censorship is as dumb as refusing chemotherapy because cancer cells have rights too.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

There needs to be a global body that regulates them.

It could be voluntary at first, but then if that doesn't work it could get some teeth.

The other problem is the business model where they are reliant on advertising. If social networks were banned from getting revenue through ads then they'd have to charge a nominal fee, like $10 a year. Most of their users would pay that, but now they'd have an incentive to provide platforms that enrich users lives, rather than ones that can sell ads.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Actually, the media, and to some extent the social media, is controlled by the group able to pay for it,...

Yes.

...thus it is primarily a tool of the right,

What?!!!

ban all social media - problem solved !

Limiting information to MSM doesn't solve anything.

All we have to do is leave Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Google and move over to unbiased alternatives.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Just like in the old days, I think you can say whatever you want as long as your real name and photo are there and you can be sued in courts for libel or inciting violence. The anonymity of the internet is the problem.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Bob FosseToday  10:29 am JST

Bungle concluded I implied it was ‘uniquely’ right wing. I didn’t. That’s a manipulation of facts.

The other fact is that you used the opportunity to mention the right wing, and only the right wing, infering that only they are capable of "manipulating the facts". If you're honestly being unbaised you're going to have be a lot less ambiguous about it if you don't like the feedback you're getting.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Ah yes - the classic Hollywood/pop star/entertainer celebrity to speak to us about morals.

(Not disagreeing but, just .. curious)

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Isn’t that a ‘hysterical overreaction’ Manipulation of facts is why no one takes the right wing seriously anymore.

No, Ban social media, or better yet delete all social media apps from your life and enjoy your freedom of speech.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

What counts as false information though? Big Tech shouldn't be the judges of what counts as 'true' because the underpaid, overworked and traumatised moderators probably aren't the best judges on important topics considering how they're probably not qualified for a lot of things.

The Guardian even has an article denouncing the deplatforming of Trump, it seems some people have realised the sinister implications: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/16/the-silencing-of-trump-has-highlighted-the-authoritarian-power-of-tech-giants

0 ( +8 / -8 )

What counts as false information though? Big Tech shouldn't be the judges of what counts as 'true' because the underpaid, overworked and traumatised moderators probably aren't the best judges on important topics considering how they're probably not qualified for a lot of things.

Big tech is not the judge, it doesn't need to. It can do the rational thing and compare what someone is saying with the scientific consensus, if it says the opposite thing then science is the one that judges that to be not true, trying to push imaginary, incomplete, false information as facts can easily be identified this way.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Yeah, let's "bring people together" and "build communities" by banning people and silencing opinions.

It's interesting that you thing that lies, misinfomation and hate groups contribute to bringing people together and building communities, and that getting rid of them would somehow set back those efforts.

Not surprising, but interesting.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

The Guardian even has an article denouncing the deplatforming of Trump, it seems some people have realised the sinister implications: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/16/the-silencing-of-trump-has-highlighted-the-authoritarian-power-of-tech-giants

No one has been unaware of the implications for the past few years, that's why people, politicians and tech companies have been trying to find some kind of middle ground.

The problem is that hateful groups continue to exploit any ground that they are given.

Even the head of Twitter has said that deplatforming Trump was correct, but scary. They don't want to do it, because a lot of big tech heads are very libertarian, but when people behave so badly they are often left with no other option.

Trump was given a ridiculous number of second chances and warnings and all it would have taken for him to remain on Twitter was for him to behave in a mildy civilised way... so he can hardly cry about it now.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

but when people behave so badly they are often left with no other option.

behave badly .?.?

Search for the word "TERF" on Twitter and you'll see an endless slew of hateful posts openly calling for appalling violence against specific individuals.

Why don't those posters get banned?

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

The other fact is that you used the opportunity to mention the right wing, and only the right wing, infering that only they are capable of "manipulating the facts". If you're honestly being unbaised you're going to have be a lot less ambiguous about it if you don't like the feedback you're getting.

Nope. As I mentioned earlier, saying I don’t like red doesn’t mean I like blue. Anything you might infer from that is yours alone.

The feedback is what it is, nothing wrong with that either.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

I think Reckless is on to the solution, which would certainly help.

Any moderation will inevitably have bias in delivery and subjectivity in content identification.

In a recent election there was the losing candidate screaming election fraud and votes were not counted and all manner of unsubstantiated interference. In fact that loser never conceded their loss.

Sound familiar? Difference is that there were no "fact check" banners and other thinking guardrails for these charges by Stacy Abrams when she lost the state of Georgia governor election.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Big tech is not the judge, it doesn't need to. It can do the rational thing and compare what someone is saying with the scientific consensus, if it says the opposite thing then science is the one that judges that to be not true, trying to push imaginary, incomplete, false information as facts can easily be identified this way.

It's generally people who do not understand science that keep bringing up scientific consensus.

Plus, the scientific community is filled with corrupt "deciders of truth".

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

It's generally people who do not understand science that keep bringing up scientific consensus.

On the contrary, those that do not understand science are the ones that desperately want to discredit the scientific consensus based on absolutely nothing, from conspiracies that are impossible prove to imaginary numbers that supposedly prove something else.

The main point is that there is a valid and well recognized method to decide what is or not the truth, but when people want to lie and manipulate others to believe false things this method becomes the enemy.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Problem is not everything is about science.

In my opinion, moderators shall be part of the solution by asking persons to be more clears about intentions. I do not mind being asked to write "better" but I hate being censored or that my comment be modified without my consent.

Then if opinion is out of bound (hate speech in particular like let's kill a person or storm that plzce illegally...), It is easy to dismiss and decide it is wrong.

Keep in mind : intent.

Many intent are just opinions (I like/dislike), not asking for wrong actions, that shall be accepted always. Example : I really dislike gays.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Let us do only good. Boycott is the best way.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

There will always be a secret handshake somewhere... Hello? It’s me...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Selena Gomez is right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites