Voices
in
Japan

poll

Do you think tech giants like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Amazon and YouTube have too much control over what people see and read?

35 Comments
© Japan Today

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

35 Comments
Login to comment

Alphabet mentioned twice (Google and You tube).

I say yes, at the same time it partially everyone’s fault.

Governments have not implemented any system that can act as a search engine, provide email, or allow for virtual groups. And if Governments did, most people would approach these services with a lot of skepticism so the private sector was the way to go.

This big tech dilemma is the reason why institutions like Japan Post, JP bank, JR and NHK are necessary. They provide a government presence in a market place which allows for the government to know issues that could arise that wouldn’t be so obvious if the government, and thus the people, were just consumers.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

How can anyone vote "no" for this?????

17 ( +25 / -8 )

YouTube sees I watched program A so they show me a lot of program A even if I don’t want to watch it anymore. That’s too much.

12 ( +14 / -2 )

you can even measure this. Do a search, then do another search in Incognito Mode. They won't be the same

9 ( +10 / -1 )

I control the ads they show me. First thing I do in the morning is search for something sexy to buy. The ads are get are eye candy.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Of course not. If someone is a bit less lazy or can handle web searches and invests some seconds more for finding other informations, media or opinions , then there are plenty enough of other websites and internet presences available.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Very much so though we are in part responsible, if you don’t pay for the product then you are the product and that is what the business models of all these companies are based on.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

yes of course.

no doubts abt that.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Youtube is the world's TV at this point but Odysee, Bitchute and Rumble have better content because creators don't get censored for telling the truth

A pretty ridiculous situation really, you can't even quote government statistics for example on Youtube sometimes

3 ( +8 / -5 )

The viewer gets to decide what they want to watch. Too many ads on YouTube these days.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I don't think it is not a good idea, and I disagree with it, much less be unpleasant if these companies have a connection with national government.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Before the "internet age" we had newspaper owners and TV companies (often the same people) controlling what we watched and read, so not a great difference.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

In the ideal world, if we could see exactly what we wanted to see, would we know exactly what we want to see? And would this be tailored to the individual or one stream that everyone watches or something in between?

And if not one stream, how would these streams comparitively be, between like or unlike individuals?

And how would this ideal be achieved? More regulation from who? more players? More streams of choice? How would we go about selecting the stream that is different to how it's selected today?

While I agree they have too much control, but I'm not sure what is the solution, or if a common simple agreeable solution is there.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What you read is your choice. No one can force you to read something you don't want to read.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Before the "internet age" we had newspaper owners and TV companies (often the same people) controlling what we watched and read, so not a great difference.

agree.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Before the "internet age" we had newspaper owners and TV companies (often the same people) controlling what we watched and read, so not a great difference.

Well a few decades ago there used to be limits on how much a single entity could own. For example, the telecommunications act 1996 in the USA removed that limit.

SEC. 202. BROADCAST OWNERSHIP.

(a) NATIONAL RADIO STATION OWNERSHIP RULE CHANGES REQUIRED- The Commission shall modify section 73.3555 of its regulations (47 C.F.R. 73.3555) by eliminating any provisions limiting the number of AM or FM broadcast stations which may be owned or controlled by one entity nationally.

https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt

The digital monopolies we have now aren't good for the average member of the public and we now live under a corporatist pseudo-state.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Ha! Yes! Almost complete control.

Heck! Sometimes I'm talking about something I've never searched before on the web and suddenly, I start getting ads or news article on my feed about that very specific topic. Proof that Facebook, Google and IG are listening.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

No.

People have control over what people see and read.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Yes, but remember at the same time the alternatives could theoretically be worse. It reminds me of how everyone wanted Rupert Murdoch to sell SKY News in the UK, but now there are no major right-wing news networks in the UK whatsoever and media plurality is worse.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yes and no. Either way, by using the service you agree to their terms and conditions of service. The fact that someone didn't read and just clicked "I AGREE" is beside the point.

If they do it publicly and don't hide it, and if they do it on their portal, which I have access to by my own free choice, then I just don't see the problem.

And I don't care if it's "left", "right", "bananas", "watermelon", "moderates". If anyone doesn't like it, they can move on. And some flaming speeches about how so and so are evil because they hate XYZ (insert whatever you want) and promote ABC are just ridiculous.

Whether I agree or disagree with it is also a different matter.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

How can anyone vote "no" for this?????

I did. I think my radar and internal guide towards what is good and what isn’t has been finely honed over the years to suit my tastes. Amazon Prime can recommend all the shows they want but I won’t watch it unless I want to.

Why did you vote “yes” Digger Nick?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The My Mix option on YouTube is pretty good. They’re the videos you thumbed up and it seems to know when you want music, when you want news, and the podcasts that interest you.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Let's write below some alternatives that will help us diversify. For example, instead of google, duckduckgo, instead of twitter, gab, instead of youtube... I don't really know, maybe bitchute.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Yes and no. Either way, by using the service you agree to their terms and conditions of service. The fact that someone didn't read and just clicked "I AGREE" is beside the point.

I call this posting technique "corralling sheep".

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Well duh. Anything FaceBook doesn't like and the "fact-checkers" appear.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Only if you join them.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Yes, but if you limit the time spent and avoid all the pitfalls and trappings, you don't have to worry about as much.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The searches I do on Google, never show the same results as I get on other Search Engines. Google hides way too much info.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Amazon and YouTube have too much control they are a modern day CHINA with total censorship!!!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I recommend DuckDuckGo for a more objective search. You may actually find what you are looking for, not what Google wants you to look for!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Got a pretty good idea who voted no on this. The same people who'd be happy to see GAFA's upstart alternatives shut down.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

definitely

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you do not like a search engine use another. There are a lot of search engines for the net. @Digger_Nick, people are spreading lies on the internet to incite violence. Like the big lie in the States, that is why I voted no.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Hitler would've loved Facebook and Twitter.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

In the wake of the Christchurch mosque slayings big Tech was reported to have said that they were going to change the algorithm that leads individuals down the rabbit warren of despair and mono centricity wherein they are supplied with a single adverse topic line that is harmful to society and the individual user. Basically they've mislead everyone so that they maintain an edge over the users who are unwittingly exposed to their influence. The only thing that they'd changed was to employ a bank of reconfigured filters designed to recognise objectionable content by recognising a match for stuff that they've recorded and keep on file. Everything else is still business as usual, infact recently it's been reported even their own research identified damaging results from social media exposure to our children - while Mark Zuckerberg was reported to have said that the tweens age group were a potential untapped mine of wealth for monetization by his company, Facebook. A really bad look for them, but don't think that the people who are responsible for monitoring and control of these companies are going to provide protection to your kids or yourself because they too use these services to monitor and control individuals and information flow that they see necessary.

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