So here’s the question. Here are two individuals who totally control two organisations – Facebook and X – that have had devastating impacts on the lives of some of their users (and in Facebook’s case, whole countries such as Myanmar), as well as polluting the public sphere and undermining democracy in the west. Why has neither been held accountable for the societal damage their organisations have wrought? The answer is simple: they have the impunity that their immense wealth provides.
Both of them have actuallky created something through that same arrogance. Quite big things too. But of course Naughton thinks that those big things, having been created, should now be confiscated by those who did not create them – like Naughton.
Ah, the heady days of 2011 and the Arab Spring.
Hang on a minute…
But of course, only because these two are now on the wrong side. When FB and Twitter were banning anyone to the right of Stalin it was fine. Z and M are perceptive enough to realise that change is in the air, whereas much of the traditional media cannot quite believe it.
X and Facebook are successful because a lot of people use them. It is the network effect of the fax machine all over again.
Yes, the left wing bed wetting luvvies could create their own cooperative social network but if you cannot persuade a couple of hundred million people to use it then there would be little value to it.
Exactly. Twitter users around 500M, Mastodon users around 10M.
I wonder when he’ll describe the devastating impacts on the lives of citizens due to the imposition of socialism? 150 million murders, and counting…
Newspapers have had devastating impacts on the lives of some of their users. Shut down newspapers!
Does he think car manufacturers should be held responsible for bank robberies? The Post Office for poison pen letters?
@Ducky
well, quite. Also, I guess we’re just not bothering to count the little-but-very-often benefits those platforms have brought, to the millions of people not wrapped up in major political events. The people happy to build and maintain social networks cheaply and easily.
The left doesn’t do cost/benefit. Only heresy/scripture, purity tests.
I don’t look at Facebook that much, myself and various close family members have an account. Facebook Messenger is very useful though. Sort of like texting but a little easier to use and to posts pics and videos on. It helps me to stay in touch with my daughter who lives 120 miles away. Am I being harmed in some way that I’m not aware of?
A case of old man shouts at clouds? With added malice of course.
“I, a journalist, think people should pay more attention to my writings (and implicitly, less attention to viral videos of second-generation immigrant youths looting high street shops).”
It’s the male equivalent of all those female journalists writing about their hair.
Salamander:
Yes, the left wing bed wetting luvvies could create their own cooperative social network but if you cannot persuade a couple of hundred million people to use it then there would be little value to it.
And yet, before Musk bought Twitter this was exactly the argument from the luvvies: build your own social network. Musk responded not by building one but buying an existing one, at which point the luvvies freaked out. It’s always been obvious that the left simply doesn’t want information that disagrees with them out there at all.
I also seem to recall people on the left trying to persuade the payment processors from blocking the social network startups from the political right, but I can’t find anything about that with a cursory internet search.
So here’s the question. Here are two individuals who totally control two organisations – Facebook and X – that have had devastating impacts on the lives of some of their users
Counterpoint:
T
@tylerthecreator
Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is Cyber Bullying Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Walk Away From The Screen Like Nigga Close Your Eyes Haha
8:56 AM · Dec 31, 2012
Alexander Graham Bell has a lot to answer for too.
The Telediagraph was probably invented in the 1890s to send dick pics.
This one is pure gold…
All the rich/powerful/important/famous people have these shells of protection around them.
Because crackpots, loonies,
con artistsinvestment entrepeneurs, and, indeed, tut-tutting sourpuss “Journalists” of a Socialist bent, intent on berating them for being rich, powerful, etc….I had to check whether the green goo oozing from my screen was indeed not Ectoplasm ( it being Spooky Season and all…) but just the usual green Ichor of Envy dripping from each word in this….article..
Amusing, and in a way impressive, since he manages to be even more viciously vindictive than even Spud….
’All the rich/powerful/important/famous people have these shells of protection around them.’
While ordinary MPs like Mike Amesbury have to protect themselves, Grikath….
@Julia, Had to look that up. Cloggie news not so fast about the shenanigans of UK politcians.
Seems not all UK politicians are chinless emasculated nonces…