636
submitted 1 year ago by airdi@lemm.ee to c/technology@beehaw.org
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] MaxPower@feddit.de 128 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Free speech is good and must be protected, that's clear. But it should not be virtually limitless. The US played a major role sorting out the negative consequences of the Weimar republic, which did not contain fascist ideology, which then (edit: among other things ofc) lead to WW2.

It still baffles my mind how the US cannot see that tolerating the intolerant must inevitably lead to an intolerant and possibly facist society.

[-] lasagna@programming.dev 72 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I have thought about it for a while but the US is basically in a cold civil war, with a significant chance of it becoming hot. And it looks very similar to their previous one. Neither side seem to have a charismatic enough leader.

It's easy to look over the pond and think it's none of our problem. But if the US falls to chaos a lot of other countries will follow suit. We can already see this influence in the UK and I'd argue many other EU countries. Russia probably saw this weakness, bet on it worsening much quicker than it did, but lost that bet (so far).

With that said, addressing the US as a whole no longer makes sense. I'm sure plenty, plenty of Americans see what is happening.

It's unfortunate that one of the wealthiest people on this planet has taken the anti-democratic side, but it's not the first or the last time in history a powerful man, rich beyond measure has done so.

[-] SevFTW@feddit.de 39 points 1 year ago

Very much so, the Bavarian Conservative Party literally has gone to have talks with republicans to use their election strategies, the German-wide AgD has ramped up their Anti-LGBT campaigning and started to use similar messaging to far-right propaganda networks, e.g. “protect our children”, “pedophiles”, photoshopped images of CSAM at pride events, etc.

[-] storksforlegs@beehaw.org 42 points 1 year ago

All the conservative parties in the west seem to be pushing the same thing. It seems pretty co-ordinated which is even scarier. Every country is hearing the same talking points.

[-] SevFTW@feddit.de 21 points 1 year ago

Yep, it’s very clear. Far right parties are growing, conservatives are running after them trying to keep their voters by using more and more populist tactics, often crossing the line to keep up with far-right talking points, since they can’t keep their voters with their status-quo, corporations-first policies that they’ve been pushing for decades.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] ReCursing@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago

Steve Bannon was quoted as wanting to create an "international network of nationalists"

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Nonameuser678@aussie.zone 17 points 1 year ago

My country (Australia) has tied itself to you guys so if you go down we definitely go down with you. I'm 100% hoping the US doesn't fall into chaos. We also birthed Rupert Murdoch and he's played a huge part in heating up this civil war.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Toribor@corndog.social 30 points 1 year ago

Free speech is good and must be protected

I agree, but Twitter has nothing to do with free speech. Period. It's not like the government is going around throwing people in prison for being racist fucks on Twitter. Twitter can moderate content if they want to. If they don't want to moderate content they don't have to as long as the material isn't illegal.

I don't know why people keep thinking this has anything to do with the first amendment at all. Twitter is not public, not even close.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] wagesj45@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago

You're partly right. But it's the job of the citizenry to stand up to this stuff, not the state. We can't keep our heads down and hope it goes away on its own. We shouldn't allow the state, with its monopoly on violence, to fight our social battles for us.

I dislike the idea of the state getting to start making decisions on what is "hateful". And I'm disgusted we don't have more people standing up and loudly declaring how wrong the hateful viewpoints are. It is our responsibility and we are failing.

It is a tempting proposition to let the state handle hateful speech, but we don't have to look much further than Florida to see what happens when the shit side is in power and starts redefining what is "hateful".

[-] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 20 points 1 year ago

But it’s the job of the citizenry to stand up to this stuff, not the state.

So what's the state for?

load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 74 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Things are going great, Linda

Also can news outlets please stop referring to Twitter as X? X is the stupidest name I've ever heard.

[-] iegod@lemm.ee 52 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's the official name so the news is obliged. Your brain can handle this detail I'm sure.

[-] flumph@programming.dev 30 points 1 year ago

Yeah, it's just like when Prince changed his name. The media will just keep going "X, formerly known as Twitter" forever.

[-] liv@beehaw.org 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Prince changed his name to an unprinteable character so they had no choice.

As I recall, some of the media used the short form TAFKAP (the artist formerly known as Prince).

As for xtwitter, I vote for FKT. Pronounced as a word.

[-] MJBrune@beehaw.org 10 points 1 year ago

in that case Prince changed his name to the artist formally known as Prince because of some sort of trademark or copyright dispute. So again the media is just reporting the facts.

[-] liv@beehaw.org 16 points 1 year ago

Close. He changed his name to a symbol. It was probably to get out of a recording contract, but the particular symbol he chose was non printable.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] eleanor@social.hamington.net 58 points 1 year ago

For those who don't want to read TFA: the brands are Gilead and NYU Lagone Hospital

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 56 points 1 year ago

What did they expect when doing business with a #fascist symp?

[-] Elephant0991@lemmy.bleh.au 51 points 1 year ago

Spokespeople for NCTA and pharmaceutical company Gilead said that they immediately paused their ad spending on X after CNN flagged their ads on the pro-Nazi account.

Alt-speak: we only care if the media report that our ad placements were next to questionable contents.

[-] AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago

lmao at the fact that even a company named GILEAD doesn't want anything to do with Musk trying to kickstart a handmaid's tale

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] BigTrout75@beehaw.org 49 points 1 year ago

Isn't that while platform pro Nazi?

[-] SevFTW@feddit.de 40 points 1 year ago

Almost explicitly so, free speech for those who want to scream the N-word and (shadow/) bans for pro-union posters and those critical of musk

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ahornsirup@artemis.camp 15 points 1 year ago

Not yet. It's the inevitable outcome of tolerating Nazis on your platform but it takes time, especially with a userbase as large as Twitter's.

[-] ArugulaZ@kbin.social 42 points 1 year ago

X: Definitely no hate speech here! Nope, you'll never find it! Those watchdog organizations are all full of crap!

Wait, we lost another sponsor? For what again? Uh oh.

[-] Fizz@lemmy.nz 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Is there a link to the picture of this ad next to nazi content. I couldnt find it in the article.

Edit: I found the sources of the tweets thanks to a comment below. Here is the tweets the ads appeared next to.

load more comments (21 replies)
[-] snowbell@beehaw.org 20 points 1 year ago

Why do people assume that brands explicitly endorse everything their ads run next to? Do they think companies are purposely seeking out these bad people to run their ads next to? I never got the whole not wanting your ads next to questionable content thing.

[-] wrath-sedan@kbin.social 52 points 1 year ago

I’m no expert but I think it’s the same reason ads are full of hot people: association. If you see an ad for a Baconator enough times next to a neo-Nazi spewing hate speech you’re going to start to link the two in your mind.

[-] Gormadt@beehaw.org 16 points 1 year ago

Yep it's the association for sure

But also a factor (for those that know) is that companies will pay for their ads to run to specific demographics of people based on the data that a advertising platform (Twitter, YouTube, Tinder, Facebook, etc) has gathered to determine specific things about you as a person.

It's the whole concept behind targeted ads. You pay for eyes that will see it and are more likely to purchase your products due to that demographic data. Or at the very least, view your website for traffic that can be used to harvest more data about you so that it can be sold to other companies.

[-] P1r4nha@feddit.de 11 points 1 year ago

It's gotta be this one. Marketing works partially with the subconscious and association. They want you to get a fuzzy feeling when you see their logo or a product of theirs in a (web) store. If you don't get a fuzzy feeling, but you are reminded of the vile fascist shit you read while you saw their ad, you will avoid buying their product, even if you can't quite put the finger on it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] jarfil@beehaw.org 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Why do people assume that brands explicitly endorse everything their ads run next to?

Where by "people", we mean "individuals with so little critical thinking, that they might get influenced by an ad".

Well, that's why. Companies don't want easily influenciable people to associate their brand with something they're likely to view as negative.

load more comments (21 replies)
[-] TooManyGames@sopuli.xyz 20 points 1 year ago

It's not just that they don't want their ads next nazi crap, it's that they don't want to put ads on a platform that has nazi crap. You make a platform friendly to nazis, you lose advertising.

[-] ArugulaZ@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

Society still has standards! Thank God!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CileTheSane@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago

People will presure companies not to allow it. "I will not purchase your product because it is helping fund hate speech"

It doesn't matter that the company did not choose to place the ad there. The ad being there gives money to platform that they are recieving because of hate speech.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] EliasChao@lemmy.one 11 points 1 year ago

I believe it’s a matter of being in the same platform as controversial content.

In the end they’re paying Twitter to display their ads, and if Twitter allows questionable content to be in their platform, the companies are indirectly supporting it.

[-] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 year ago

Especially considering we're talking targeted advertisement so the ads are based on who you are and not which corner of twitter you're hanging on.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Banzai51@midwest.social 17 points 1 year ago

::Confused Musk noises::

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
636 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37720 readers
475 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS