Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Edwin Cervantes
70.6K posts
Edwin Cervantes
@ecerv2004
ELAC; Movieholic/TV show enthusiast; JFK liberal; Live life one day at a time, enjoy the little things, & dream on.
Los Angeles County Katılım Aralık 2014
529 Takip Edilen1.1K Takipçiler
@bruh76027799 @clairlemon @JMchangama Social media is not obligated to give you exactly what you want like a handout.
It’s up to you to look up your preferences.
English
@ecerv2004 @clairlemon @JMchangama -and can make $ honestly. That is an ethical obligation.
Deception is deception, there is no excuse for it.
English
I don't really understand the free speech argument when it relates to kids. Pornography is speech, but we don't go around broadcasting it to kids. So why do platforms that promote thinspiration influencers suddenly get a pass because of free speech?
English
@J_fassler My political journey:
1. Grew up Democrat
2. Started to despise the tribalism on both sides.
3. Became an Indy voter.
4. Started splitting tickets for Republicans when the Democrat wasn’t an option.
English
My political journey:
1. Grew up Democrat
Lowkey Rey 2.0@AtlRey
My political journey: 1. Grew up Democrat 2. Started to despise Democrats 3. Became a Republican 4. Started to despise Republicans 5. Became Tea Party 6. That ended - I went silent 7. Trump came - I became MAGA 8. Voted Trump 3X - felt at home 9. Now I'm watching MAGA change 10. Wondering next steps
English
@bruh76027799 @clairlemon @JMchangama Newsflash: Every single business functions like this. That’s literally the goal of the marketplace, make money.
English
@ecerv2004 @clairlemon @JMchangama This was not a discovery lol, this was the root of the issue from the get-go
It’s the abuse of this principal to maximize profits that is predatory
English
English
@ecerv2004 @clairlemon @JMchangama That’s confusing the issue once again.
Nobody is concerned about the expression of free speech.
They are concerned about the speech they cannot see, because the feed is *already* curated for you by an overarching entity
English
@bruh76027799 @clairlemon @JMchangama Congratulations, you just discovered the lesson of supply and demand.
English
@ecerv2004 @clairlemon @JMchangama It is.
And also the search function is still algorithmically curated.
What comes up (and *only* what comes up) is what it thinks you want to see.
You are unable to use these services autonomously. It erodes society by drowning them in slop.
English
@bruh76027799 @clairlemon @JMchangama Speech no matter how intelligent or otherwise is protected, whether you like it or not.
Using it is a choice and you can always choose not to use it or swipe left on the algorithms.
You have that agency so you have no excuses to let government do it for you.
English
@ecerv2004 @clairlemon @JMchangama 1. You are taking the analogy too literally, which is impeding you from taking the intuitive point that it is ‘manipulative bait’ which erodes your autonomy.
2. Your argument intriguingly seems to be that you *should* be able to cause harm, the burden of protection on victims
English
@bruh76027799 @clairlemon @JMchangama It’s not fraud and you can search for relevant results.
It’s called using your keyboard.
English
@ecerv2004 @clairlemon @JMchangama It’s fraud. Don’t pretend like the algorithm doesn’t inhibit autonomous use.
You can’t even search for relevant results anymore, all curated
English
@bruh76027799 @clairlemon @JMchangama Wow, that’s a new one: equating your social media addiction to child kidnapping.
Am I to understand that parents are not responsible whatsoever for their child’s wellbeing in any of your paranoiac scenarios?
English
@ecerv2004 @clairlemon @JMchangama You’re strategically (also suspiciously) dancing around the fact that the reason to put an algorithm in in the first place is that the same reason why creeps offer candy, in particular, out of their vans
They know they can manipulate, and do so. That shouldn’t be legal.
English
@bruh76027799 @clairlemon @JMchangama No they’re not. They’re one and the same.
Government has no business regulating speech except under four narrow exceptions: fraud, obscenity, defamation, and imminent threats.
And no, algorithms do not fall under any of these nor is it a fifth one.
English
@ecerv2004 @clairlemon @JMchangama Anybody with discernment can see that it is a valid assessment, respectfully.
Algorithm and speech are completely separate issues.
English
English
@VIK19941 @Anshella22586 @PopBase Using your own logic about JFK, Nixon would be a liberal Democrat by today’s standards since he created the EPA, expanded Medicare and Medicaid, and it was his own Justices along with the rest of the court that legalized abortion for 50 years.
English
English
English
@ecerv2004 @clairlemon @JMchangama I’ll point out, once again, that the whole reason they are hiding behind a red herring is because they are aware of the harm it causes
English
@bruh76027799 @clairlemon @JMchangama Social media are private companies, they can put all the algorithms they want.
Nobody is to blame except you and the general demand of the public wanting more from the social media apps they use.
English
@ecerv2004 @clairlemon @JMchangama No the algorithm is the objectively harmful part.
Free speech all the way, but it shouldn’t be legal to force the algorithm.
It’s literal manipulation, and has no place in an honest/healthy society.
English
@ginamilan_ @PopBase @ModRightPatriot Liberals were the ones that abolished slavery and desegregation.
English
English
@Anshella22586 @PopBase finalizing the flip? what is this some kind of team deathmatch shooter? you can't switch teams. its because of JFK's great impact this happened.
English
@bruh76027799 @clairlemon @JMchangama Even bigger reason why government has no business regulating it.
That’s something you should take it up with the marketplace.
English
@ecerv2004 @clairlemon @JMchangama I didn’t say the government should choose what is acceptable speech, the algorithm is the issue
English
@bruh76027799 @clairlemon @JMchangama Multi step verification doesn’t exclusively use social media. In fact, sensitive logins like bank accounts or tax returns use either your email or phone number, not your social media account.
And none of what you said is an excuse to let the government decide acceptable speech
English
@ecerv2004 @clairlemon @JMchangama No because you know the entire world runs on social media
It is not a single persons choice anymore, it pervades society and you are forced to take part.
Can’t even get into your bank account without multi step verification
English
@bruh76027799 @clairlemon @JMchangama So in layman terms, you don’t have the agency to swipe left and ignore the internet content and you want the government to do it for you?
English
@ecerv2004 @clairlemon @JMchangama Additionally, the fact that they are using a red herring in the first place immediately indicates complicity.
They do not “have” to use the observedly harmful algorithm, yet choose to anyway for the sake of $$.
This has no place in healthy society.
English
@clairlemon @JMchangama Speech is not a product because it’s not a tangible item like candy or cigarettes.
English
@JMchangama Am not suggesting that the internet be banned. What I am suggesting is that the burden of proof is on social media companies to demonstrate that their products are safe before they a) market to kids & b) make money from kids.
English
Freedom to speak is not the same as a right to go viral
x.com/CharlotteAlter…
Charlotte Alter@CharlotteAlter
This Meta verdict has almost nothing to do with free speech. Users can still say whatever they want on these platforms! It's just that that speech might not be spewed out to children via the largest addictive content machine the world has ever seen. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Not freedom to addict millions of children to a platform pumping them full of endless bile.
English