Now I think, "how can there be a star trek future while we have social media and the Internet?"
Honestly, it's probably what started the eugenics war.
But as a pass time, I’m fair certain Holodecks buried pretty much everything else for good. Movies, songs, books, and as hard as it may be for tech people to believe..
Even social media.
I’m guessing they don’t have films either.
They do have written books though.
Now the Star Trek TNG film Star Trek First Contact takes place in the 21st century and features rock and roll and characters talking in “modern” parlance.
I’m guessing that in between the 21st century and the 24th century mankind advanced and stopped watching tv and movies and went back to reading books.
Perhaps they advanced and abandoned social media as well. The Star Trek’s version of forums and the internet could be an idealized version of Hacker News where everyone actually follows the rules and Dang the AI moderator can just chill and not do much. It’s very possible.
They've been doing this for a decade, no reckoning yet in sight.
Lol what "loyalty" are you talking about?
People that were cheering on when this happened to one side suddenly get surprised when the same thing happens to their side
Well well well how the turntables... [1]
Much better
Marjorie Taylor Greene
And others
Trump was banned for years and that seems to be ok with you
A Dem account is banned 1 hour and you cry wolf
The audacity
But yeah, sure it happens to Conservatives at the same rate. You just won’t hear about it here because the Evil Left controls a site run by Silicon Valley. In 2026.
Really just shut the fuck up pal.
And Trump was banned for multiple years, this Dem account was blocked 1 hour and people are already crying wolf
Lets compare the reasons and speeches rather then hiding behind "political" euphemism.
Trump was banned for years and that seems to be ok with you
A Dem account is banned 1 hour and you cry wolf
> Lets compare the reasons and speeches rather then hiding behind "political" euphemism.
Lol here comes the thought police
I don't rule it out entirely. In 2021 we saw a coordinated deplatforming of a sitting president across practically every social media platform. But this seems too low stakes
Still likely to lose (IMO), but it's more competitive than we've seen in Florida for a long time.
[1] https://sri.siena.edu/2026/10/28/nytimes-siena-poll-of-likel...
EDIT: I’m mistaken, this is a US senate candidate. I was confused by the ambiguous wording in the article.
EDIT: I’m mistaken, this is a US senate candidate. I was confused by the ambiguous wording in the article.
> In 2021 we saw a coordinated deplatforming of a sitting president across practically every social media platform.
It wasn’t coordinated, it was a bunch of social media companies responding to the same event, notably the president in question using his social media accounts to try to overthrow the US government.
The big tech companies are on the side of power and money.
You pretend like this is somehow a partisan issue
Are you, by chance, of the left?
All research I’ve seen on this shows the right significantly outbotting the left.
That implies that left wing accounts shouldn't have been banned because they are not notorious for botting.
With the next reply, you hedge and say that the right "outbots" the left. That weakens your initial point that the left wing account bans are unjustified.
However, my initial reply was in response to the claim that it's "widespread knowledge" that the right outbots the left. That is not knowledge I consider to be self evident and I was assuming/asking that you got that knowledge from left leaning sources.
Would you hold the same standard, and react the same way, if the parties were flipped? The hard part is answering that before looking for differences. Confirmation bias is powerful, and if any of us start from a conclusion, we’ll always find a justification.
If you actually do this, then it doesn’t matter whether the outcomes seem to help one party vs another.
The second part of your comment invalidates the test in the first part of your comment.
>Nixon reported that the account was back up an hour later.
The account was created only 1 week earlier and was flagged as a campaign impersonation account.
Whether that's honest and truthful, we can only know if Meta is transparent. But, not including that information shows what the article's intent is.
> "During campaign season, we pay particular attention to accounts that could be impersonating candidates or campaigns and misleading voters. The account in question was created only a week and a half ago, so our systems automatically and mistakenly assessed it to be impersonating the Nixon for Senate campaign. The account was restored on Tuesday evening after three hours."
You pretend like this is somehow a partisan issue
Trump was banned for years and that seems to be ok with you
A Dem account is banned 1 hour and you cry wolf "the mask has come off"
The audacity
This was. As was the messing with Lula. That was when the mask really came off. Thankfully, the people prevailed.
Now that's a real attempt to silence someone's political speech into obscurity
Clearly much much worse
It's a statewide race.
> They see an issue with their Instagram account which gets fixed an hour later and they immediately think it's Zuck behind the scenes in his war room following her race and rally with a big red button on his desk to cut her off at the crucial window. Incredible stuff.
This isn't the first time Meta has pulled the plug on rallies and leftwing organizations [1]. It's also not out of character for them to try and push right wing narratives. [2]
[1] https://www.ms.now/news/instagram-shut-down-a-no-kings-accou...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...
Accusing them without due evidence is sloppy, but it's not like the claim carries genuinely zero possibility of being true.
> Mark opens the meeting by talking admiringly about what he calls “street fighter tactics” that Uber is employing against politicians around the world and how successful they’ve been.
> He launches into a spiel about Empereror Augustus, his favorite emperor, who led the transformation of Rome from a republic to an empire.
> He wants to establish a team within Facebook to figure out how to build the tools that will use the algorithm and platform to pressure adversaries, including politicians who oppose us, to bolster the policy team.
At least to me, this is a good working explanation - the conspiracy angles prove things that don't need to be proven to effect sustainable solutions. The real issue, as it has always been, is that we need to move away from these centralized communications technologies controlled by corpos. Their concentrated power is what makes their censorship inevitable.
So pragmatically as things stand - while it's completely understandable that political campaigns (and everyone else) need to engage with where people are, they should also be making it a point to nudge followers to distributed forums. Use censorship-eager popular forums to recruit new followers, but maintain your base of members with censorship-resistant communication methods.
Or politically, assuming a critical mass of people frustrated at this problem that we can effect change, what we need is anti-trust enforcement that breaks up these companies into smaller entities, chiefly by un-bundling apps (client software) from hosting services and mandating published APIs for the two markets to interact.
I guess the best approach is to look at a string of such events, and see if they add up to a consistent pattern of behaviour. The longer the string, the less likely it is to be accidental. (But this assumes the bad actor isn't trying to cover their tracks in active ways. Ho hum).
The change I would like to see: feeds must be in date order, most recent first. Posts should only appear in feeds if you have actively chosen to "follow" the originating account in some way.
I honestly think these two simple changes would solve many of the problems we have today, as a society.
Sure, except, why? Such behavior is (unfortunately) not currently illegal, so it's not like proving it would mean it could be straightforwardly punished.
Then furthermore, the specific groups that feel aggrieved shift based on who is in power. The only way to get actual reform is to form a coalition with people who don't feel particularly aggrieved right now, but still respect that it could happen to them in the future.
Making it into a personal us-vs-them just makes it so people who don't care about your "us" aren't inclined to see the issue!
> The change I would like to see: feeds must be in date order, most recent first. Posts should only appear in feeds if you have actively chosen to "follow" the originating account in some way.
Sure, but keep in mind this is still a political solution, whether through regulation or merely through shaming the centralizers. Meaning it requires the political will I am describing above.
Also from a technical perspective I don't see that this would directly address the problem in the article. You need an additional point, to get there indirectly - if the only feeds shown were subscribed ("followed"), there should never be a reason to censor an account from speaking to people who have subscribed to it or otherwise directly seek it out.
We're increasingly Balkanised. Part of that is algorithms that show us "the other" at its worst (outrage farming). This UX change would restrict outrage from being shoved down people's throats, and at least stop the problem getting worse.
It severely limits the reach of new outrage farmers, and attrition will take care of the current ones.
Knock-on effect, hopefully, is a return to some kind of sanity across the societal board. (Bearing in mind you can't turn an ocean liner on a sixpence).
> there should never be a reason to censor an account from speaking to people who have subscribed to it.
Not what I'm describing. I'm suggesting a change that means you have to go looking for bots, they don't get shoved in front of you. (However you define "bots").
If you think the censorship is the problem, then how does what you're saying address that?
If you think the frustration with the censorship is the problem (ie part of the outrage farming), then I suppose what you're saying is a solution in a roundabout way. But trying to fix a small problem by casting it as one aspect of a much larger problem seems self-defeating.
Now you've forced me to lay it out like that, I don't even believe it myself.
We're really screwed, aren't we?