Unilever warns social media to clean up “toxic” content
This is interesting but appears to be a classic case of the market making the rules vice the individual companies. However, it almost sounds like Unilever cannot deal with the nasty rude nature of society today and wants a fluffy, happy soft place everyone can sing kumbiyah in, and buy their stuff. Not sure how well either way will work out.
send a message. But one thing I refuse to do is
put my picture on it. I like my privacy.
What no one should be allowed to do is to abrogate others' free speech and free exercise of their judgment of where to spend their money. We should also remember that in any compromise with evil, evil will win.
Not all the nastiness is in the content; most of the worst and ugliest is in the comments sections!
All material on the Internet is rooted in ideas, and ideas are memes in constant mutation, often turning cancerous (or "toxic"). People get used to it, however, and keep increasing the dosage. That is the nature of life--growth and spreading. Unfortunately, it's easier to roll a rock downhill than to push it up the mountain.
So a soap maker wants to clean things up. Cute.
It's because they're harshing Weed's mellow.
Of course this is bad news for the paid content-creators of Hollywood, because a lot of people who've been viewing their product for free aren't willing to pay for most of it. But this is a market shift/renegotiation that has needed to happen for decades. Most of Hollywood's products are crap these days -- and even if I liked them I'd shun them because of Hollywood's huge authoritarian influence on politics.
As for social media, most of it is already too tightly controlled. This is partly a market problem (Google, Yahoo, Facebook, and Twitter are all companies we can pressure and/or boycott, though not all of their services have enough competitors yet). But some Internet services (such as assignments of IP addresses and domain names) are monopolies of close enough to it that real censorship can take place if their providers want to do it -- and it's already being attempted. This is where the greatest danger to an open Internet lies.
Ultimately alternatives to those services will need to be developed, too. Let's make sure it stays legal to do that, by resisting any regulation of the net, whether under pro-freedom-sounding labels such as Net Neutrality or otherwise.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/h...
Oh, well, me dino never has had any desire to mess around with social media. Not ever. That's also a this day and age thing wid me da Dino Allosaurus, Esquire.
At least here in The Gulch, most people have their heads screwed on well enough to actually learn beneficial things from.
Going out side to listen to birds sing is the only beneficial way to be around birdbrains.
Maybe all this "Carbon" bullcrap is just a distraction from that fact!!!
Right. You aren't expressing concern that there is no punishment for statists who are guilty of destroying what you claim to value.
Without punishment for the looters this is just a distraction to keep the guilty safe from punishment.
Sorry, you aren't worthy of trust.
If only she listened and understood her own words and realized the state is even more guilty of spreading extremist content.
Mr. Weed is basically saying, "You big social media companies are supposed to be more like advertising on the big three TV networks two generations ago, not like advertising in the National Enquirer or a porno mag was."
In the past barriers to entry in building a TV network or magazine were high, so media outlets had to stick to their niche. Barriers to entry are low now, so if mainstream outlets start acting as gatekeepers, people will go elsewhere. They are in a hard position because people have a morbid urge to look at train wrecks. Media outlets now get feedback at what people look at, so they have an incentive to give them the train wrecks they look at, even if they don't exactly want them. If they're too lurid, though, they get resistance from people like Weed.
10 years ago I would have said it's wonderful that media outlets are not gatekeepers. I don't know anymore. I now want gatekeepers of my choosing. I don't want a crazy feed of Enquirer articles, New York Times stories, Tech Crunch stories, and random blogs. I've started using an RSS reader and picking deliberately. These media companies and their advertisers have to struggle with to what extent they want to be gatekeepers, and if so are they more like the New York Times or the Enquirer.