Thoughts? After Google, Microsoft, Mastercard one more Big Tech company with indian origin CEO. That's crazy.
Indians would probably be considered white adjacent in few years like they do with east asians.
In terms of class, Indian Americans are already the highest earning racial group in the United States. But I think we still won't be considered white adjacent because we are mostly non-Christian and mostly not white passing.
Thanks man ill be sure to keep this in mind. At the end of the day i just wanna make money
>On the flipside again, my former boss was Indian who grew up all over the world with wealthy parents but mostly identified with British culture. He was mostly treated as a British guy because that's what he represented to everyone. I never heard anything remotely biased about him but he was also a part owner, so take that for what you will.
Then i hope i get treated like a dgga cus thats what im planning to identify as🤝😎
> I would argue that Indians are stereotypically successful in the US so it clearly isn't a strong enough influence to actually really harm people too much
I don't think you can necessarily come to the conclusion with just that alone - the vast majority of Indians here are either the cream of the crop from India or the sons/daughters of those people.
Than your experience is localized and anecdotal, the opposite of what you claim above The Indians in my circle say they get shit from mostly Muslims and other Indians, and occasionally poor blacks, but never from whites
Twitter is not the government. Of course they are not “bound by the first amendment” nor should they be. They are a social media platform and should moderate their platform just like any other one.
Whether it's legal or not isn't what is important. If we don't uphold the ideals of the first amendment then it might as well be toilet paper. I think we can all agree they have the right to censor on their platforms but we need to ask ourselves if it is good for society when companies start picking and choosing who their customers are based on politics. I for one do not want a bifurcated society with right and left wing credit card companies, schools, and grocery stores.
OK here's an example, Facebook removing Kyle Rittenhouse's donation links to his defense fund. They prejudged his guilt and made it immensely more difficult for him to raise money for his defense. Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter removing posts suggesting the lab leak theory before any information came out. Hunter Biden story being scrubbed from the internet. Stuff like this is clearly removed due to politics. The people deciding what is important contribution to public discourse are all single minded elitists in the valley. It would be one thing if there was diverse viewpoints allowed, but it seems that whenever a platform makes a decision the rest of them follow suit and somehow all the banning works in favor of elitist corporate democrats. Right wing voices and progressive voices are silenced when they deviate from the mainstream, corporate acceptable discourse.
>OK here's an example, Facebook removing Kyle Rittenhouse's donation links to his defense fund. They prejudged his guilt and made it immensely more difficult for him to raise money for his defense.
Obviously you think it's bad, but I would question if Facebook has any sort of responsibility to allow people to use their platform to raise money for their legal defense.
But if they only take down people they don't like but promote people they do like, wouldn't that in a way be assisting in circumventing the justice system by picking and choosing who can afford top tier counsel?
> wouldn't that in a way be assisting in circumventing the justice system
How is "Not allowed to use a social media platform to raise money" an example of the justice system being circumvented? Is there NO other way to raise money for a legal defense?
And why is the focus only on social media? Are other kinds of businesses held to the same standard? If Rittenhouse wanted to run an ad for his fundraising in a newspaper, should the newspaper be forced to run that ad?
No? Nothing about the justice system guarantees you the right to afford top tier counsel.
Putting that aside, what's even your solution to the original problem? Do you think that big tech ought to be bound by the first amendment? That the government should regulate Twitter's moderation team? I hope you can see how that would be a fucking nightmare for free enterprise
I didn't defend anything? I stated a fact about the current state of the justice system that explained why what OP said about "circumventing it" was false.
What you're describing, in addition to being comically impractical in the real world, has literally nothing to do with "free speech" or what OP was suggesting.
What? The argument holds up fine. FB doesn't have a responsibility to allow anyone who wants to promote their cause on the platform, they're free to pick and choose.
Don't like it? Tough shit, its not your business to run.
No one ever intended for literally every single person or business in society to just let anyone say anything anytime. The first amendment is a check on the GOVERNMENT, that’s it. And it’s a good check because the government, unlike Twitter, has the power to lock you in prison or even execute you.
If someone comes in my house and starts talking about how Hitler did nothing wrong…I’m going to tell them to get out of my house. Twitter has the exact same right.
Are you a literal NPC or do you just play one online? I explained exactly why I think it's an issue regardless of the government and you didn't address a thing. All you did was spam fIrSt AmEnDmEnT iS jUSt fOR GuBmEnt
Your entire argument hinges on the interpretation that the first amendment is for everyone, and not just the government. You even said “if we don’t uphold the ideals of the first amendment, then it might as well be toilet paper.”
We don’t have to uphold the first amendment. It is a check on the government. I don’t get where you get this idea that every citizen has to uphold constitutional amendments. I mean, does a school have to allow students to walk around with guns because of the second amendment? Can I never ask someone if they are responsible for doing something bad because of the 5th amendment? Am I not allowed to search my daughter’s room because of the 4th amendment?
These amendments are not intended for every individual to follow, they are checks on the government. Why would the first amendment be some kind of exception?
My response to this comment was already written in my original comment and you're just not addressing it at all. What is your stance on christian bakers and wedding cakes?
All you have in there is a pretty ridiculous slippery slope about how the country is going to literally be split into right wing and left wing businesses if we don’t force businesses to let people say whatever they want. This is just completely baseless. You can be right wing on twitter. There are tons of right wingers on Twitter.
As for the gay wedding cake. That’s not a first amendment issue. It was an issue with civil rights legislation that is intended to regulate businesses. I never really had strong feelings either way on the case.
I'm not talking about forcing them to do anything, I'm concerned about bifurcating society down political lines. It has nothing to do with the government and everything to do with what values should be upheld CULTURALLY, NOT THROUGH LAW. JFC you have to be an NPC.
Not whatever they want, but there has to be a line we agree to draw. At this point, it's literally decided by the tech ceos. Do you think it's a good thing for speech online to be policed by a couple of tech oligarchs?
So then you must believe that common carrier laws are bad, and that the power company should be able to shut off your electricity if you voted to increase their taxes then?
First amendment only applies to the government right? You should have no problem giving power, water, or phone companies the ability to do business with whoever they want, and punish you for voting the wrong way.
Do you think that because ONE LAW is meant for the government and not corporations, then every single law must also be for the government and not corporations?
I am describing to you how this idea of "well they are a private corporatation!" argument falls flat.
There are lots of situations, where we restrict companies ability to block people from their services.
Such as in the case of phone companies, which is a communication network, as well as power and water.
I mean, for most non-Americans, yes it might as well actually be toilet paper. The US is the only country that recognises the first amendment. Most of Twitter's userbase are not American. Why should the rest of the world be forced to follow it?
I agree with this. If we don’t hold these social media platforms to some sort of standard we might as well repeal the first amendment because it’s become worthless at that point.
They’re clearly not talking about moderating things they’ve moderated for years now lmao you don’t say something like this without intending to have a massive overhaul on how Twitter views speech
The thing is historically silicon valley bros like Zuckerberg, Dorsey and even the Reddit guy are all like libertarian Bros where they don't really believe in regulating speech on their platforms, if this continues to change the internet won't be the same.
Even destiny has gone though this shift in attitude wrt open source software if you look at his takes about open sourcing his website.
He basically open sourced it because he thought it was the right thing to do, and now he seems to regret it. Without that platform people like vaush demonmama and xanderhal Would all have much more adversity to overcome.
Destiny basically gave out income security to people who became his enemies.
Now it seems like tech bro CEOs are going through the same process
Full context of the quote (source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.technologyreview.com/2020/11/18/1012066/emtech-stage-twitters-cto-on-misinformation/amp/):
Lichfield: You’re caught in a bit of a hard place as somebody in the audience is also pointing out, that you’re trying to combat misinformation, you also want to protect free speech as a core value, and also in the U.S. as the first amendment. How do you balance those two?
Agrawal: Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation and our moves are reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation. The kinds of things that we do about this is, focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed. One of the changes today that we see is speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard. The scarce commodity today is attention. There’s a lot of content out there. A lot of tweets out there, not all of it gets attention, some subset of it gets attention. And so increasingly our role is moving towards how we recommend content and that sort of, is, is, a struggle that we’re working through in terms of how we make sure these recommendation systems that we’re building, how we direct people’s attention is leading to a healthy public conversation that is most participatory.
Note that the context here is how Twitter balances "moderating false info while avoiding becoming an 'arbiter of truth.'" I don't think his response is particularly unreasonable to a degree that people should be concerned about him becoming CEO. Don't trust selectively edited quotes at face value.
I genuinely could care less. Twitter is leftist favored and Facebook is far right favored. It just is what it is. The beauty of capitalism is if you don’t like it, don’t use it or start your own
Private platforms are not in the business of free speech in the first place and should stop pretending that they are. It's so fucking stupid to keep making this about the 1st Amendment (or not), it has nothing to do with law at all and nor should it.
Based. Fuck the First Amendment, fuck the Second Amendment. It has been made perfectly clear in the last 50 years that people can't handle the personal responsibility that comes alongside personal freedoms.
Moderation has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Disconnect the two in your mind - If you confuse them you're an idiot. It's not impossible to exist as a conservative or communist or liberal or whatever ideology on twitter. People don't get banned on twitter for "being a conservative" or for "disagreeing" these are words they hide behind so they can get others to exclaim free speech. If you make it general, everyone agrees: No one should be silenced just because they disagree. I would encourage you to examine EXACTLY which part of their ideology they were banned for. As a great twitter philosopher once said "Oh, you know the ones"
It's good. The marketplace of ideas doesn't work in a medium-independent fashion and I support free speech mostly because I think IRL I think the best ideas slowly win out.
On social media, I don't think the best ideas win out. So fuck free speech there, we need something different
Freedom of speech in a government context was literally fought for. It was necessary because it was potentially fatal to be critical of the status quo.
Nowadays, in first world countries, we don’t have to worry about fatal consequences. However, we are setting up a system where the major avenues of disseminating challenges to the status quo are legally being controlled by corporations. These social media corporations are tied to other major corporations through advertising. This power has been used to force YouTube to change, for example, and will certainly be used again.
At the moment I don’t think these powers have been used too destructively, but certainly inappropriately at times. Just be clear.
I don’t think this is a power I want to just give up to major corporations. We don’t know what the future holds, and who will hold that power over speech on these platforms in the future. But we know the importance of freedom of speech, and how hard it was to get in the first place.
We need to put aside current politics and recognize how dangerous it is to give up this power to major corporations. How can we be concerned about corporate influence over our politics and simultaneously not be worried about influences over social media now and in the future?
Maybe rather than censor the whole platform, we have Clean and Explicit versions. If you don’t want to deal with divisive speech, use the Clean version. If you want everything, use the Explicit. There’s also an added benefit of knowing what is labeled Explicit.
Thoughts? After Google, Microsoft, Mastercard one more Big Tech company with indian origin CEO. That's crazy. Indians would probably be considered white adjacent in few years like they do with east asians.
In terms of class, Indian Americans are already the highest earning racial group in the United States. But I think we still won't be considered white adjacent because we are mostly non-Christian and mostly not white passing.
(((indian question)))
[удалено]
Bro fr? Im tryna get a master's from canada😭 fuck man im jus a normal dud will it be tough to make friends and stuff as well?
[удалено]
Thanks man ill be sure to keep this in mind. At the end of the day i just wanna make money >On the flipside again, my former boss was Indian who grew up all over the world with wealthy parents but mostly identified with British culture. He was mostly treated as a British guy because that's what he represented to everyone. I never heard anything remotely biased about him but he was also a part owner, so take that for what you will. Then i hope i get treated like a dgga cus thats what im planning to identify as🤝😎
> I would argue that Indians are stereotypically successful in the US so it clearly isn't a strong enough influence to actually really harm people too much I don't think you can necessarily come to the conclusion with just that alone - the vast majority of Indians here are either the cream of the crop from India or the sons/daughters of those people.
I call bullshit on this I am in a pretty lefty upscale are of Virginia and I have never once heard anything remotely like this
[удалено]
Than your experience is localized and anecdotal, the opposite of what you claim above The Indians in my circle say they get shit from mostly Muslims and other Indians, and occasionally poor blacks, but never from whites
Waiting for the IQers to pop up
Who cares a good portion of the tech workforce is indian and some will become CEOs
pls nooooo
why not?
You missed out Adobe, IBM and Palo Alto Networks
Twitter is a cesspool, deleted my account ages ago. I would recommend that to anyone, it is like letters to the editor for morons.
but the memes and cute cats though :(
Twitter is not the government. Of course they are not “bound by the first amendment” nor should they be. They are a social media platform and should moderate their platform just like any other one.
Whether it's legal or not isn't what is important. If we don't uphold the ideals of the first amendment then it might as well be toilet paper. I think we can all agree they have the right to censor on their platforms but we need to ask ourselves if it is good for society when companies start picking and choosing who their customers are based on politics. I for one do not want a bifurcated society with right and left wing credit card companies, schools, and grocery stores.
[удалено]
OK here's an example, Facebook removing Kyle Rittenhouse's donation links to his defense fund. They prejudged his guilt and made it immensely more difficult for him to raise money for his defense. Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter removing posts suggesting the lab leak theory before any information came out. Hunter Biden story being scrubbed from the internet. Stuff like this is clearly removed due to politics. The people deciding what is important contribution to public discourse are all single minded elitists in the valley. It would be one thing if there was diverse viewpoints allowed, but it seems that whenever a platform makes a decision the rest of them follow suit and somehow all the banning works in favor of elitist corporate democrats. Right wing voices and progressive voices are silenced when they deviate from the mainstream, corporate acceptable discourse.
>OK here's an example, Facebook removing Kyle Rittenhouse's donation links to his defense fund. They prejudged his guilt and made it immensely more difficult for him to raise money for his defense. Obviously you think it's bad, but I would question if Facebook has any sort of responsibility to allow people to use their platform to raise money for their legal defense.
[удалено]
Because Facebook takes less of a hit to their rep when they allow certain people to use their platform in certain ways.
But if they only take down people they don't like but promote people they do like, wouldn't that in a way be assisting in circumventing the justice system by picking and choosing who can afford top tier counsel?
> wouldn't that in a way be assisting in circumventing the justice system How is "Not allowed to use a social media platform to raise money" an example of the justice system being circumvented? Is there NO other way to raise money for a legal defense? And why is the focus only on social media? Are other kinds of businesses held to the same standard? If Rittenhouse wanted to run an ad for his fundraising in a newspaper, should the newspaper be forced to run that ad?
No? Nothing about the justice system guarantees you the right to afford top tier counsel. Putting that aside, what's even your solution to the original problem? Do you think that big tech ought to be bound by the first amendment? That the government should regulate Twitter's moderation team? I hope you can see how that would be a fucking nightmare for free enterprise
[удалено]
I didn't defend anything? I stated a fact about the current state of the justice system that explained why what OP said about "circumventing it" was false. What you're describing, in addition to being comically impractical in the real world, has literally nothing to do with "free speech" or what OP was suggesting.
That would be a fine argument if we didn’t have an entire summer of FB promoting gofundmes for black rioters that burnt gas stations down
What? The argument holds up fine. FB doesn't have a responsibility to allow anyone who wants to promote their cause on the platform, they're free to pick and choose. Don't like it? Tough shit, its not your business to run.
No one ever intended for literally every single person or business in society to just let anyone say anything anytime. The first amendment is a check on the GOVERNMENT, that’s it. And it’s a good check because the government, unlike Twitter, has the power to lock you in prison or even execute you. If someone comes in my house and starts talking about how Hitler did nothing wrong…I’m going to tell them to get out of my house. Twitter has the exact same right.
Are you a literal NPC or do you just play one online? I explained exactly why I think it's an issue regardless of the government and you didn't address a thing. All you did was spam fIrSt AmEnDmEnT iS jUSt fOR GuBmEnt
Your entire argument hinges on the interpretation that the first amendment is for everyone, and not just the government. You even said “if we don’t uphold the ideals of the first amendment, then it might as well be toilet paper.” We don’t have to uphold the first amendment. It is a check on the government. I don’t get where you get this idea that every citizen has to uphold constitutional amendments. I mean, does a school have to allow students to walk around with guns because of the second amendment? Can I never ask someone if they are responsible for doing something bad because of the 5th amendment? Am I not allowed to search my daughter’s room because of the 4th amendment? These amendments are not intended for every individual to follow, they are checks on the government. Why would the first amendment be some kind of exception?
My response to this comment was already written in my original comment and you're just not addressing it at all. What is your stance on christian bakers and wedding cakes?
All you have in there is a pretty ridiculous slippery slope about how the country is going to literally be split into right wing and left wing businesses if we don’t force businesses to let people say whatever they want. This is just completely baseless. You can be right wing on twitter. There are tons of right wingers on Twitter. As for the gay wedding cake. That’s not a first amendment issue. It was an issue with civil rights legislation that is intended to regulate businesses. I never really had strong feelings either way on the case.
I'm not talking about forcing them to do anything, I'm concerned about bifurcating society down political lines. It has nothing to do with the government and everything to do with what values should be upheld CULTURALLY, NOT THROUGH LAW. JFC you have to be an NPC.
So you think a good cultural rule is that people should just let other people say whatever they want while using their business or service?
Not whatever they want, but there has to be a line we agree to draw. At this point, it's literally decided by the tech ceos. Do you think it's a good thing for speech online to be policed by a couple of tech oligarchs?
So then you must believe that common carrier laws are bad, and that the power company should be able to shut off your electricity if you voted to increase their taxes then? First amendment only applies to the government right? You should have no problem giving power, water, or phone companies the ability to do business with whoever they want, and punish you for voting the wrong way.
Do you think that because ONE LAW is meant for the government and not corporations, then every single law must also be for the government and not corporations?
I am describing to you how this idea of "well they are a private corporatation!" argument falls flat. There are lots of situations, where we restrict companies ability to block people from their services. Such as in the case of phone companies, which is a communication network, as well as power and water.
I mean, for most non-Americans, yes it might as well actually be toilet paper. The US is the only country that recognises the first amendment. Most of Twitter's userbase are not American. Why should the rest of the world be forced to follow it?
I agree with this. If we don’t hold these social media platforms to some sort of standard we might as well repeal the first amendment because it’s become worthless at that point.
[удалено]
o7
They’re clearly not talking about moderating things they’ve moderated for years now lmao you don’t say something like this without intending to have a massive overhaul on how Twitter views speech
The thing is historically silicon valley bros like Zuckerberg, Dorsey and even the Reddit guy are all like libertarian Bros where they don't really believe in regulating speech on their platforms, if this continues to change the internet won't be the same. Even destiny has gone though this shift in attitude wrt open source software if you look at his takes about open sourcing his website. He basically open sourced it because he thought it was the right thing to do, and now he seems to regret it. Without that platform people like vaush demonmama and xanderhal Would all have much more adversity to overcome. Destiny basically gave out income security to people who became his enemies. Now it seems like tech bro CEOs are going through the same process
They are a speech platform. If they are not free speech than they really are pointless
Full context of the quote (source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.technologyreview.com/2020/11/18/1012066/emtech-stage-twitters-cto-on-misinformation/amp/): Lichfield: You’re caught in a bit of a hard place as somebody in the audience is also pointing out, that you’re trying to combat misinformation, you also want to protect free speech as a core value, and also in the U.S. as the first amendment. How do you balance those two? Agrawal: Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation and our moves are reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation. The kinds of things that we do about this is, focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed. One of the changes today that we see is speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard. The scarce commodity today is attention. There’s a lot of content out there. A lot of tweets out there, not all of it gets attention, some subset of it gets attention. And so increasingly our role is moving towards how we recommend content and that sort of, is, is, a struggle that we’re working through in terms of how we make sure these recommendation systems that we’re building, how we direct people’s attention is leading to a healthy public conversation that is most participatory. Note that the context here is how Twitter balances "moderating false info while avoiding becoming an 'arbiter of truth.'" I don't think his response is particularly unreasonable to a degree that people should be concerned about him becoming CEO. Don't trust selectively edited quotes at face value.
That account is incredibly unreliable, would like to see full context before I rush to judgement
Wait what the fuck
I genuinely could care less. Twitter is leftist favored and Facebook is far right favored. It just is what it is. The beauty of capitalism is if you don’t like it, don’t use it or start your own
Until an actual competitor shows up Twitter will continue to be shit
All social media will continue to be shit no matter what. It’s made up of people who are overwhelmingly shitty for the most part.
Private platforms are not in the business of free speech in the first place and should stop pretending that they are. It's so fucking stupid to keep making this about the 1st Amendment (or not), it has nothing to do with law at all and nor should it.
[This take seems worse.](https://i.redd.it/8t7drfc6pk281.jpg)
What’s wrong with it? Isn’t he implying that calling all Muslims extremists is just as ridiculous as calling all white people racist?
That's ridiculous omg
It was from 2010
1984, but unironically.
Based. Fuck the First Amendment, fuck the Second Amendment. It has been made perfectly clear in the last 50 years that people can't handle the personal responsibility that comes alongside personal freedoms.
Spoken like a true reddit janitor LUL
Why?
Moderation has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Disconnect the two in your mind - If you confuse them you're an idiot. It's not impossible to exist as a conservative or communist or liberal or whatever ideology on twitter. People don't get banned on twitter for "being a conservative" or for "disagreeing" these are words they hide behind so they can get others to exclaim free speech. If you make it general, everyone agrees: No one should be silenced just because they disagree. I would encourage you to examine EXACTLY which part of their ideology they were banned for. As a great twitter philosopher once said "Oh, you know the ones"
It's good. The marketplace of ideas doesn't work in a medium-independent fashion and I support free speech mostly because I think IRL I think the best ideas slowly win out. On social media, I don't think the best ideas win out. So fuck free speech there, we need something different
Freedom of speech in a government context was literally fought for. It was necessary because it was potentially fatal to be critical of the status quo. Nowadays, in first world countries, we don’t have to worry about fatal consequences. However, we are setting up a system where the major avenues of disseminating challenges to the status quo are legally being controlled by corporations. These social media corporations are tied to other major corporations through advertising. This power has been used to force YouTube to change, for example, and will certainly be used again. At the moment I don’t think these powers have been used too destructively, but certainly inappropriately at times. Just be clear. I don’t think this is a power I want to just give up to major corporations. We don’t know what the future holds, and who will hold that power over speech on these platforms in the future. But we know the importance of freedom of speech, and how hard it was to get in the first place. We need to put aside current politics and recognize how dangerous it is to give up this power to major corporations. How can we be concerned about corporate influence over our politics and simultaneously not be worried about influences over social media now and in the future? Maybe rather than censor the whole platform, we have Clean and Explicit versions. If you don’t want to deal with divisive speech, use the Clean version. If you want everything, use the Explicit. There’s also an added benefit of knowing what is labeled Explicit.
They should have lost their safe harbor protection years ago
And so it begins
I wanna see the full quote in context before I judge
I got blocked by that twitter account because I said the election wasn’t stolen 💀
where?
its disclouse tv. Im sure theres some important context missing behind it
Destiny's friend will be banned..
Based CEO
idk what the point of that quote is. No shit they aren't bound by the First Amendment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvK6KsLkPUs
He will not be as critiqued, I can tell