The Tech Backlash Thread

[SkinsHokieFan]

1 hour ago, zoony said:

 

 

Ahh, now we are labeling Joe Rogan as right wing and google senior engineer as stupid, rather than discussing what they are actually saying.  That these tech companies are the gatekeepers for the information we receive, whether it is left or right.

 

Would love to see all you snowflake skirt wearers reactions if Rupert Murdoch owned google.  LMAO, keep up with the labels, and keep calling your "the right does it too" comebacks as "fact checking".  Let us know how it works come November 2020

 

You myopic blame gamers are the reason sociopaths like Trump become president.  Unfortinately that didnt  serve as a wakeup call, either.  Check the whitenationalist thread... idiots start posting clay travis videos in it where he discusses the double standard at espn and says boobs, like clay travis is organizing white nationalist marches.    Nobody wants to have that discussion, either... just want to label clay travis.  Flame on.

 

Tech company politics are highly relevant, being run by ivory tower california libs who think the only thing wrong with this country is that Trump is trying to deport the wait staff at their favorite michelin starred bistro

 

Exhibit A to the whining, culture we now have coming from the "suck it up snowflake" crowd

 

1) The google engineer was an imbecile. His manfiesto essentially said "the world is flat" and when he was called on it, whined to Fox News and the right wing noise machine. We used to be allowed to call out imbeciles in this country. Now its why Trump was elected. Along with that, the google engineer was a god damn google engineer, who if he had any sense, keeps his mouth shut and joins a start up in 3 years where he becomes a billionaire. The guy was too stupid to do that and deserved his fate. His martydom lasted all of 5 minutes and now we can all move on from his "World is flat" rant.

 

At ES we actually used to call imbeciles with idiotic ideas just that. Its why NavyDave and Sarge aren't around anymore. Now its "Why Trump got elected" 

 

2) Rogan is wrong time and time again. Interesting guy, cool podcast, but he also whines like a little ****. "Boo hoo, Youtube might be censoring me" There are dozens of other platforms to use kid, go ahead and take advantage of it. 

 

3) Tech companies, if you have actually visited them (oh I have the last 2.5 years out in the Bay Area) are generally filled with 20-30 something white/asian/Indian dudes who finally are on top of the food chain. Its a bro culture to 100. Its why Uber is having the issues its having. And it isn't only the big Tech giants, but also places like Zenifits, which ran like a multi million dollar frat house. The "Tech companies are a bunch of lefty" canards are not supported by any facts. They simply want to make more money, have their taxes cut, and hire smart Indians from India on H1-B visas and not lazy Americans who can't do the job they need done. 

 

4) What do we really need to worry about with the tech giants? The vast amount of data they have on us, and for women, how many times they will be sexually harrased at Uber HQ or by trolls on twitter

 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

It's about money, and narrowing the information stream for propaganda purposes, just like we have with other media giants, that brainwash the masses.

[zoony]

48 minutes ago, SkinsHokieFan said:

 

Exhibit A to the whining, culture we now have coming from the "suck it up snowflake" crowd

 

1) The google engineer was an imbecile. His manfiesto essentially said "the world is flat" and when he was called on it, whined to Fox News and the right wing noise machine. We used to be allowed to call out imbeciles in this country. Now its why Trump was elected. Along with that, the google engineer was a god damn google engineer, who if he had any sense, keeps his mouth shut and joins a start up in 3 years where he becomes a billionaire. The guy was too stupid to do that and deserved his fate. His martydom lasted all of 5 minutes and now we can all move on from his "World is flat" rant.

 

At ES we actually used to call imbeciles with idiotic ideas just that. Its why NavyDave and Sarge aren't around anymore. Now its "Why Trump got elected" 

 

2) Rogan is wrong time and time again. Interesting guy, cool podcast, but he also whines like a little ****. "Boo hoo, Youtube might be censoring me" There are dozens of other platforms to use kid, go ahead and take advantage of it. 

 

3) Tech companies, if you have actually visited them (oh I have the last 2.5 years out in the Bay Area) are generally filled with 20-30 something white/asian/Indian dudes who finally are on top of the food chain. Its a bro culture to 100. Its why Uber is having the issues its having. And it isn't only the big Tech giants, but also places like Zenifits, which ran like a multi million dollar frat house. The "Tech companies are a bunch of lefty" canards are not supported by any facts. They simply want to make more money, have their taxes cut, and hire smart Indians from India on H1-B visas and not lazy Americans who can't do the job they need done. 

 

4) What do we really need to worry about with the tech giants? The vast amount of data they have on us, and for women, how many times they will be sexually harrased at Uber HQ or by trolls on twitter

 

 

 

Im not sure I strongly disagree with any of that, just labelling

 

By the way, you are far more polite on twitter to Britt Mchenry, who says far worse.  My guess is you like boobs.  #claytravis

[Corcaigh]

 

Tech bros no longer having completely free rein to treat women like **** in the workplace is now anti-male discrimination. 

 

Most of the top tech executives are very libertarian, not socialists. They have enabled the bro culture for a long time. The only reason most of them don't hire models, strippers, or porn stars to work their tradeshow booths any longer is because they made the mistake of letting women into the marketing department.

 

[Weganator]

I remember prior to when we were bought out, people used to openly talk / joke about pornography and stuff like that.. It was funny and didn't offend me personally, but I just remember being shocked at how brazen some of this was.

[Corcaigh]

And the very idea that tech hiring managers dealing with enormous pressures to deliver on complex projects are thinking that rather than bring in more talented white male heterosexual engineers they will hire the dumb brown-skinned female is so stupid that only Sean Hannity would advance it.

[DogofWar1]

Re: Youtube, there is no magical persecution of one specific group.

 

Youtube as a platform is ****ed for everyone.  Youtube wants ad money, and everything goes back to that.  They haven't figured out how to make their algorithms work appropriately, so a huge number of videos that should not be flagged get flagged, and this is across all kinds of videos.  Lots of lets players, skit groups, reviewers, anime analysis, etc. channels all 

 

A guy was reviewing foreign snacks and his video got demonetized.  His channel's main purpose is short, vine-like skits with anime inspiration that often include no cursing or really anything objectionable, and yet most of videos get demonetized and he has to appeal to get them re-monetized.

 

How it ended up that way, no idea.  No one really knows.

 

DMCA takedowns are the other big issue, of course.  There is definitely an overabundance of caution in some of their algorithms regarding DMCA stuff.

 

But anyways, youtube hates EVERYONE.  It's not just right wingers, or even confined to politics.  Youtube as a platform has been marching down a very anti-creator path for quite a while, lowering revenue per 1,000 views, flagging things, etc. etc.; the golden age hit its peak probably in 2011-2012, and it's been a slow march downhill since then.  Lots of people have migrated to Twitch which, to my knowledge, has much more favorable terms, but I think is also a bit more limited as a platform, so youtube lumbers on.

[SkinsHokieFan]

29 minutes ago, zoony said:

 

Im not sure I strongly disagree with any of that, just labelling

 

By the way, you are far more polite on twitter to Britt Mchenry, who says far worse.  My guess is you like boobs.  #claytravis

 

Its becuase you can handle it  

[Gamebreaker]

3 hours ago, zoony said:

 

 

Ahh, now we are labeling Joe Rogan as right wing and google senior engineer as stupid, rather than discussing what they are actually saying.  That these tech companies are the gatekeepers for the information we receive, whether it is left or right.

 

Would love to see all you snowflake skirt wearers reactions if Rupert Murdoch owned google.  LMAO, keep up with the labels, and keep calling your "the right does it too" comebacks as "fact checking".  Let us know how it works come November 2020

 

You myopic blame gamers are the reason sociopaths like Trump become president.  Unfortinately that didnt  serve as a wakeup call, either.  Check the whitenationalist thread... idiots start posting clay travis videos in it where he discusses the double standard at espn and says boobs, like clay travis is organizing white nationalist marches.    Nobody wants to have that discussion, either... just want to label clay travis.  Flame on.

 

Tech company politics are highly relevant, being run by ivory tower california libs who think the only thing wrong with this country is that Trump is trying to deport the wait staff at their favorite michelin starred bistro

 

Lost in this entirely pointless rant you made, is the fact that none of it has much of anything to do with the post you quoted. 

 

You posted a video that had incorrect information in it. I disputed it. I don't give a **** about Rogan or the ex-Google engineer. They started discussing falsehoods as if they were true, and I cut the video. And yes, I was discussing what they were actually saying and I didn't label them at all. Ironically, you're the one doing all the labeling. 

[Gamebreaker]

1 hour ago, DogofWar1 said:

Re: Youtube, there is no magical persecution of one specific group.

 

Youtube as a platform is ****ed for everyone.  Youtube wants ad money, and everything goes back to that.  They haven't figured out how to make their algorithms work appropriately, so a huge number of videos that should not be flagged get flagged, and this is across all kinds of videos.  Lots of lets players, skit groups, reviewers, anime analysis, etc. channels all 

 

A guy was reviewing foreign snacks and his video got demonetized.  His channel's main purpose is short, vine-like skits with anime inspiration that often include no cursing or really anything objectionable, and yet most of videos get demonetized and he has to appeal to get them re-monetized.

 

How it ended up that way, no idea.  No one really knows.

 

DMCA takedowns are the other big issue, of course.  There is definitely an overabundance of caution in some of their algorithms regarding DMCA stuff.

 

But anyways, youtube hates EVERYONE.  It's not just right wingers, or even confined to politics.  Youtube as a platform has been marching down a very anti-creator path for quite a while, lowering revenue per 1,000 views, flagging things, etc. etc.; the golden age hit its peak probably in 2011-2012, and it's been a slow march downhill since then.  Lots of people have migrated to Twitch which, to my knowledge, has much more favorable terms, but I think is also a bit more limited as a platform, so youtube lumbers on.

 

The major change with YouTube started when Pewdepie, the channel with the most subscribers, created a massive controversy with nazi symbolism or speech. This caused him to lose multiple endorsements, and many  companies began demanding YouTube not have their commercials show up for his videos. This created a snowball effect where YouTube began putting more of a focus on making sure offensive content doesn't get monetized. But their first attempt at it was an absolute disaster. It is slowly getting better, but far too slowly for many YouTube creators who have created Patron accounts and begun asking their subscribers to donate. 

 

And yes, Twitch has become more favorable but they don't pay the popular channels as much as YouTube does now. Amazon owns Twitch, and they have some pretty weird rules if you want to become monetized. I know a guy who has a decent sized channel, you basically need to stream daily for a lot of hours to see anything close to the same money YouTube provides. 

[tshile]

I am absolutely cool with going after registrars, hosting providers, or other service providers that for far too ****ing long have skirted any legal responsibility for how their services are used.

 

They've made a ton of money turning a blind eye to it, and feigning morality when it's brought to their attention.

 

Though with the dark net and onion sites we're probably past them being able to do much, which is unfortunate but given how (slowly) reactive our legislature is it's not surprising. We couldn't be productively proactive if it was our mission statement.

 

I'm also cool with them going after companies that don't safeguard our data. Between the sinister ways they buy and sell data to target people and the incompetence that allows for data breaches, they've gotten away with far too much.

 

They'll **** about politicians making rules about something they know nothing about, and causing problems in their industries, but too bad. You had your chance and you blew it, like the private sector does pretty much every time an industry is allowed to grow largely unchecked for so long.

 

Sorry for interrupting the mundane bull**** about snow flakes and fake news and how sexist white male America is. 

[PeterMP]

delete

[Popeman38]

15 hours ago, tshile said:

I am absolutely cool with going after registrars, hosting providers, or other service providers that for far too ****ing long have skirted any legal responsibility for how their services are used.

 

They've made a ton of money turning a blind eye to it, and feigning morality when it's brought to their attention.

 

Though with the dark net and onion sites we're probably past them being able to do much, which is unfortunate but given how (slowly) reactive our legislature is it's not surprising. We couldn't be productively proactive if it was our mission statement.

 

I'm also cool with them going after companies that don't safeguard our data. Between the sinister ways they buy and sell data to target people and the incompetence that allows for data breaches, they've gotten away with far too much.

 

They'll **** about politicians making rules about something they know nothing about, and causing problems in their industries, but too bad. You had your chance and you blew it, like the private sector does pretty much every time an industry is allowed to grow largely unchecked for so long.

 

Sorry for interrupting the mundane bull**** about snow flakes and fake news and how sexist white male America is. 

Do you want service providers to be monitoring communications, or responding to cease and desist orders/tips?  Because one is massively complex and one is mind-numbingly easy.

[mcsluggo]

first, i just want there to be viable competition to Youtube.    (giant baby-steps, i know)

[Gamebreaker]

2 hours ago, Popeman38 said:

Do you want service providers to be monitoring communications, or responding to cease and desist orders/tips?  Because one is massively complex and one is mind-numbingly easy.

 

Service providers are already monitoring communications, and in some cases, blocking network ports often used for shady activity to preferred clients. They do far more watching and logging than intervening unfortunately. 

[Destino]

I'm not comfortable with corporations becoming too powerful and having too great an influence over society.  I don't care what agenda they're currently pushing or if it agrees with my own.  It doesn't matter if those companies are tech or not.  

 

 

[Popeman38]

1 minute ago, Gamebreaker said:

Service providers are already monitoring communications, and in some cases, blocking network ports often used for shady activity to preferred clients. They do far more watching and logging than intervening unfortunately. 

Right, but I am talking more about content distributors than network services.  Providers, on the whole, are not monitoring what you are blogging about, or what you are selling, or what your website is promoting (unless they have been notified by LEA or enough customers complain).  The reason providers have been protected, for the most part, from liability for what people put online is that people want an outlet.  Do you really want Google, Facebook, Twitter from deciding what is acceptable content?

[justice98]

As a parent of a young child, I hear a lot of people rebeling against technology as it pertains to kids.  Personally, I think it's foolish to try to keep kids in the Stone Ages.  They'll develop just fine, they're growing up in a different time just like we all did, with tech that was supposed to ruin us.

 

Our great grandparents probably couldnt even conceive of the tech we grew up with as a way of life.  

[tshile]

2 hours ago, Popeman38 said:

Do you want service providers to be monitoring communications, or responding to cease and desist orders/tips?  Because one is massively complex and one is mind-numbingly easy.

 

I think your concern is valid.

 

I also think there's a clear difference between monitoring what is acceptable, and stopping child pornography and terrorists (for example). I'm cool with them stopping child pornography and terrorists (for example), not cool with the blocking someone because they don't like the opinion they're pushing.

 

I also think these companies are perfectly capable of it, but would prefer not to, because it would eat into their profit margins. And, honestly, likely cause headaches trying to find the right place to draw the line and to balance walking that line.

 

And for them to now pretend like they care, and then say the gov't shouldn't be telling them what to do, is laughable.

 

I doubt anything significant will happen because ultimately our politicians are so far behind on the issue.

[Destino]

2 minutes ago, justice98 said:

As a parent of a young child, I hear a lot of people rebeling against technology as it pertains to kids.  Personally, I think it's foolish to try to keep kids in the Stone Ages.  They'll develop just fine, they're growing up in a different time just like we all did, with tech that was supposed to ruin us.

 

Our great grandparents probably couldnt even conceive of the tech we grew up with as a way of life.  

About that.  

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/

 

Not everything is just a "kids these days" argument.  Different generations do face different challenges.  Today's technology isn't playing too many video games.  It has greatly changed how people interact.

[tshile]

11 minutes ago, justice98 said:

As a parent of a young child, I hear a lot of people rebeling against technology as it pertains to kids.  Personally, I think it's foolish to try to keep kids in the Stone Ages.  They'll develop just fine, they're growing up in a different time just like we all did, with tech that was supposed to ruin us.

 

Our great grandparents probably couldnt even conceive of the tech we grew up with as a way of life.  

 

There's also the idea that by keeping it from them, you're just forcing them to use it behind your back.

 

There is a real issue with social/mental disorders and social media/internet usage. At least, there's concerns and research going on. That's about as much as I know about it. I also know of a young child who had too much TV as an infant and has depth perception issues, so there's definite developmental issues with technology too (though that's more TV than internet.)

 

When you look at how people, young male particularly, become recruits for an organization like ISIS.... there definitely is cause of concern in regards to the internet and allowing your child, a young inexperienced impressionable mind, to wonder through it without any.... oversight? guidance? I don't know what the right approach is.

 

But mine's 2 and i'm going to have to figure it out soon...

[Popeman38]

17 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I think your concern is valid.

 

I also think there's a clear difference between monitoring what is acceptable, and stopping child pornography and terrorists (for example). I'm cool with them stopping child pornography and terrorists (for example), not cool with the blocking someone because they don't like the opinion they're pushing.

 

I also think these companies are perfectly capable of it, but would prefer not to, because it would eat into their profit margins.

 

And for them to now pretend like they care, and then say the gov't shouldn't be telling them what to do, is laughable.

 

I doubt anything significant will happen because ultimately our politicians are so far behind on the issue.

I think it has more to do with liability than profit margins.  It would be easy to incorporate additional costs into their business models to offset any margin loss.  However, if it is now the responsibility of Google, or Apple, or Facebook, or the ISP, or Twitter to prevent something from getting out (let's use child porn and/or terrorism since you mentioned them), if something gets out that causes real or perceived harm to someone they can be held criminally and civilly liable. There is a reason the service providers aren't responsible for the content of their customers - it is practically impossible to mitigate risk. Service would be ridiculously expensive if providers had to offset that big a financial risk. Child porn and terror are already violations of the T&Cs for any reputable service.  When notified by LEA or NCMEC, most U.S. and European providers terminate service immediately after a certified letter has been confirmed.

 

Hell, imagine if a parent could tangentially tie their child's suicide to the Netflix series 13 Reasons Why.  Is Netflix eligible to be sued by those parents?  Who decides?  It is a really slippery slope, and difficult to address...

 

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, tshile said:

But mine's 2 and i'm going to have to figure it out soon...

Mine's 7, and she is already making plans for when she gets a cellphone.  I kid you not, there are nights I toss and turn and wake up in a cold sweat worrying about scenarios.  It's a nightmare for new parents.  Part of me wants to move to Idaho and go 100% off grid just to avoid having to face those fears (but it won't happen).

[skinsmarydu]

20 minutes ago, justice98 said:

As a parent of a young child, I hear a lot of people rebeling against technology as it pertains to kids.  Personally, I think it's foolish to try to keep kids in the Stone Ages.  They'll develop just fine, they're growing up in a different time just like we all did, with tech that was supposed to ruin us.

 

Our great grandparents probably couldnt even conceive of the tech we grew up with as a way of life.  

My grandmother did not have indoor plumbing in her home until after my grandfather passed in 1974.  To this day, I can adjust to an outhouse or chamber pots if I must (if we don't have to address why I hate the smell of original PineSol). 

We don't purchase or bank online...which is why I'm super ****in' pissed that I've gotta run around ONLINE to 4 different credit agencies to freeze **** I don't use because THEY ****ed up.       

 

/rant

[Gamebreaker]

41 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Right, but I am talking more about content distributors than network services.  Providers, on the whole, are not monitoring what you are blogging about, or what you are selling, or what your website is promoting (unless they have been notified by LEA or enough customers complain).  The reason providers have been protected, for the most part, from liability for what people put online is that people want an outlet.  Do you really want Google, Facebook, Twitter from deciding what is acceptable content?

 

I confused your term of service providers with Verizon and AT&T, instead of GoDaddy(who apparently hosted Breibart for a long time) or Craigslist. My bad. 

[Gamebreaker]

28 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

When you look at how people, young male particularly, become recruits for an organization like ISIS.... there definitely is cause of concern in regards to the internet and allowing your child, a young inexperienced impressionable mind, to wonder through it without any.... oversight? guidance? I don't know what the right approach is.

 

But mine's 2 and i'm going to have to figure it out soon...

 

My sons are 7 and 6, when they started trying to reach websites like Youtube and Nick Jr on an refurbished iMac I bought for family use, I quickly realized they were able to reach stuff I didn't think was possible at their age( they were 4 and 5 at the time). My oldest son was looking for Thomas the Tank Engine videos on Youtube, and ended up getting these weird versions of Thomas that were not suitable for children at all. Youtube has a kids app, but not an actual Youtube kids website( no idea why). 

 

So my first attempt to mitigate this was to block Youtube on the Chrome and Safari browsers. To counter that my son began going to Google, putting in "Thomas the tank" and getting this fake Youtube sites that show all the same content. After I watched him circumvent my block, I downloaded an add-on that redirected Youtube, and every fake youtube page going back 2-3 pages in Google search results to Netflix Kids. This pissed him off, but so far he hasn't been able to figure a way past it. Now for the most part I stay in the same room with them when they use it. Just can't be too careful when they're at this age.