Big Tech is NOT the same thing as Social Media
The title says it all. I'm really annoyed by all of you using "Big Tech" interchangeably with Social Media. That's like using the phrase "Wall Street" interchangeably with Big Banks.
One, it's just false and two, it gives people the wrong impression. (You know how people hate "Wall Street" because they think everyone on Wall Street is a banker).
More than half of Big Tech isn't even in Social Media. Are Apple, Amazon, and Netflix trying to spread some leftist ideologies selling you phones, delivering things to you, and letting you binge-watch Breaking Bad? NO.
Also, Twitter doesn't even count as Big Tech.
So don't lump in Big Tech with Social Media and describe their problems to be one and the same. Step back and use some critical thinking. They're different entities with different problems.
Please, fix, Thanks.
ok
Well, Amazon's CEO owns the Washington Post, which has gone off the rails in the last 4 or 5 years (it's always been liberal, but it's unrecognizable now--it's 4 frontpage editorials). Amazon is consistently in battles with conservatives over banning their books. Netflix consistently puts out specials and documentaries from the political left (e.g. Barack Obama, Hannah Gadsby). Apple is the least egregious, but have you seen Apple's newsfeed on your phone? It got so unbelievably political and politically liberal that I had to turn it off. Tim Cook is an outspoken liberal Democrat.
Those companies aren't quite as influential in the community narrative, so to speak, but they are decidedly left-wing. As a conservative, I still use Amazon, Netflix, and Apple products, but let's not pretend like these organizations are somehow neutral.
Does Amazon own shares od Washington Post? No. Bezos owns a separate holdings that owns Washington Post.
They also banned a book that tries to explain why homosexuality should NOT be demonized to far-right crazies last time I checked. Most of the books they're banning are Holocaust denial books it seems so I'm fine with that part. But yeah they probably shouldn't be banning books in the first place. Personally olay with a big fat warning label saying "Warning: This book may contains highly controversial opinions and may make false or unproven allegations".
Netflix also put out bunch of stuff that conservatives would like last time I checked. It even recommended me a documentary praising Trump for some reason.
Example: Trump: An American Dream.
Really? Can I show you my phone feeds? It's really political but I get a bunch of Fox News articles with a sprinkle of CNN here and there.
Most likely so. But I think you're seeing what you want to see here. Self-confirmation bias ehem.
Agree with that point but there really is no "systematic suppression" going on in the way people perceive it to be. It exists but it's not what people think it is (kind of like my point on systemic racism, it exists but it ain't what people think it is).
Also the whole "censorship" thing is the tip of the iceberg. Last time I checked, FB and YouTube are still recommending alt-right and white supremacist contents to bunch of people. They're just censoring some stuff cuz they're trying to tell the world "they're not racist". Corporate virtue signaling at its worst IMO.
Right, ok, yeah. You want to talk about "confirmation bias"? How about the guy who writes a long post in defense of Amazon, Netflix, and Apple being neutral participants in politics rather than liberal partisans. The level of denial here is beyond that which is worthy of response.
Apple's favorite color is green and you can say the same thing about Amazon. So what if Tim Cook is a liberal democrat. Warren Buffett is also a liberal democrat. These companies are not part of some secret cabal designed to transform the US into a socialist society.
The reason technology companies tend to have liberal employees is liberal people like technology. It is not like all of a sudden you get to Apple and then they brainwash you into becoming a liberal.
Ok. Define Big Tech.
2 Most prominent definitions.
1) FAANG + Microsoft = FB, Apple, Amzn, Netflix, Google, and Msft.
2) Broader definition: Any tech company approximately over $100B market cap.
This is gonna include companies like Salesforce, Oracle, Cisco, Nvidia, Qualcomm, IBM, and even Shopify nowadays.
See how TWITTTER, the "source of all evil" isn't Big Tech?
Many of these companies engage in some sort of monopoly like behavior or at least oligopolistic behaviors. But most of such behaviors have nothing to do with "censorship".
It's incredibly erroneous and dangerous to lump Big Tech, Censorship, and monopoly together and treat them "all to be the same". That line of thought is not much different from lumping together all "finance companies" and saying you have to "regulate" them because they "caused the financial crisis" and "screw people over". But you know the truth is you have to view banks, asset managers, HFs, PEs, Prop Trading shops, etc... separately.
If we stick to the first definition, they are all cancerous, some to a much higher degree than others.
The second, I agree with you, though broadly the fact that much of America's corporate culture adopted woke values makes them all cancer, not limited to tech at all.
Lol this is a shit definition of big tech..
"big tech" if you want to be strict is really just Apple, FB, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Tencent and Alibaba. Modern tech companies with a commitment to innovation, a planetary scale, deep top notch technical talent pools and a diversified product portfolio.
legacy names aren't big tech
one trick ponies like Netflix aren't big tech
top notch established tech companies that haven't quite reached big tech status (like Uber, Lyft, Twitter etc) aren't big tech
alternatively, you could just lump all major modern (i.e. non-legacy) tech companies together that are established (i.e. have had an exit) and call that whole institution of companies "big tech" if you want to be less strict.
placing an arbitrary cut-off on market cap is at best diminutive and at worst finger waving bs.
Doesn't FB fit into the social media category? I know they've been working on virtual reality stuff, but the public hasn't really been interested in it as a consumer.
I agree. If there is a rant to be made, it would be made against Twitter and Facebook, which to me, do not serve as much of a useful purpose for society. For me, the biggest and most important tech company in the world is Google followed by Apple. Google is a great company and is very useful for companies and consumers. I think there is a case to be made for Google's search to be broken up but I am not sure how you would do it. Amazon is big tech but in my view there is nothing so special about what Amazon does that other companies can't do. Since Google is the most important tech company, the focus should be on Google. I do not see any evidence that Google is trying to push any type of ideology.
Back to social media companies who may be pushing an ideology: Twitter and Facebook. I would describe Twitter as left leaning and perhaps Facebook is right learning. These social media companies contributed to DJT being elected in 2016 and then Trump used Twitter to promote his agenda. I do not see how these companies were detrimental to any conservative issues. You might argue that Twitter's censoring of Trump was an example of how they are promoting a left wing agenda but that only happened recently.
I don't see how Twitter censoring Mr Trump is indicative of any kind of bias. I would argue that social media platforms should have a requirement to make sure that the content being posted on their site is not deliberately mendacious, especially when it comes from a prominent political figure. When Mr Trump becomes a private citizen again, I'll defend to the death his right to say what he wants. But when he's POTUS, his actions come with additional scrutiny and should command additional oversight from fact-checkers - it's absurd to say that he has the right to use the office to push partisan conspiracy theories. Whether you subscribe to the theory or not, the traditional "job" of the media has been to impose some sense of restraint and honesty on public discourse - I very much believe in that, and don't like the relative polarization of media outlets, but social media is still media and I think they have a responsibility to at least attempt to provide accurate information for public discourse.
I agree but I am trying to look at it from the other side to see what the thesis might be for a conspiracy. It just does not seem logical to me. The supreme court is 6-3 favoring conservatives and the senate will likely have a conservative bias. We have a POTUS, that is it. If anything, liberals should be concerned about the supreme court's composition and how their decisions will affect society. Yesterday, the SCOTUS, ruled 5-4 in favor of religious organizations being able to gather during Covid. I have not read the details regarding the decision but now the orthodox Jews can pack themselves into a synagogue during Covid without violating the law. I am sure they will do just that.
The very reason Social Media companies have been able to evade most laws surrounding actual news organizations is because legally they are not classified as networks. This is getting looked into currently, see this article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/social-medias-liability-shield-is-under-as… . All these hearings really only have to do with this question: should social media companies be held accountable for their users’ posts or not? The argument is that if the social media companies are willing to censor (in other words, edit) users’ posts, then the company is taking on the role of being an editor distributing accurate, credible news. Currently Facebook and Twitter aren’t on the hook for users’ opinions, but if that status changes there will be a seismic shift in what these platforms actually are. The issue currently is that there’s a blurred line: many Americans get their “news” from these platforms, which aren’t regulated or treated as news organizations by the law, and arguably shouldn’t be treated as such by the public either. Jack Dorsey wants to have to both ways, where Twitter can be a platform for “free” speech, but also be an accountable news source. More than anything, this is a categorization issue. Should Twitter be treated like a network, and regulated as such? If so, one could argue it can’t be a social media company under those rules. It would be like the WSJ hiring DJT to be a permanent op-ed author through Tweet sized articles. It’s fundamentally different than a user-owned and operated account posting their unedited opinion, which is what Twitter originally was. Will be interesting to see where this ends up over the next few months / years.
I would also agree to OP here. So much Trumptards believe everything he says.
Ranting against "Big Tech" seems to be a short-sighted Republican agenda damaging all sorts of tech companies based in California (because average Trumpsters hate California) including all sorts of Social Media (Twitter, FB, Reddit etc.), (former) start up companies (Amazon, Netflix, Apple, Tesla...) but also FinTech and Crypto (DeFi, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Lightning Labs, Avalanche Labs...) and also Gavin Newsom in general to smear him and call him friend of China when he tries to improve relations and tidy up some of the mess Trump has done to the relations...
Would you like to elaborate on this?
I agree with this but the issue is kind of moot. The media / general population has equated big tech to social media and has unfairly placed a high level of scrutiny on actual large tech companies which aren't involved in any kind of information dissemination. But I will say a lot of people also equate big tech with monopolies of various facets of society. Totally different discussion but to your point, people use it as a catch-all for whatever they see wrong / virtue-signaling
Atque dolore doloremque quod et. Laudantium nihil id odit. Quae consectetur sit aspernatur aut corrupti. Minima at dicta occaecati incidunt. Quod asperiores occaecati velit.
Earum eligendi rem id quia repellendus. Cumque repudiandae delectus aut voluptatem. Fugiat maiores deserunt repellat quos. Et sequi laboriosam dolores iure soluta aut.
Tempora a et quia modi. Pariatur voluptates voluptas architecto ut sed quibusdam. Aut qui ex laborum blanditiis repellendus necessitatibus.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...