OT: Ken Burns opines on Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg

[91Joe95]

Tell us how you really feel, Ken.

Filmmaker Ken Burns calls Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg ‘an enemy of the state’ who belongs in jail

Ken Burns, known for his Civil War documentary, hopes Mark Zuckerberg ends up in jail.

www.google.com

 

[Op2]

IMO social media is doing a lot of damage to our society and both Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey (Twitter) are both going to go down not well in history. And for that matter, the current MSM, who are handmaidens to the entities abusing power for their own benefit at the cost of the rest of society, won't go down well in history either.

 

[Obliviax]

Wow. Quite a statement. While I liked him, I now respect him.

 

[Eric_M]

Without discussing either side, our MSM is no longer any more credible than that of North Korea, or China. Hell even Baghdad Bob would count as reliable in our current standards.

Even worse both the conservative and liberal media have pushed so many false narratives for the purpose of self agenda, that they have inflamed the social issues they claim to be against.

 

[KC-KS-Lion]

IMO social media is doing a lot of damage to our society and both Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey (Twitter) are both going to go down not well in history. And for that matter, the current MSM, who are handmaidens to the entities abusing power for their own benefit at the cost of the rest of society, won't go down well in history either.

'abusing power for their own benefit at the cost of the rest of society'....not defending any of their actions or intentions, but they are probably not the first American businessmen to do so. Oil barons, steel barons, coal barons (still a few out there), and now the nerd/tech barons. The complementary action is to funnel huge amounts of their benefits into charities, seemingly neutralizing their earlier history.

 

[psuro]

IMO social media is doing a lot of damage to our society and both Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey (Twitter) are both going to go down not well in history. And for that matter, the current MSM, who are handmaidens to the entities abusing power for their own benefit at the cost of the rest of society, won't go down well in history either.

Social media, much like a gun, is either a weapon or a tool, depending on the user.

Personally, I don't have a social media account for the same reason I don't have a gun - I would not trust myself to use it as a tool, and I fear I would use it as a weapon.

 

[psuro]

'abusing power for their own benefit at the cost of the rest of society'....not defending any of their actions or intentions, but they are probably not the first American businessmen to do so. Oil barons, steel barons, coal barons (still a few out there), and now the nerd/tech barons. The complementary action is to funnel huge amounts of their benefits into charities, seemingly neutralizing their earlier history.

The Barons have got this.

 

[Obliviax]

Social media, much like guns, is either a weapon or a tool, depending on the user.

Personally, I don't have a social media account for the same reason I don't have a gun - I would not trust myself to use it as a tool, and I fear I would use it as a weapon.

Totally agree. My biggest beef is that they have begin to call themselves a forum to get around legal liability issues but then have decided to selectively deplatform posts. Ok, I get it. But they’ve now deplatformed several that have been proven correct.

my speculation is that Burns beef is that social media has killed the MSM, at least in how we once knew it. But has exploited rules that kept the media, at least a little, in check. Now that the media has been reduced to ‘entertainment’ there is no anchor or baseline for real news.

 

[psuro]

Totally agree. My biggest beef is that they have begin to call themselves a forum to get around legal liability issues but then have decided to selectively deplatform posts. Ok, I get it. But they’ve now deplatformed several that have been proven correct.

my speculation is that Burns beef is that social media has killed the MSM, at least in how we once knew it. But has exploited rules that kept the media, at least a little, in check. Now that the media has been reduced to ‘entertainment’ there is no anchor or baseline for real news.

The validity of the information is not the issue - there are posts that have deplatformed here on this board, where the information may be valid. It's following the rules of platform that lead to the deplatforming.

Private entities can make their own rules. You can either choose to abide by them, or suffer the consequences of not. It's not complicated.

 

[Obliviax]

The validity of the information is not the issue - there are posts that have deplatformed here on this board, where the information may be valid. It's following the rules of platform that lead to the deplatforming.

Private entities can make their own rules. You can either choose to abide by them, or suffer the consequences of not. It's not complicated.

Sorry...I have to disagree. And that is OK. This isn't a major news outlet like the big techs have become. By simply deplatforming anyone who you disagree with (even after being proven correct) you have become a news outlet. The team here has done a good job of deleting both sides of many arguments, which is a very difficult thing to do. The nuance is the size as well as the continued one-sidedness shown by FB, Twitter and YouTube (which is owned by Google and operated by FaceBook). Nobody cares about this forum (and they set up a secondary forum for those so inclined to argue political points) so I don't agree with your basic premise.

 

[psuro]

Sorry...I have to disagree. And that is OK. This isn't a major news outlet like the big techs have become. By simply deplatforming anyone who you disagree with (even after being proven correct) you have become a news outlet. The team here has done a good job of deleting both sides of many arguments, which is a very difficult thing to do. The nuance is the size as well as the continued one-sidedness shown by FB, Twitter and YouTube (which is owned by Google and operated by FaceBook). Nobody cares about this forum (and they set up a secondary forum for those so inclined to argue political points) so I don't agree with your basic premise.

The premise is that an entity can make it's own rules irrespective of the validity of issue. Furthermore, each post on this board - and others - are essentially editorial comments, and not objective presentation of facts.

You are also limiting your point to politics, when this board has deleted posts that deal with other issues as well.

It's not complicated.

 

[LaJollaLion]

The premise is that an entity can make it's own rules irrespective of the validity of issue. Furthermore, each post on this board - and others - are essentially editorial comments, and not objective presentation of facts.

You are also limiting your point to politics, when this board has deleted posts that deal with other issues as well.

It's not complicated.

It really isn't complicated. Then again if your editorial service aka the only news you listen to tells you they are bad and you're a victim, this is what you get. FB is the poster child of misinformation and if people do not understand that....that is on them. You see people on this very site take false and misleading information like old pictures representing a bogus new article and post it like it's factual, when in fact it is propaganda. Then you have people on this site crying foul over stuff getting deleted as if they don't have a choice.

 

[Obliviax]

The premise is that an entity can make it's own rules irrespective of the validity of issue. Furthermore, each post on this board - and others - are essentially editorial comments, and not objective presentation of facts.

You are also limiting your point to politics, when this board has deleted posts that deal with other issues as well.

It's not complicated.

well, legislation is being introduced and it is bi-partisan.

I'll leave it there.

"From Amazon and Facebook (FB.O) to Google and Apple (AAPL.O), it is clear that these unregulated tech giants have become too big to care," said U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Washington state Democrat and sponsor of this measure.​

Breaking up Big Tech in focus as new U.S. antitrust bills introduced

A bipartisan group of lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced four bills on Friday aimed at reining in the power of the tech giants, with one potentially leading to their break-up.

www.reuters.com

 

[Cletus11]

Zuckerberg is the devil, I am pretty sure of that. Zero scruples. Horrible person.

 

[BobPSU92]

Social media, much like a gun, is either a weapon or a tool, depending on the user.

Personally, I don't have a social media account for the same reason I don't have a gun - I would not trust myself to use it as a tool, and I fear I would use it as a weapon.

Guns don‘t kill people. Social media kills people.

 

[psuro]

well, legislation is being introduced and it is bi-partisan.

I'll leave it there.

"From Amazon and Facebook (FB.O) to Google and Apple (AAPL.O), it is clear that these unregulated tech giants have become too big to care," said U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Washington state Democrat and sponsor of this measure.​

Breaking up Big Tech in focus as new U.S. antitrust bills introduced

A bipartisan group of lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced four bills on Friday aimed at reining in the power of the tech giants, with one potentially leading to their break-up.

www.reuters.com

Fair enough. But even other legislation that broke up big industrial giants didn't change how they conducted their business.

But, I will also let this rest. Other dragons to slay today and I need the energy.

 

[Obliviax]

Fair enough. But even other legislation that broke up big industrial giants didn't change how they conducted their business.

But, I will also let this rest. Other dragons to slay today and I need the energy.

Agreed....the devil is in the details. But like Anti-Trust legislation, it can be invoked when you get to a certain size. We'll see if it happens. I suspect, even the threat of it happening, is a good thing. I'd like to see them open to the same legal liability as standard media outlets, at the very least. The technology is there to make this reality and it would, at least, provide a level of protection for those damaged by FB, et all, editorial deplatforming.

I appreciate the positive tone of the conversation.

 

[Mile High Lion]

Tell us how you really feel, Ken.

Filmmaker Ken Burns calls Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg ‘an enemy of the state’ who belongs in jail

Ken Burns, known for his Civil War documentary, hopes Mark Zuckerberg ends up in jail.

www.google.com

Social media has changed the world for better and for worse but to end up in jail you need to break the law..

Okay Ken, or anybody, what is the law Mark Zuckerberg is breaking? You can't just call someone an enemy of the state and throw them in jail.

 

[Lion84]

I agree they are private entities but when they have the power to decide what is correct and what isn't it becomes a problem - i.e. Standard Oil deciding what was the right price to charge for oil and they controlled all the oil - hence the Sherman Anti-Trust Act - it is so hard to actually get real news these days and social media and the internet have contributed to the problem but there are no easy solutions.

 

[ftlpsu]

'abusing power for their own benefit at the cost of the rest of society'....not defending any of their actions or intentions, but they are probably not the first American businessmen to do so. Oil barons, steel barons, coal barons (still a few out there), and now the nerd/tech barons. The complementary action is to funnel huge amounts of their benefits into charities, seemingly neutralizing their earlier history.

Good comparison but major difference is these Tech nerds are affecting all of society with massive misinformation and hysteria--they also have tapped into a large imature audience (millennials)...the aforementioned "The Men who built America" really just manipulated industry and affected jobs-which doesn't mean they were morally correct.

Moreover its important to understand these guys motivation---if you realize that very few people--cant think of one?
Have both--MONEY and POWER..think about that? Bill Gates has Money not Power....Biden has Power not Money. These guys have MONEY and want POWER....its their selfish motivation to drive their egos...

 

[Jerry]

IMO social media is doing a lot of damage to our society and both Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey (Twitter) are both going to go down not well in history. And for that matter, the current MSM, who are handmaidens to the entities abusing power for their own benefit at the cost of the rest of society, won't go down well in history either.

They're not worried because they plan to write the history...and erase the parts they don't like.

It seems like "media" in today's world can be divided into three parts: niche, mainstream, and social.

With niche media, you get an undisguised point of view. You know what it is and go there to get it. It's honest at least.

With mainstream media, you get a propaganda machine pretending to neutrally report the news and inform the public. It's dishonest and corrupt.

With social media, you get the public square where most people now go to get information and express opinions...but whose owners and operators impose their own ideological filters on the discourse and have the power to harm users with whom they disagree. It's dishonest and destructive.

So the common denominator of all three is that they're in the agenda business...not the news business. Maybe the closest thing we have left to a non-ideological information source is the regional television affiliate where you get local news and weather.

 

[The Spin Meister]

Social media, much like a gun, is either a weapon or a tool, depending on the user.

Personally, I don't have a social media account for the same reason I don't have a gun - I would not trust myself to use it as a tool, and I fear I would use it as a weapon.

Excellent post. I have had a loaded pistol next to my bed for decades that has never shot anyone. But I don’t have a carry permit because a) never felt it was necessary and b) worries I would get caught up in a road rage fit-of-anger mistake. However, the way things are now plus I am older, calmer and sadly no longer the imposing specimen I once was I am reconsidering.

As for Burns.....surprised he took such strong position. And his follow up comments were a bit criptic. Wish he had clarified more and/or the reporter pushed a little more. He says the country is in the most precarious state in its history. That kind of statement from such a respected historian needs further discussion.

 

[Thomas1945]

Fair enough. But even other legislation that broke up big industrial giants didn't change how they conducted their business.

But, I will also let this rest. Other dragons to slay today and I need the energy.

Agreed....the devil is in the details. But like Anti-Trust legislation, it can be invoked when you get to a certain size. We'll see if it happens. I suspect, even the threat of it happening, is a good thing. I'd like to see them open to the same legal liability as standard media outlets, at the very least. The technology is there to make this reality and it would, at least, provide a level of protection for those damaged by FB, et all, editorial deplatforming.

I appreciate the positive tone of the conversation.

I commend you both for having a respectful and informative conversation. Something that is sadly sorely lacking on any social media platform.

 

[manatree]

Social media, much like a gun, is either a weapon or a tool, depending on the user.

Personally, I don't have a social media account for the same reason I don't have a gun - I would not trust myself to use it as a tool, and I fear I would use it as a weapon.

Your Rivals account is a social media account.

 

[psuro]

Your Rivals account is a social media account.

Maybe.... but it's not really an open account to the general public like Bookgram or Instaface. It's based on individuals having a specific interest and being able to chat about it (and other things). I am also on a message board for AOPA and that is only geared towards people who are interested in flying/airplanes.

There are nuances either way, and I could see both sides of the argument being correct and appropriate.

 

[83wuzme]

What fools we were to think that things Twitter and Facebook were harmless. Or that nerdy entrepreneurs didn’t possess the same human capacity for malevolent self interest.
I saw Zuckerberg speaking to an audience several months ago. He looked like a guy who is now a slave to his own creation.

 

[psuro]

I commend you both for having a respectful and informative conversation. Something that is sadly sorely lacking on any social media platform.

Go screw yourself.

 

[Obliviax]

Go screw yourself.

 

[MacNit07]

The validity of the information is not the issue - there are posts that have deplatformed here on this board, where the information may be valid. It's following the rules of platform that lead to the deplatforming.

Private entities can make their own rules. You can either choose to abide by them, or suffer the consequences of not. It's not complicated.

Totally agree. But the “rules” are not transparent. Who would think that a football/sports board would have a political slant and that slant would involve censoring discussion accordingly.

 

[BobPSU92]

Your Rivals account is a social media account.

This board is antisocial media.

 

[BobPSU92]

Tell us how you really feel, Ken.

Filmmaker Ken Burns calls Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg ‘an enemy of the state’ who belongs in jail

Ken Burns, known for his Civil War documentary, hopes Mark Zuckerberg ends up in jail.

www.google.com

I’m sure it’s all just a misunderstanding.

 

[Jerry]

I agree they are private entities but when they have the power to decide what is correct and what isn't it becomes a problem - i.e. Standard Oil deciding what was the right price to charge for oil and they controlled all the oil - hence the Sherman Anti-Trust Act - it is so hard to actually get real news these days and social media and the internet have contributed to the problem but there are no easy solutions.

This "private entities" thing is a fraud.

These are business monopolies with huge power operating in the public sphere and providing a public service for profit. The idea they should have free rein to discriminate and penalize while immune from legal remedies is a joke.

We've seen a small-town, mom-and-pop bakery be dragged through years of investigation and litigation for its customer service policy. No private-entities refuge for the owners.

Or how about if Walmart devised ideological litmus tests that you had to pass to shop there. Hey, they're a "private entity" after all.

 

[Obliviax]

This "private entities" thing is a fraud.

These are business monopolies with huge power operating in the public sphere and providing a public service for profit. The idea they should have free rein to discriminate and penalize while immune from legal remedies is a joke.

We've seen a small-town, mom-and-pop bakery be dragged through years of investigation and litigation for its customer service policy. No private-entities refuge for the owners.

Or how about if Walmart devised ideological litmus tests that you had to pass to shop there. Hey, they're a "private entity" after all.

yeah...and the fact that the bill was introduced by whom it was and enjoys a lot of bipartisan support speaks volumes.

 

[LaJollaLion]

This "private entities" thing is a fraud.

These are business monopolies with huge power operating in the public sphere and providing a public service for profit. The idea they should have free rein to discriminate and penalize while immune from legal remedies is a joke.

We've seen a small-town, mom-and-pop bakery be dragged through years of investigation and litigation for its customer service policy. No private-entities refuge for the owners.

Or how about if Walmart devised ideological litmus tests that you had to pass to shop there. Hey, they're a "private entity" after all.

Who is forcing anyone to read these sites? Is there any law requiring you to read or join social media? I cannot stand the amount of BS they allow to be passed on out there....but nobody is forcing anyone to sign up, pretty sure people do this all on their own.

 

[Obliviax]

Who is forcing anyone to read these sites? Is there any law requiring you to read or join social media? I cannot stand the amount of BS they allow to be passed on out there....but nobody is forcing anyone to sign up, pretty sure people do this all on their own.

no different than the media (Fox, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo) but have different rules. I don't see how "choice" is a differentiator.

 

[Jerry]

Your Rivals account is a social media account.

Technically true, but it's niche social media. I mean, there are, what, 10,000 message boards out there focused on every topic under the sun. That's a totally different animal from the Facebooks, Twitters, and YouTubes of the world.

 

[LaJollaLion]

no different than the media (Fox, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo) but have different rules. I don't see how "choice" is a differentiator.

Well actually the media can be sued or held accountable and have to print retractions if they got it wrong. There are actual laws on the book for libel and governing the press. That is why you see certain news stations claim their nightly hosts are entertainment so they get around being held accountable for pumping out misleading information.

Are you going to slap a lawsuit on Fran the hair dresser for posting a picture that was wrongfully labeled? Is she now a news organization?

 

[Obliviax]

Well actually the media can be sued or held accountable and have to print retractions if they got it wrong. There are actual laws on the book for libel and governing the press. That is why you see certain news stations claim their nightly hosts are entertainment so they get around being held accountable for pumping out misleading information.

Are you going to slap a lawsuit on Fran the hair dresser for posting a picture that was wrongfully labeled? Is she now a news organization?

"Fran" is a part of a "forum".

Facebook becomes "news" if they deplatform every "Fran" that says guns should be sold to anyone who wants them but keep a platform for every "fran" that states guns should be banned.

In addition, "Google" can be sued for being a monopoly while still competing with Duck, Duck Go.

 

[LaJollaLion]

"Fran" is a part of a "forum".

Facebook becomes "news" if they deplatform every "Fran" that says guns should be sold to anyone who wants them but keep a platform for every "fran" that states guns should be banned.

In addition, "Google" can be sued for being a monopoly while still competing with Duck, Duck Go.

View embedded media

Google can and should be sued, Google isn't social media nor is it a news organization so I have no idea why you went there. At best they link news from various sites. They are a different animal and an uglier one at that,,,,,but you are saying FB is the news....they aren't. You can say a goat is a cow if you want to, but it doesn't make it so.

Fran can say both things as long as she isn't endangering anyone. I'm a bit more concerned about an actual News Media outlet lying at night with News behind their name, scaring people to death, and then just saying nobody should take them seriously as a copout. I think they have a higher standard to live up to than Fran....but that is just me. Apparently not hearing what you want to on social media is a bigger issue.

 

[Obliviax]

Google can and should be sued, Google isn't social media nor is it a news organization so I have no idea why you went there. At best they link news from various sites. They are a different animal and an uglier one at that,,,,,but you are saying FB is the news....they aren't. You can say a goat is a cow if you want to, but it doesn't make it so.

Fran can say both things as long as she isn't endangering anyone. I'm a bit more concerned about an actual News Media outlet lying at night with News behind their name, scaring people to death, and then just saying nobody should take them seriously as a copout. I think they have a higher standard to live up to than Fran....but that is just me. Apparently not hearing what you want to on social media is a bigger issue.

not really true. but that is a very complex issue as to what is and is not media, a monopoly and the rest.