Tech's Message To the Hill: We're Not Facebook (axios.com) 43
TikTok, YouTube and Snapchat will appear before Congress Tuesday with a key priority: distinguishing their practices from Facebook's. From a report: Facebook is under attack, and its tech peers don't want to get caught in the crossfire as lawmakers mull legislation to rein in the company. At the hearing before the Senate Commerce consumer protection subcommittee, representatives from TikTok, YouTube and Snap will focus on ways their services differ from Facebook and Instagram and measures they've already put in place to protect children.
TikTok's Michael Beckerman, vice president and head of public policy, will highlight proactive safety moves the company has made, including disabling direct messages for users under 16. Snap's Jennifer Stout, vice president of global public policy, will note that the company was designed to avoid some of the toxicity of social media platforms and uses human moderation for creator posts that will reach more than 25 users. YouTube's Leslie Miller, vice president of government affairs and public policy, will point out that the company already has designed different services and products for younger users, including YouTube Kids, Made for Kids and Supervised Experiences.
TikTok's Michael Beckerman, vice president and head of public policy, will highlight proactive safety moves the company has made, including disabling direct messages for users under 16. Snap's Jennifer Stout, vice president of global public policy, will note that the company was designed to avoid some of the toxicity of social media platforms and uses human moderation for creator posts that will reach more than 25 users. YouTube's Leslie Miller, vice president of government affairs and public policy, will point out that the company already has designed different services and products for younger users, including YouTube Kids, Made for Kids and Supervised Experiences.
Re: (Score:3)
We're Not Facebook (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Tech wants you to know that they're not Jell-O(tm) either.
We're the next Facebook! (Score:2)
Well, gee, Wally . . . it doesn't seem too long ago that every tech startup was peddling to venture capitalists that they "Will be the next Facebook!"
These days, getting hauled up before the US Congress is a sign of dubious tech achievement.
Remember: (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're not paying for the product, YOU are the product. A simple fact, often forgotten.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube Censors too. (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: YouTube Censors too. (Score:2, Informative)
No he did just that. He went full fascist in the end and stopped hiding it even from total idiots
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get you people that want everything you dislike hearing banned. Just don't turn to that channel. Don't watch that show. Don't fucking click that link to that moron.
I don't see how that translates into a person with distasteful opinions being pushed off a platform. I have no clue what any of these people are talking about because I don't seek out their nonsense.
If the person is calling people to violence, then he's already breaking the law and someone should notify the authorities. Otherwise, your hu
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, YouTube amplifies conservative posts (aka "hate posts"/misinformation/violent content).
YouTube (and all social media) has been the best friend of what passes for conservatives these days.
https://nypost.com/2021/07/09/... [nypost.com]
Anyone else remember the 18 months (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The upcoming gubernatorial election in my state is a close race and both candidates are buying up Youtube spots.
The difference? You are allowed to skip the Republican's ads. But you can't skip the Democrat's ads.
Did one pay extra for this, or is there something else going on? I'd like to know.
Re: (Score:3)
YouTube seems to be terribly inconsistent in letting you skip ads. You may not be able to skip an ad after seeing the same one and skipping several times. I suspect you just got unlucky and noticed a pattern in what is really random noise. Though it may be possible that advertisers are able to pay more to make ads less skipable. (I've never bought a YouTube ad, so I don't know.)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, youtube is just weird with ads. Some you can skip, some you're forced to watch. If I have to watch the full ad, I just don't watch the video. On my computer at least, I see zero ads on youtube anyway, it's only on my TV that they show up.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube seems to be terribly inconsistent in letting you skip ads.
You're a Slashdotter with a 5-digit UID, so I assume you must be watching YT on a phone; there's no excuse for letting it feed you ads if you're using your own computer.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube seems to be terribly inconsistent in letting you skip ads. You may not be able to skip an ad after seeing the same one and skipping several times. I suspect you just got unlucky and noticed a pattern in what is really random noise.
It is 100% consistent. There is no pattern or randomness.
I don't think they're inconsistent (Score:2)
YouTube Advertisers pay for eyeball time (Score:3)
I asked the internet and it told me that marketing wizards get advertisers to pay more for more eyeball time. Non-skippable ads cost more. This is not rocket science.
https://support.google.com/you... [google.com]
https://support.google.com/goo... [google.com]
Ok, we're crooks (Score:2)
But we're not Al Capone!
Re: (Score:2)
No... you are worse than Capone. Your products have made millions of people addicted to social media. All by design.
Zuck needs to be made to pay and pay lots for the crimes against humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
So they're like tobacco companies. Or soda companies. Or television companies. Or video game companies. Or candy companies (soo good, must have more...).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I do hope, you exclude Slashdot — and the rest of the present company...
"Reining in" a private company is Fascist (Score:1, Interesting)
As this Libertarian explains so plainly [ronpaulinstitute.org], such government control of private companies is simply Fascist...
Maybe you could justify it by the company being "essential" to the country's very existence or ability to defend itself — such arguments are used for railroads [army.mil], for example.
But Social Media companies are not "essential". Moreover, they — or the speech they facilitate — are explicitly protected by the First Amendment. Government "reining
Re: (Score:2)
As this Libertarian explains so plainly, such government control of private companies is simply Fascist...
As a this libertarian explains so plainly: I'll call anything I don't like fascism.
Re: (Score:1)
Paul's article explains his meaning succinctly: government controlling most aspects of industry without taking control overtly (as Communism would). Unlike racism or waging wars, this is one common
Whether or not his definition matches yours, he explains, why (what he means by) Fascism is wrong.
You don't debate it — not in general, nor in particular, as pertains to Social Media. Instead you're sniping at semantics — shitposting...
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to confuse strongly held opinions with facts. Anyone can claim anything they like is fascism and they can make whatever analogies they like to the real world, for free. That doesn't make any of it correct or relevant.
Naturally you will consider me to be shitposting because you cannot cope with the concept that your "arguments" will never convince anyone who isn't as blinkered as you are.
Sheep and sheep dogs (Score:4, Interesting)
I feel like I'm watching a similar experience. Except it's the politicians that are the big dumb ram, and the tech companies are the Aussies.
Re: (Score:2)
don't fancy Facebook's long term future (Score:2)
Youtube is not facebook. (Score:1)
Youtube: We're not facebook because we deplatform and censor viewpoints we don't like even more than Facebook does. Yay.