There is no firm, prevalent opinion about unrest and rioting throughout the country and other parts of the globe. Issues are easily conflated. Yet tech giants are the world’s most valuable companies, some worth trillions, and any relevant story involving their personnel is unknown. They are not connected with acts of peaceful protest, crime, or of police brutality. However, tech media does need its platforms to have, using traditional shorthand of political theory, Many users rather than Few.
To varied extents, the corporations assert opposition to the president. None of them is known to advance him or actively support his party’s other leaders. Alphabet and its YouTube may have been most scrutinized for censorship of rightward perspectives (I, II, III). Senator Ted Cruz is vocal, and has in the past called into question protections afforded such tech media under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Under current regulatory framework, if controversial content is posted via an information service provider, the company itself is not liable. The person who wrote or produced it can be. The term “Troll” has not really been invoked. Tech platforms can abet objectionable or obscene material, despite complaints, without being held responsible.
Pursuant to Twitter’s recent decision to censor President Trump, he has ordered a formal review of Section 230. For the purpose of commentary, it is a challenge to find sources that are both non-partisan and lack what may be an inherent technology bias. According to NPR, which can have a leftward slant, Democrats such as Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi say that Section 230 should be repealed.
It therefore appears that there is political will for a reallocation of power. What may result is unknown. There may be support of litigation, with tech platforms facing all sorts of suits. Does that mean there would be good paying jobs for law firm support staff? Maybe something else is to ultimately be attributable.
New York University Professor Scott Galloway, himself a popular media entity, has a grouping of tech giants known as The Four: Amazon.com, Apple, Google, and Facebook. His past insight about Amazon.com’s HQ2 decision/”shitshow” is appreciated. There are enterprises that may never increase in valuation to the same extent, such as Twitter, Snap and maybe Reddit.
While all of the four incur flareups, it seems that politicians loathe Amazon.com (reference campaigns of Yang, Sanders, & Trump) in particular. The threat to the business is government intervention. Thus, opening a new headquarters near Washington, DC could help with political perception. Yet concerns such as anti-trust matters are ongoing, and the most recent story is that, pursuant to a written request to testify, founder and CEO Jeff Bezos has not committed to appear before Congress.
The touch point for wider unrest is the alleged murder by police of someone who was in their care. It has been recorded–using technologies made available by Apple or Google–which would have been nearly impossible decades ago. Thus, it makes sense that countless acts of heinous police misconduct have gone unchecked, uncorrected, or have not been redressed appropriately.
There is also extensive video of police use of excessive force against demonstrators in varied municipalities. Brutality, again, is ostensibly a cause of these protests. An appropriate Latin term with descriptive power is elusive though.
Groups that outnumber police have destroyed squad vehicles, looted businesses, assaulted, battered, and murdered.
The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) of Seattle, a several block area that has been taken over by persons, who control a precinct there, is still in effect. Some armed with machine guns are known to be present. Incidentally, the city’s brief head tax on employees was intriguing, as is its Fare Share Plan.
Sheldon Wolin’s tome on democracy, Tocqueville Between Two Worlds, describes the Many forming a society that lacks revolt. He does not champion the rule of the Few, as in a republic or oligarchy. It is about decentralized power. The author is erudite. Still, one might wonder why he tends to use the same word three or four times in a sentence and belabor his reader: is the message that there is no calling for melodic writers on political theory?
They would not seem to be in demand at Amazon.com, which curries book and other product reviews by persons who produce them free of charge; or at their out-of-pocket cost of being a verified customer. Google has largely floundered outside of its core search business, but YouTube videos are big. Facebook? Twitter? It is the unpaid user who supplies brief content. All of the above are devastating to newspapers.
And what of the teachers who help us to understand society and culture, those who guide the youth through English language arts, history, or social studies? Evidently the tech giants do not really offer their student so much. They bear strategical support of the political left, or take advantage of it, while disaffecting the right. Perhaps it is plutocracy at work.
With regard to his fascination about Alexis de Tocqueville, Wolin wrote, “Because democracy is the Many, the undifferentiated, it so thoroughly dominates and oppresses all that is within political space, it can only be understood–and combatted–by introducing a contrast from the ‘outside.’ 235”
To varied extents, the corporations assert opposition to the president. None of them is known to advance him or actively support his party’s other leaders. Alphabet and its YouTube may have been most scrutinized for censorship of rightward perspectives (I, II, III). Senator Ted Cruz is vocal, and has in the past called into question protections afforded such tech media under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
§230
Pursuant to Twitter’s recent decision to censor President Trump, he has ordered a formal review of Section 230. For the purpose of commentary, it is a challenge to find sources that are both non-partisan and lack what may be an inherent technology bias. According to NPR, which can have a leftward slant, Democrats such as Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi say that Section 230 should be repealed.
Tech Giants’ Societal Relations
New York University Professor Scott Galloway, himself a popular media entity, has a grouping of tech giants known as The Four: Amazon.com, Apple, Google, and Facebook. His past insight about Amazon.com’s HQ2 decision/”shitshow” is appreciated. There are enterprises that may never increase in valuation to the same extent, such as Twitter, Snap and maybe Reddit.
While all of the four incur flareups, it seems that politicians loathe Amazon.com (reference campaigns of Yang, Sanders, & Trump) in particular. The threat to the business is government intervention. Thus, opening a new headquarters near Washington, DC could help with political perception. Yet concerns such as anti-trust matters are ongoing, and the most recent story is that, pursuant to a written request to testify, founder and CEO Jeff Bezos has not committed to appear before Congress.
Unrest
The touch point for wider unrest is the alleged murder by police of someone who was in their care. It has been recorded–using technologies made available by Apple or Google–which would have been nearly impossible decades ago. Thus, it makes sense that countless acts of heinous police misconduct have gone unchecked, uncorrected, or have not been redressed appropriately.
There is also extensive video of police use of excessive force against demonstrators in varied municipalities. Brutality, again, is ostensibly a cause of these protests. An appropriate Latin term with descriptive power is elusive though.
Groups that outnumber police have destroyed squad vehicles, looted businesses, assaulted, battered, and murdered.
The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) of Seattle, a several block area that has been taken over by persons, who control a precinct there, is still in effect. Some armed with machine guns are known to be present. Incidentally, the city’s brief head tax on employees was intriguing, as is its Fare Share Plan.
The Few and The Many
They would not seem to be in demand at Amazon.com, which curries book and other product reviews by persons who produce them free of charge; or at their out-of-pocket cost of being a verified customer. Google has largely floundered outside of its core search business, but YouTube videos are big. Facebook? Twitter? It is the unpaid user who supplies brief content. All of the above are devastating to newspapers.
And what of the teachers who help us to understand society and culture, those who guide the youth through English language arts, history, or social studies? Evidently the tech giants do not really offer their student so much. They bear strategical support of the political left, or take advantage of it, while disaffecting the right. Perhaps it is plutocracy at work.
With regard to his fascination about Alexis de Tocqueville, Wolin wrote, “Because democracy is the Many, the undifferentiated, it so thoroughly dominates and oppresses all that is within political space, it can only be understood–and combatted–by introducing a contrast from the ‘outside.’ 235”
Tech giants, and Twitter, may ironically be outside, oligarchic forces. If and when they no longer are protected by Section 230 they can be held liable for content purveyed. They, and other entities, might need people who know humanities. Restraint against harmful assertion of oneself as above, apart, or distinct from the police, and communities they are supposed to serve and protect, may require consistent encouragement.
7/8/20 According to current U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, whose views and opinions are not necessarily endorsed, “Apple, Facebook, Google, and Netflix collectively employ just over 300,000 people—less than half the number that General Motors alone employed in the 1960s.”
7/8/20 According to current U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, whose views and opinions are not necessarily endorsed, “Apple, Facebook, Google, and Netflix collectively employ just over 300,000 people—less than half the number that General Motors alone employed in the 1960s.”