When a platform makes its users sign massive legal agreements, yet they don’t meet the extremely low bar of, you know, NOT EXPOSING ALL OF THEM TO FRAUD AND INVASION OF PRIVACY, there needs to be some recourse.
Imagine if a bank just *lost* money from 500 million customers. It would be in the news for the next 5 years, there would be massive investigations and they’d be sued into the ground.
Yet, @facebook loses the personal information of half a BILLION users and no one cares.
Here’s the deal: These platforms make BILLIONS off of OUR data. It is extremely valuable.
They’ve successfully convinced us, though, that it’s not really worth anything.
This is what needs to change. We need to hold them to account.
But first, we need to actually care.
Then we need consumer protection-style guidelines and laws, as there are with the vast, vast majority of industries to ensure that we have at least a modicum of protection against the many abuses of these platforms.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Which cable companies will stand by a network whose host called white supremacy a “hoax” and will continue to make its customers pay $24 a year for it?
Which shareholders and funds see nothing wrong with a host who said Immigrants make our country “poorer, dirtier and more divided”?
Like Alex Jones, @YouTube built this person’s career by giving him reach far beyond what he’d ever get without them and handed him millions in ad dollars for the privilege.
@TeamYouTube continues to make the world a worse place by giving amplification to the very worst humans.
Advertisers who posted and tweeted in support of racial justice last summer should, if they really meant it, walk out of @YouTube until they do something about this and the rampant racism that is amplified and rewarded on this platform.
1) Corporations are not “woke”. They know where the money is. They have looked at the market and realized that supporting the curtailing of voting rights is not good for business. Or at least not as good for business and coming out against it.
2) Corporations are trying to appeal to more people than less. The idea of subtraction isn’t what they’re interested in. They’re against the curtailing of voting rights because people will be subtracted, not added. That doesn’t meet their mission.
3) The game was given away when it was made illegal to bring people food or water while waiting in line to vote. The Georgia legislature could have given these companies more than ample coverage to deny what this clearly is without it. This was an unbelievable own goal.