Skip to content
Home » Is Big Tech Too Big? – BBC Click technology bbc

Is Big Tech Too Big? – BBC Click technology bbc

We ask what will President Joe Biden mean for the future of social media? We speak to a number of key insiders who are helping to shape policy around this issue.

We also speak to Facebook’s oversight board on concerns for free speech and talk with Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales on what Wikipedia has to teach others in terms of the handling culture wars online

See also  InnovaGoods Gadget Tech UV Sanitizer Lamp technology gadget


Images related to the topic technology bbc

Is Big Tech Too Big? - BBC Click

Is Big Tech Too Big? – BBC Click

Search related to the topic Is Big Tech Too Big? – BBC Click

#Big #Tech #Big #BBC #Click
Is Big Tech Too Big? – BBC Click
technology bbc
See all the latest ways to make money online: see more here
See all the latest ways to make money online: see more here

See also  Công nghệ tương lai hiện đại ra sao ?. Technology strange future world #105 technology future

48 thoughts on “Is Big Tech Too Big? – BBC Click technology bbc”

  1. Don't think these social media platform owners should be held responsible for what other people say or publish on their platforms, but do think they should stop locking our accounts for frivolous reasons so they can demand our phone numbers.

  2. What I'd like to know is why does twitter say its a private company when people complain but wikipedia says its a public company and in twitters privacy policy one of the first things they say is Twitter is public.
    They are locking peoples accounts for nothing and saying its because people broke their TOS rules, they don't specify which rule, and they demand PII (Personally identifiable information) like the phone number to unlock it.
    But they aren't the only ones who is locking accounts and demanding PII to open it.
    When you file an appeal to unlock your twitter account on the form to fill out it says phone number (optional)
    In twitters Privacy Policy it says you can share other information if you CHOOSE, and one of them is the phone number.
    But then they lock you out and try to force you to give them that information.

  3. And the insanity continues.. There seems to be a failure to recognize the obvious these days.. Big Tech, starts out as small tech and cares not for its users and/or their beliefs (nor should it), only for gaining more users or generating more sales, i would have thought this to be obvious, but this discussion tells me that it's not.. Blaming the platform for the mental illness of others is a big swing and a miss, i wont presume to have the answer, but would've hoped for a lil more rational thought and lil less blame game that seems to the societal norm these days..

  4. 8 mins into this and so far it looks like the BBC as usual are pushing for censorship of anyone not towing the MSM narrative, notice how they say over and over "Conspiracy Theories".
    Section 230 would be fine if it wasn't for big tech censoring one side and pushing the other, this makes them publisher's not hosters. #defundBBC

  5. Hi
    I enjoy your videos alot
    I hope to help you increasing your viewerships. This by subtitle your videos to Arabic and sharing it in many groups for Arab. I have Bachelor's degree in English literature. Don't worry about the charge. I will just charge 5$/2 minutes
    Check the opinion of the last youtuber I dealt with :
    "Thank you for the translation. It really had a great effect, I gained a lot of exposure from it"

  6. The worse thing about the algorithm that social media company use is the ambiguity in it , Facebook Google Twitter don't exactly know how machine learning works under the hood.

  7. Breaking up big tech for simply allowing people to express their views is censorship, what's next censoring Christian churches for peddling fake beliefs?

  8. 230 Is great, just needs to be enforced.

    Dems want to remove it bc they want more censorship but also want control over the tech companies. They let big tech continue to silence one side while allowing the others to roam free, only moving to the punishment of the platforms if big tech censors the wrong ppl.

    This is also, a way to ensure companies such as parler do not even have a chance as they will be deemed as a "domestic terrorist" which is one if not the most ambiguous definitions used by this party and administration.

  9. Big Tech have censorship down to a fine art. They won't allow you to discuss certain politics even certain things about Covid but for years they have allowed people to brag on their platforms about force feeding their children industrial bleach to cure Autism, they've allowed people to state they would like to blow passenger planes out of the sky to stop "chem-trailing". I think they are pretty hypocritical.

    Facebook and the like send links to a lot of the stuff they claim to ban. I get "recommended for you" all the time and some of it is crazy stuff.

  10. If 230 is removed that is where FB and others will start censorship big time in the name of self protection.
    In Poland, gov is preparing a law that if any social media will delete post, vid or any content can be reported and if not restored will be fined. Only 1 exception there, if content is against the polish law it can be removed and that is the only reason when it can be deleted.

  11. Fakebook is Fakebook. 99.9999999999% of "information" in "social networks" is just fakes, ads and cats.
    But humans are stupid. It seems we have a not-to-be-spoken brain decease which affects human brains. Some some of neuro virus.

  12. Very true, the fight is between freedom of speech and misinformation, where do you draw the line? For instance if someone states that they believe the election was rigged, give some “facts” as they believe them to be and it gets shared, now is that freedom of speech or fake news/misinformation?
    I think the pressure needs to be on the big tech companies as much as the sources of the information, which I do feel like the tech companies are trying very hard to monitor and maintain. And I think the wider population needs to chip in and report posts with articles containing and propagating false information, My mother in law believes EVERYTHING she sees on Facebook and shares it, I’m not ashamed to say I am the reason she has had her account suspended because I’ve reported her for sharing fake COVID news stories, and I’ve told her I was one of the people who reports her, as well as trying to show her how to tell an article is fake.

  13. ISTM that there's a difference between what places like Wikipedia (or BBC) perceive as its "product." I can cite many instances where users haven't made the distinction between original information, or an extended conversation that simply uses new, more effective tech – very willingly placing themselves in role of being intelligent consumers of information. Though everyone has his opinion, and it's easy to criticize, this aspect of media is nothing new. I have personal experience with this, FWIW, when this market evolved, and I simply dropped the word, "press," from, "computer trade press," when describing my job. The "MSM" needs to adapt to the tech or be left behind. The tech is not a substitute for "quality" of information.

  14. How dare you say that 1 side almost broke democracy, they have a right to express themselves as well or don't you understand that? You think the left burning cities was perfectly fine protests but some people greycon into the capital one building over another was not? You think 1/2 of a nation feeling betrayed by its government is OK? This is the worst hit piece from BBC click I have ever seen and I don't know if I'm gonna continue watching your stuff. That's fine if you want to talk about big Tech but don't talk about half the American public as if there terrorists or insurgents trying to overthrow a government. Keep to the reviews on technology and the like and leave the politics out please.

  15. Of course big tech like google, Facebook, and Twitter can not be blamed. They are just platforms which the people use to share information. They should implement stricter restrictions on what is being shared on their platform even though it costs the privacy of the user. They have to Implement these changes to avoid misinformation getting circulated on their platforms.

  16. I love this programme. I think that Tech Companies should take responsibility, especially Facebook. 
    If you get scammed by advertising on Facebook and you loose a lot of money the company that hosts the advert should compensate you.

  17. Facebook and Twitter et al do not need breaking up. They should contain a public warning that they common publishers and are not the originators of content. “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it, to the death”. Patrick Henry

  18. Is it still a conspiracy theory that Oswald was not a deranged lone assassin and that the government was involved in the assassination of jfk? What about khashoggi? In a capitalistic society the oligarchical billionaires can buy the "narrative"("truth").

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.