promoted means something different to published though I think, it's more active

Both promoted/published require active action by the corporation/company to move what information they want out in front of "eyes" and suppress information they do not want seen.

With online content, it's promoted...in written/printed form...same thing, but its term is published.

This is in general....sure you can "publish" things online...but we're just playing with semantics and synonyms for the same thoughts and actions here.

So you want government intervention on social media algorithms?

We already do...the govt is giving 230 protection where it should not.

It needs to go back and set it to where you get 230 if you as a company do not use algorithms to push or suppression content, do not push content to people, but let them select.

Basically to get the corporate "thumb" off the scales of information flow...

Otherwise, they can still do it....they just don't get 230 protections since they are not publishers and editorializing......which is what they are currently doing.

Hey, you do know that "Chronological order" is an algorithm right? Any method of presenting *things* is going to require an algorithm. Always.

ok....but you know what I'm talking about when I say social media companies' "algorithms".

I'm sure we could come up with some wording that would work...and allow simple things like "order by date posted"...etc.

Perhaps only allow controls on the screen that allow the USER to decide how to sort, what to see, etc?

The main problem, is the social media provider, using complex algorithms, pushing content to people, suppressing some and enhancing others, often based on the political bent of the top leadership of the company.

I'm guessing we could come up with some legal speak to properly regulate this....good way, you keep 230 protections, bad way....no 230 protections for you.

In the end, this turns all the online forums more into the "public square" that the founders had the concept of in the early days of the US, a place where all could speak freely....

Private corporate censorship is right up there with govt censorship, except the govt has guns and can take your freedom away....corporate is just a bit less than that, but not much considering how much control the have on the flow of information.

...gotta create a collection of these kind of posts to show people who utter any nonsense even remotely related to "trust the science".

You can pick any topic of public interest of choice in the last four decades and you can pick a side of the fence and I guarantee you you'll find so many people repeating utter bull.

I no longer care for studies. I think as far as societal evolution goes, we have degenerated to the point of not being adult enough to handle proper science.

I am glad that I am not you guys. My outlook kinda seems to make me more resilient despite the four individual incurable chronic diseases I have.

Good luck to you anyway.

Facebook does not choose what users post,

No..the algorithms DO.

And FB is in charge of the algorithms...hence they have their thumb on the scales, determining what gets seen or promoted and what doesn't....

Opinionated Moderation was specifically the goal. What we have, was the goal.

If that were the case, then...that needs to be changed.

It should read more like the OP in this thread was describing.

No, that would eliminate any sort of specialized forum if it wasn't allowed to moderate any content aside from that was illegal. They'd get overrun with spam and off-topic discussion

I think this is all talking about "open forums"....if it is a specialized forum...membership is required and can be revoked.

As long as it is not algorithm run....this way we keep the provider from putting a thumb on the scales of any content or conversation, hence no editorial work.

The members of each forum could have the power....not the provider.

I believe the legislation could be written in such a way as to allow this type set up.....

f you hold tech companies legally responsible for the content their users produce, they will *shut down* the ability for those users to produce content.

How about this...

You get to keep 230 protections, and take out the algorithms pushing content to users, and aside from speech that is illegal (CP,etc)...you don't censor things.

If you use an algo to promote some content over others, and editorialize on what is allowed to be published...then you lose 230 and are treated like a publisher.

Simple, no?

Looking at the Chatgpt 4o for the iPhone.

How safe is it to install this app on your phone...does it 'invade' and grab info on your phone like your contacts, pictures.....read through your mail, etc?

Life's too short to waste that much of it on merely money.

The MORE money you have...the less time you have to waste a work.....

If we can find out what is going wrong in autoimmune diseases like MS or UC, we are now on track to tell the responsible genes to STFU?

Where do I send money to?

(Emphasis mine) I'm saying this without malice, so please don't take it that way: But who are you to decide what the appropriate amount of extracurricular interaction between co-workers is? You have a system that works for you, and that's perfectly fine. There are quite a few of my colleagues that I've never seen outside of the office. A bunch of them that are all but guaranteed to show up at a team/company instigated happy hour. And a small handful that I consider friends. Hell, I spent my weekend in a boat fishing with a former co-worker that I now consider a good friend.

I'm not saying your method is wrong, I'm saying that it's not the only one available, and not the only one that's appropriate.

I think you missed the part where I said "almost without exception"....

;)

I have had a VERY few that I socialized at all with outside of work...I could count likely on 1 hand and not come close to using all of my fingers.

There's exceptions to every rule...BUT, in general, I stick by that it is best to keep most if not all co-workers just in that category...and not confide in them like a true friend, not to get involved with them in their outside lives, nor hav them in your business...

This is especially true of the opposite sex, and these days, as a guy, I'd say you are in HIGH danger zone of befriending or being close at all with any female.

It only takes them getting pissed at you once and throwing a complaint to HR and *BAM*...no jury, no trial, you are gone and your reputation is almost surely to be permanently smeared, and that's if you're lucky enough to get away without any legal entanglements.

The work environment hasn't always been this toxic...I'm an old guy and I know...but I've seen how bad it has gotten, especially in the last decade.

But hey...you do you.

But I say, if you want to keep your W2 job...and progress..keep your head down, keep co-workers compartmentalized as they are, and every once in awhile, change jobs to get a decent pay boost.

It also provides some friction when people make a decision as to whether to leave. Risking the loss of an entire circle of friends, free pop and foosball tables can be a powerful motivator to stay.

Co-workers, in general, are not your friends...they are just co-workers....

If you depend on work for your friendships and not people on the outside of work, you're in trouble.

Jobs change...people change jobs...

There's the old saying:

"Friends help you move....

....REAL friends help you move bodies..."

but what about pizza lunches?

I'd do work lunches, sure...but to me, that's still part of the "work day"....

Once I leave work at the end of the day...I do not have any type of meaningful contact with co-workers.