It's ok to be angry about capitalism

[Phoenixmgs]

neither of these things are censorship. Good lord, man.

But let's go with the analogy for a moment. The library still contains all those comics, it never stopped. It's just that the library has stopped actively suggesting them to you. Tell me: Is a library "censoring" a certain genre if it has it readily available, but doesn't actively suggest it to you?

The analogy is the library doesn't carry it because libraries and social media operate differently; one you actively search for things (the library) and the other your feed shows you everything.

Funny how you leave out the part that if Facebook was publicly owned, it would be violating the 1st amendment.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Sounds like they have to choose, do they want to sell more but also have higher losses from theft, or lose more to theft but also sell more? Seems like they've realized the difference in theft is smaller than the difference in sales. I imagine there are scenarios where price of goods and differences in theft/sales could swing that the other way, but I'm not shocked that it doesn't apply to any commonly stolen goods from Walgreens.

I mean, there's already an easy solution to reduce theft, it just costs money, which is why they cut that to the bone shortly before thefts started to rise

They just need more employees

 

[Silvanus]

The analogy is the library doesn't carry it because libraries and social media operate differently; one you actively search for things (the library) and the other your feed shows you everything.

You have the ability to search in both. Both are capable of suggesting things.

If you want to use this analogy, then use the actual analogous action. The library still has the book. It's just not suggesting it to you actively. And you think that's censorship.

Funny how you leave out the part that if Facebook was publicly owned, it would be violating the 1st amendment.

Lol no.

 

[BrawlMan]

Sony bubble burst.

Diamond (Distributors) Are Not Forever
​

 

[Agema]

They just need more employees

No, they need an AI/robot security guard. Human labour is so 20th century.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Lol no.

Facebook's censorship of pro-Palestine content would violate the free speech clause.

 

[BrawlMan]

Runscape is getting worse
​

 

[davidmc1158]

Facebook's censorship of pro-Palestine content would violate the free speech clause.

While what Facebook has done is certainly unethical, it doesn't violate the Free Speech clause of the U.S. constitution because it is neither a government-owned company or a public utility. The first amendment only applies to governmental censorship, not to the actions of private companies.

That said, Facebook and social media in general are in dire need of heavily-enforced regulation with how they do business.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You have the ability to search in both. Both are capable of suggesting things.

If you want to use this analogy, then use the actual analogous action. The library still has the book. It's just not suggesting it to you actively. And you think that's censorship.



Lol no.

The library doesn't mainly run on an algorithm...

While what Facebook has done is certainly unethical, it doesn't violate the Free Speech clause of the U.S. constitution because it is neither a government-owned company or a public utility. The first amendment only applies to governmental censorship, not to the actions of private companies.

That said, Facebook and social media in general are in dire need of heavily-enforced regulation with how they do business.

If Facebook was publicly owned, it would be violating the 1st amendment.

 

[Seanchaidh]

While what Facebook has done is certainly unethical, it doesn't violate the Free Speech clause of the U.S. constitution because it is neither a government-owned company or a public utility

the premise was if it were.

 

[Silvanus]

Facebook's censorship of pro-Palestine content would violate the free speech clause.

That's true (because it actually involves takedowns). I should've been clearer-- the deprioritisation of posts in the algorithm wouldn't constitute censorship regardless of whether Facebook was publicly-owned.

The library doesn't mainly run on an algorithm...

So? Does the use of an algorithm to suggest content somehow mean that content that doesn't get suggested as much is censored? Numerous sites don't suggest anything at all. Ooh, the Netflix algorithm suggests newer stuff at a higher rate, so it must be censoring old content!

If you're still perfectly able to access something, and nobody stops you saying or posting it, then it ain't censored bub.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

That's true (because it actually involves takedowns). I should've been clearer-- the deprioritisation of posts in the algorithm wouldn't constitute censorship regardless of whether Facebook was publicly-owned.



So? Does the use of an algorithm to suggest content somehow mean that content that doesn't get suggested as much is censored? Numerous sites don't suggest anything at all. Ooh, the Netflix algorithm suggests newer stuff at a higher rate, so it must be censoring old content!

If you're still perfectly able to access something, and nobody stops you saying or posting it, then it ain't censored bub.

So a government entity deprioritizing a political party's speech wouldn't be against the 1st amendment in your view?

When the main way people view content is through an algorithm, the the algorithm is the thing censoring content. For example, Twitter and Jay Bhattacharya.

 

[Seanchaidh]

If you're still perfectly able to access something, and nobody stops you saying or posting it, then it ain't censored bub.

i can imagine ways of top-down manipulation that are both consistent with this and that shock the conscience in their effectiveness at controlling what people do in fact view.

 

[Silvanus]

So a government entity deprioritizing a political party's speech wouldn't be against the 1st amendment in your view?

Political parties often have some laws and guidance around equal exposure on things like public TV, or at least they do here in the UK, though it only applies to parties reaching a certain threshold of parliamentary representation. The same is not true of social media. If one party pays, their posts get shown, like advertising. This has always been the case and will be the case after Zuckerberg makes these changes.

When the main way people view content is through an algorithm, the the algorithm is the thing censoring content. For example, Twitter and Jay Bhattacharya.

OK, so here's a question. Any company that pays will get its posts showing up frequently ('sponsored content'). Presumably you agree that this should be illegal, as its censoring that company's rivals, yes?

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Get in on some of this sweet n juicy for-profit healthcare bubble

Medical Device Company Tells Hospitals They're No Longer Allowed to Fix Machine That Costs Six Figures

Hospitals are increasingly being forced into maintenance contracts with device manufacturers, driving up costs.

www.404media.co

Medical Device Company Tells Hospitals They're No Longer Allowed to Fix Machine That Costs Six Figures


·Jan 22, 2025 at 10:28 AM


Hospitals are increasingly being forced into maintenance contracts with device manufacturers, driving up costs.​

Image: Terumo​

The manufacturer of a machine that costs six figures used during heart surgery has told hospitals that it will no longer allow hospitals’ repair technicians to maintain or fix the devices and that all repairs must now be done by the manufacturer itself, according to a letter obtained by 404 Media. The change will require hospitals to enter into repair contracts with the manufacturer, which will ultimately drive up medical costs, a person familiar with the devices said.

The company, Terumo Cardiovascular, makes a device called the Advanced Perfusion System 1 Heart Lung Machine, which is used to reroute blood during open-heart surgeries and essentially keeps a patient alive during the surgery. Last month, the company sent hospitals a letter alerting them to the “discontinuation of certification classes,” meaning it “will no longer offer certification classes for the repair and/or preventative maintenance of the System 1 and its components.”

This means it will no longer teach hospital repair techs how to maintain and fix the devices, and will no longer certify in-house hospital repair technicians. Instead, the company “will continue to provide direct servicing for the System 1 and its components.”

On the surface, this may sound like a reasonable change, but it is one that is emblematic of a larger trend in hospitals. Medical device manufacturers are increasingly trying to prevent hospitals' own in-house staff from maintaining and repairing broken equipment, even when they are entirely qualified to do so. And in some cases, technicians who know how to repair specific devices are being prevented from doing so because manufacturers are revoking certifications or refusing to provide ongoing training that they once offered. Terumo certifications usually last for two years. It told hospitals that “your current certification will remain valid through its expiration date but will not be renewed once it expires.”



Hospitals are increasingly being pushed into signing maintenance contracts directly with the manufacturers of medical equipment, which means that repair technicians employed by hospitals can no longer work on many devices and hospitals end up having to employ both their own repair techs and keep up maintenance contracts with device manufacturers.

“One of my fears is that if a device goes down, we’re going to be subject to their field engineers’ availability,” a source who works in hospital medical device repair told 404 Media. 404 Media agreed to keep the source anonymous because they were not authorized by their hospital to speak to the media. “They may not be able to get here that same day or the next day, and if you’ve got people waiting to get an open-heart surgery, you have to tell them ‘Oh, the machine’s down, we’re going to have to postpone this.’ That’s detrimental to a patient who has a life-altering, very serious thing that they’re having to cancel and reschedule.”

Having to rely on a manufacturer’s repair network is the exact situation that farmers have found themselves in with John Deere tractors. Last week, the Federal Trade Commission sued John Deere for its monopolistic repair practices. The FTC specifically cited the fact that farmers have often been forced to wait days or weeks to get a John Deere “authorized” repair tech out to fix their tractors, which has resulted in farmers losing crops at critical harvest times. During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, some hospitals found themselves pirating repair software from Poland to repair broken ventilators because manufacturers’ repair technicians were spread so thin that hospitals had to wait weeks for repairs.

This specific ventilator repair crisis during COVID led experts at Harvard Medical School to write that “For years, manufacturers have curtailed the ability of hospitals to independently repair and maintain medical equipment by preventing access to the necessary knowledge, software, tools, and parts” in a piece calling for right-to-repair legislation. The FTC, meanwhile, suggested in a report that medical device manufacturers sometimes charge two-to-three times what an independent repair tech would charge for the same repair.

“It's scary to think that you could buy a piece of medical equipment for your hospital, just to have the manufacturer wake up one day and decide they will monopolize all repairs for that product,” Nathan Proctor, senior director of consumer rights group PIRG’s campaign for the right to repair, told 404 Media. “The people who are trained to fix that equipment won't suddenly forget all they know, but they will suddenly be restricted from doing the repairs. I think that's just absurd.”

Manufacturer contracts like this lead, across the board, to higher costs for hospitals.

“It’s no secret that America’s healthcare system is the most expensive, and this is one of the reasons why. These machines are actually highly reliable, we’ve had a low cost of service for it over the last few years. And when something isn’t right, we have people in-house who can fix it,” the source familiar with Terumo machine repair said. “But the cost of having a service contract with a manufacturer, you’re probably talking 10 times the cost. It’s not a big deal having a contract for one device, but when that starts happening across many devices, it adds up in the end. If you took every hospital in America and said for every medical device in the hospital, you need to put it on an OEM [original equipment manufacturer] maintenance contract, it would tank your financial system. You just can’t do that.”

Medical equipment manufacturers have strongly lobbied against right to repair legislation all over the country, and have been successful in getting medical devices exempted from right to repair legislation by claiming that the machines are too sensitive and complex to be repaired by anyone besides the manufacturer. The medical device giant AdvaMed, for example, says “the risk to patient safety is too high.”

But, again, the people working on medical equipment in hospitals are often hospital employees or contractors whose job is to repair medical equipment, and who are being prevented from fixing equipment that a hospital has purchased. “Just because a guy has Terumo on his shirt doesn’t mean he’s a more competent technician” than an in-house hospital technician, the source familiar with Terumo device repair said.

In a brochure for hospitals, Terumo advertises both its device and its maintenance program: “Advanced, precision medical equipment requires genuine parts and top-quality, specialized service – just as getting the best medical care from qualified specialists. Terumo Cardiovascular Service has the unrivaled expertise, experience, equipment, and parts to provide the optimal level of planned service and repairs needed. Use Terumo Cardiovascular Service and avoid exposure to liability issues.”

A spokesperson for Terumo told 404 Media that the company “saw declining participation in this program and determined that the best way forward was to require servicing through Terumo Cardiovascular’s genuine in-house Service team to continue to ensure Terumo devices are properly maintained.”

“Terumo Cardiovascular’s Biomed Certification Program was originally structured to train non-Terumo personnel (hospital Biomeds) to service Terumo heart-lung machines and associated hardware. Properly maintained medical devices are necessary for optimal performance which is essential for quality of patient care and outcomes,” they added. “Hospitals’ existing Terumo Cardiovascular Biomed certifications will remain valid through their expiration dates but will not be renewed once they expire.”

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Political parties often have some laws and guidance around equal exposure on things like public TV, or at least they do here in the UK, though it only applies to parties reaching a certain threshold of parliamentary representation. The same is not true of social media. If one party pays, their posts get shown, like advertising. This has always been the case and will be the case after Zuckerberg makes these changes.



OK, so here's a question. Any company that pays will get its posts showing up frequently ('sponsored content'). Presumably you agree that this should be illegal, as its censoring that company's rivals, yes?

Not if the social media platform was publicly owned.

Products and services =/= ideas and messages

Get in on some of this sweet n juicy for-profit healthcare bubble

Medical Device Company Tells Hospitals They're No Longer Allowed to Fix Machine That Costs Six Figures

Hospitals are increasingly being forced into maintenance contracts with device manufacturers, driving up costs.

www.404media.co

So, the McDonalds ice cream machine all over again.

 

[Silvanus]

Not if the social media platform was publicly owned.

There isn't a publically owned social media company in the UK or US, so we can't test that hypothesis. But parties do own pages on most platforms-- on which they wholly control what's allowed or not.

Not sure why this is relevant anyway, since we're discussing social media platforms that aren't publically owned.

Products and services =/= ideas and messages

So do you agree that political parties shouldn't be able to put their party ads on social media then? What about TV? An algorithm determines what's allowed, when, and where in TV advertising too.

 

[Chimpzy]

L is Real 2025

 

[Seanchaidh]

Not sure why this is relevant anyway, since we're discussing social media platforms that aren't publically owned.

because they should be.

 

[Silvanus]

because they should be.

Yes, I'm certain Phoenixmgs is coming to the question from that perspective.