Which part of "... social media companies influence how people think and behave without them even being aware of it. This has far-reaching adverse consequences on the functioning of democracy, particularly on the integrity of elections." Do you disagree with?

It's far more true of Main stream Media. And since MSM have always offered fewer choices, it has been far more damaging to democracy.
Soros and his ilk are scared of loosing control, his fears have nothing to do with democracy has he has no interest in it, or promoting it.

I have no illusions that mainstream media aren't playing exactly the same game, and I've no respect whatsoever for Soros and his ilk, but he does just happen to be right here I think. Social media platforms are doing just what the media has been doing and for years only they're doing it better. The media and the corporations that own them have already fucked society up enough, I'm frankly terrified of what an even more efficient version could do.

I think this thread should be closed as propaganda.

George Soros is a reputable philosopher who has made a fortune in finance and has written on philosophical issues too (check his concept of reflexivity and how he ties it with Hegel). He does have some dubious influence through the Soros foundation on the side of left-wing propaganda, but I think people are exaggerating his impact.

Soros and his ilk are scared of loosing control, his fears have nothing to do with democracy has he has no interest in it, or promoting it. — charleton

If you think anyone has control in such a complex and highly globalised world, you're fooling yourself. Control is more and more difficult as time goes on, and individual people, regardless of who they are, no longer really have control.

individual people, regardless of who they are, no longer really have control. — Agustino

That's what I'm scared of. At least individuals are human. God's knows what new movement the random chaos of billions of social media users all trying to influence each other is going to come up with.

Cui Bono?
Soros just wants to have control back.
This is a dangerous myth. Google are not making you behave differently. The Internet is providing a platform for forums like this and a multitude of grass roots political movements which have the potential to completely change the status quo
God help us if Soros and his corporations get control of the Internet.

God help us if Soros and his corporations get control of the Internet. — charleton

>:O >:O >:O >:O >:O

I think this thread should be closed as propaganda. — Agustino

If there's going to be no intelligent argument backed up by evidence and just continued shouting about how EVIL George Soros is, it will be very soon. Or probably deleted. (At least that's what George told me to say).

(At least that's what George told me to say). — Baden

Yeah, my instructions also arrived by mail. George is old-fashioned, hasn't really learned about e-mail yet >:O

The article nowhere states that internet or social media are dangerous. It only talks of the big corporations. They influence and brainwash and exploit us just like the traditional media, or any of the biggest world-wide corporations. Facebook as a site is good, but as a company it's bad.

How are you even claiming the big social media or IT companies are good for democracy?

If it was as you said and Soros just wanted the control back, he'd be advocating Google and controlling their collection of our personal information.

The old media and the rich with their corporation have been in control since the dawn of time, and their control is at last being challenged by social media, which gives people a chance for the first time in history to push for REAL democratic change. — charleton

Then give me a quote where Soros says anything against social media.

This thread needs more hatred towards the Jews.

Facebook and Google have become “obstacles to innovation” and are a “menace” to society whose “days are numbered”, said billionaire investor and philanthropist George Soros at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Thursday.

“Mining and oil companies exploit the physical environment; social media companies exploit the social environment,” said the Hungarian-American businessman, according to a transcript of his speech.

“This is particularly nefarious because social media companies influence how people think and behave without them even being aware of it. This has far-reaching adverse consequences on the functioning of democracy, particularly on the integrity of elections.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/25/george-soros-facebook-and-google-are-a-menace-to-society

Google are not making you behave differently. — charleton

Sure they are. People use Google to find information which was heretofore difficult, or very time consuming to locate. That's a change, and as far as I can tell, a positive one. Google serves as a crutch for people's memory. It's easy to find spellings, for instance, or definitions using Google. Of course there are other applications (and print dictionaries haven't disappeared) but... Google is quick. No need to memorize spellings, meanings.

On the other hand, Google is principally in the advertising business--that's how they actually make most of their money. There is no profit, not even income, in our asking Google how to spell antidisestablishmentarianism. Advertising revenue comes in when you click on a commercial site (any site that carries advertising messages) and you see a banner ad, or a (usually short) video placed in-between you and the content you were looking for, and so on.

Google isn't the only advertising company working on the Internet, and there is nothing unusual about it's methods.

Where Google is in a position to manipulate your attention is demonstrated on YouTube. A while back, when a video was complete, it just stopped. Now YouTube presents you with maybe 4 choices of what to watch next, and sometimes a video just starts running, selected or not. This isn't the end of free will, of course, BUT it tends to keep your eyeballs on the screen for a longer period of time, during which more advertising can be sent your way.

Finally, Google and a lot of other companies, mine personal information which is a valuable commodity when massed together. Your internet activity leaves a trail which can be analyzed to determine what you are interested in, and what you might be willing to look at, and perhaps buy. Opinions can be determined by this sort of analysis too. Alone we aren't worth much, but together we are.

The Internet is providing a platform for forums like this and a multitude of grass roots political movements which have the potential to completely change the status quo — charleton

Remember, Google and the Internet are not one and the same thing. True enough, the Internet does provide a platform from which political movements can operate -- think about the Bernie Sanders campaign. There are all sorts of anarchist, socialist, libertarian, and fascist alt-right groups on the Internet, plus all the other mainstream political organizations.

Facebook is, I think, worse than Google in a number of ways, in terms of it's capacity to capture the eyeballs of people who like to watch things that move. Facebook creates the fiction that one has a window on the world. It may be a place where some people can make connections with others, but let's face it: FaceBook is not a real place. It's a virtual place where people can project whatever virtual image of themselves they want. It feeds on itself.

In real life, the presence of real bodies impedes this virtual game playing.

The old media and the rich with their corporation have been in control since the dawn of time — charleton

Calm down, charleton; the old media haven't been around since the dawn of time. No doubt the NYT would liked to have covered the Big Bang, but they missed the event by 13.4 billion years.

Anyone who has read Chomsky's Manufacture of Consent will agree with you about the negative aspects of old media. Old media, and their rich owners did, do, and will continue to skew the news in their own favor, by and large. However, so will new media do that. The Golden Rule says that them with the Gold make the Rules, and Mark Zuckerberg is no different the the Ochs-Sulzburger clan of the New York Times.

Please don't labor under the delusion that Facebook, Amazon, Google, et al don't plan on manufacturing and manipulating your consent even more than it was manipulated in the past.

Facebook and Google

social media companies

social media companies

As I said, give me a quote of Soros criticizing social media. Not the social media companies.

Then give me a quote where Soros says anything against social media. — BlueBanana

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/25/george-soros-facebook-and-google-are-a-menace-to-society?CMP=share_btn_fb

This thread needs more hatred towards the Jews. — Maw

I don't give a rat's arse about Soros' ancestry. You might want to get your head out of your arse and smell the coffee.

George Soros is a reputable philosopher — Agustino

ROTFLMFHO.

Please don't labor under the delusion that Facebook, Amazon, Google, et al don't plan on manufacturing and manipulating your consent even more than it was manipulated in the past. — Bitter Crank

Soros is just jealous. He's no interest in preserving the newly found rights of you and I to debate right here and now on this page.
Soros' mantra is much repeated throughout the establishment. If anyone has benefited from social media it was Obama and his campaign for president, yet even he is singing from the same song book as Soros, in denigrating the changes that the Internet has wrought in the wake of Trump's populism.

Calm down, charleton; the old media haven't been around since the dawn of time. — Bitter Crank

Time started when humans began to count it. And it was the elites that imposed time on the masses.

Cavacava already posted that link alongside with quotes, which I refuted in the comment immediately above the one I'm replying to right now. The fact is Soros does not speak against social media in the text you provided, but only against the social media companies, which are some of the the big corporations that are a danger to democracy. And those are the companies you claim Soros wants to give more power to.

does not speak against social media in the text you provided, but only against the social media companies, which are some of the the big corporations that are a danger to democracy. And those are the companies you claim Soros wants to give more power to. — BlueBanana

I did not say he want to give more power to anyone but himself. He rails against Social Media by attacking social media companies - quite obviously.
His kind are under threat from the democratization of communications, targeted advertising (which is what he attacks in the surface), is almost completely irrelevant. It's just an excuse to push for censorship.

http://truepublica.org.uk/global/fractures-fears-failures-worlds-ruling-elites-stare-abyss/

He rails against Social Media by attacking social media companies - quite obviously. — charleton

Adding "quite obviously" in your comment is not an argument - quite obviously.

If you say he attacks Social Media companies, but is not attacking Social Media - you are just being silly.

If you're making illogical jumps from companies to the areas of services they provide, you're the silly one. Take the prostitution or beggars for example, both are only problems when they become organized and the workers are being exploited. Or, take Nestle. I'm definitely against Nestle because using slavery and killing union workers and causing the deaths of millions of starving children is wrong but it doesn't mean I'm trying to make drinking water illegal.

I did not say he want to give more power to anyone but himself. — charleton

Soros is, of course, a member of a very tiny super-elite, that few dozen people who possess more wealth than better than half of the world's population has. I don't think they have a lot to fear, at this point, from social media. Were social media formed from the ground up--rather than from the elite down--it might represent a real decentralized force for the people to express their will.

As it is, social media only seems decentralized: the server farms and backbone connections that house and distribute FaceBook, YouTube, Google, Amazon, et al are owned and overseen by a handful of corporations. Control is highly centralized. Were a revolution to be proposed on social media and get traction, it would be a simple matter to unplug that social media platform. Yes, it would cost the companies their revenue, but a disruption in revenue vs. dissolution in a revolution makes it a simple choice for the elite.

The elites, whether they be liberal or conservative, first of all look after the material basis of their elite status. Their material interests will always put them on the opposite side of The People, that is, the many "you and me"s of the world.

The guy's obviously talking the price down with a view to buying a stake. Stop helping him, he's rich enough to pay full price.