Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 228 posts

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#21

Post by TYPE_FASTER »

> In a November speech, Ajit Pai, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, argued that “edge providers” like social-media websites and search engines “routinely block or discriminate against content they don’t like.” ... > He also pointed to Twitter’s suspension of a pro-life campaign ad from Rep. Marsha Blackburn, an action that would have been illegal if done by a TV or radio station.

Which is interesting, considering this FCC decision in 2014:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sue-wilson/fcc-no-more-equal-...

It's also worth noting that FCC statute 315 (https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/statutes-and-rules-candidat...) applies to licensees.

Is the FCC going to begin licensing social media sites?

Does the FCC consider internet traffic to be a broadcast mechanism? When newspaper publishers are not required to follow the same laws/statutes as radio and TV when it comes to political advertising?

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#22

Post by rhizome »

colordrops wrote: post #19
guelo wrote: post #17

Right wing propaganda is so strong and coordinated these days that they can develop a new goal and drive a single message repeatedly across multiple platforms for months or years. This attack on Google is a new right wing message developed this year but they just keep hammering at it across all their channels tailoring their argument to the different audiences and continuously building mind share and momentum.

Both right and left wing propaganda is strong and coordinated these days. I can't say anything that doesn't toe the line with either side and not have them look at me like I'm an asshole. I've been called both a socialist welfare state supporter and a reactionary corporate feudalist. Which is it folks. The division is worse than it ever was in my lifetime.

You being called names or whatever does not compare at all with a political message discipline executed over multiple mass-media channels.

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#23

Post by backpropaganda »

kelukelugames wrote: post #3

It's funny how competing groups rally around terms that sound the same. Terms that carry positive connotations and share common words. "Pro choice" vs "pro life". And now we have "diversity and inclusion" vs "diversity of thought." update: haha, there's a wikipedia section on this called political framing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pro-choice_movem...

Another one: Feminism and Postfeminism. I think it's basically because you can respond to a question about A with B with some melodic alliteration, the kind which draws cheers from the crowd. This idea seems to have been ported from the "yes, and ..." idea of improvisational comedy. That is, for maximum offense in a debate, agree with all the accusations of your opponent, and then hit them back with a small "but".

Are you pro-choice? I'm pro-life! Do you care about diversity? Yes, of thoughts. Are you a feminist? I'm postfeminist!

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#24

Post by noobiemcfoob »

rhizome wrote: post #22
colordrops wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both right and left wing propaganda is strong and coordinated these days. I can't say anything that doesn't toe the line with either side and not have them look at me like I'm an asshole. I've been called both a socialist welfare state supporter and a reactionary corporate feudalist. Which is it folks. The division is worse than it ever was in my lifetime.

You being called names or whatever does not compare at all with a political message discipline executed over multiple mass-media channels.

it's an apparent symptom of the problem

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#25

Post by euyyn »

humanrebar wrote: post #16
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #4

The solution really is a revitalization of antitrust policy. The reason markets work is because participants in them are bound to a 'race to the bottom' with many other participants doing the same thing. When companies aren't forced to race to the bottom against each other, the conditions of authoritarianism rise. Authoritarian structures don't have to necessarily come from government - monopolies, oligopolies and im…

> The question is have we reached a point where technology and globalization provide such enormous returns to the economies of scale that we can't go back or is all this corporate concentration just due to a lack of government enforcement? At some point, America decided that only horizontal monopolies counted, not vertical ones. Many of our concerns about antitrust would be assuaged if regulators started keeping sepa…

Microsoft got in trouble for a good deal of illegal things they did to protect the Windows monopoly from Java :) Integrating IE into the OS was fine in itself, but part of the bigger strategy for which they were sentenced.

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#26

Post by issue9mm »

TYPE_FASTER wrote: post #21

> In a November speech, Ajit Pai, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, argued that “edge providers” like social-media websites and search engines “routinely block or discriminate against content they don’t like.” ... > He also pointed to Twitter’s suspension of a pro-life campaign ad from Rep. Marsha Blackburn, an action that would have been illegal if done by a TV or radio station. Which is interesting…

Without getting into the ideological minutiae, is it not possible for the government to know that there's something wrong in the marketplace, and not be obligated to address it?

It should be possible for both the FCC to acknowledge that censorship by large, private, commercial entities is bad for free expression, while acknowledging that it is their platform to do with as they please, IMO.

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#27

Post by imhelpingu »

guelo wrote: post #17

Right wing propaganda is so strong and coordinated these days that they can develop a new goal and drive a single message repeatedly across multiple platforms for months or years. This attack on Google is a new right wing message developed this year but they just keep hammering at it across all their channels tailoring their argument to the different audiences and continuously building mind share and momentum.

"Letting a giant monopoly control the internet might be a bad idea." Right wing propaganda.

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#29

Post by lr4444lr »

humanrebar wrote: post #13

This is the first I heard of the Prager U parental filtering and demonetization. The videos are certainly conservative, both culturally and economically, but the ones I've seen aren't objectionable in any way. In many ways, they are less objectionable than a lot that goes out over the AM radio bands in the U.S. Ars Technica on the story: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/prageru-sues-you... Best I can find…

What do you think about the fact that this WSJ article though is "the first you've heard of it"? Could the story itself perhaps have been suppressed in some deliberate manner by Google?

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#30

Post by eli_gottlieb »

narrator wrote: post #8

Which makes me ask the question: do you, gentle Hacker News reader, really want diversity of opinion and why? Do you have unpopular opinions and if so, would you get fired or ostracized for sharing them? Are you practicing crimethink? After all, the only people actually working on alternatives to Google and Facebook are the alt-right who have been de-platformed. Gab.ai is so de-platformed that google doesn't even let…

Stop being snide. I know exactly where to find 8chan. I just don't go there because I don't like it.
Post reply on HN