Live data from Hacker News

The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

wsj.com

151–160 of 228 posts

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those tradeoffs are as chilling as a nationalized postal service. The "chilling consequences" that you are imagining are as speculative as any other work of science-fiction that you've read online. Ask yourself: where did you get the idea that creating new public institutions would have "chilling consequences"? Did you personally experience this in reality or did you read about it somewhere? What are the chilling exp…

"when the State becomes a computer" I think reading that sentence is enough to be bone-chillingly horrified, and nationalizing the necessary data is the first step towards making it inevitable

At least we can both agree that we are talking about how we interpret and react to hypothetical utterances on the internet.

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#152
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…

> Are you practicing crimethink? -A few hundred years ago, being an atheist was "crimethink", as was religious tolerance towards Jews, Muslims, and so forth. -A few hundred years ago, questioning the divine right of kings to rule was "crimethink". -In the early 1600s, Galileo stood trial and was condemned for the "crimethink" of saying the Earth moved around the Sun, in contradiction to the teachings of the Church. -…

Nitpick: Galileo was put under house arrest from the church not because of his heliocentric views, but because he publicly mocked the pope (making him "Simplicio" in Dialogue), even after Galileo was warned not to.

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"when the State becomes a computer" I think reading that sentence is enough to be bone-chillingly horrified, and nationalizing the necessary data is the first step towards making it inevitable

At least we can both agree that we are talking about how we interpret and react to hypothetical utterances on the internet.

i see your point that this is all hypothetical stuff from intellectual books.

BUT, the people in power get to decide the course of the earth. It's humans all the way up. The hypothetical becomes real over time and when it gets here, it is too late to plan.

TLDR books are important

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#154

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…

CPAs have been going down forever in a price war and there has never been so much choice for consumers.

There is no evidence of a monopoly anywhere.

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly why "viewpoint diversity" is something people are increasingly concerned about. The basic premise is: we all engage in motivated reasoning. We all accept weak arguments sometimes if they reinforce or flatter our existing world view. If we shut out all dissenting views, we'll let lots of bullshit go unchallenged because we were never forced to actually defend our beliefs. So I think it's totally fair t…

I appreciate your thoughtful, reasonable and balanced response. It also treats the opposing viewpoint, the WSJ's opinion, with a degree of intellectual integrity. Your point about 'blind spots' though is a very gentle jab to my larger point. I don't believe this is a 'blind spot'. My point is more basic - I don't think the WSJ has any real intellectual integrity. In all honesty I think its bad from a viewpoint divers…

I get the distaste for what can easily be seen as political opportunism. I think it's entirely possible that you are right that WSJ would not care about viewpoint diversity unless that position was benefiting them at the moment.

But after years of following endless cultural trench warfare carried out on social media, I strongly believe that focusing the debate on the perceived evil of certain people/organizations (like WSJ) doesn't help. I think it's actively toxic and prevents us from finding common ground.

I have no particular love for WSJ, but viewpoint diversity is something I feel very passionate about. This cause is being spearheaded by Heterodox Academy, who focus specifically on academia: https://heterodoxacademy.org/problems/

So even though I might disagree with WSJ on all sorts of other things, I'm still happy to see them popularize an argument that I care about. I can feel "in coalition" with them on this issue, even if I might disagree strongly with them on other things. Pointing out contradictions in their argument (as you have done above) is totally fair game and could force them to reconcile these inconsistencies if enough people call them on it.

> I'm not here to argue the for or against the government intervention trying to prevent a narrowing of the diversity of opinion. I'm saying the WSJ does not give a crap about diversity. They have no real ideals. They only care when their side has a disadvantage.

I feel exactly the opposite: I'm not here to argue whether WSJ is a sinner or a saint. To me it's a fruitless question because even if you could prove they have bad motives, that doesn't tell us what we should think about this argument. People can make good arguments for the wrong reasons. That doesn't mean we should throw the argument out based on who is making it.

By the way, I say this as someone who has broken this rule countless times over the years. I don't say all this because I think I am better at productive argumentation than other people. I say this because I've spent too much time over the years on toxic discourse that goes nowhere.

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#156
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> racism, bigotry or hate speech The problem is that these words have become nearly meaningless from vast overuse.

how so? another comment without context.

A perfect example would be the immigration debate. I believe if you are in this country ilegally you should be deported. Apparantly, according to many many liberals, that makes me a "racist."

Of course race has nothing to do with it, I couldn't care less what color you are , if you're here illegally you need to be deported. And it's not just me, but I constantly see others who have the same beliefs getting accused of being racist.

And that's just one example. I've seen people be accused of being sexist just because they didn't like Hilary Clinton. It was actually really common for liberals to accuse opponents of Clinton of being sexist regardless of the total absence of any evidence of actual sexism.

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#157
It's really amazing how quickly the topic shifts after the repeal of Net Neutrality. Places were pushing this topic constantly in attempt to shift debate on why insuring ISPs don't do any silly things with user traffic. It very quickly became 'Google and Facebook are monopolies and are controlling all of your content / censoring everything'.

This isn't to say that I don't agree that Google and Facebook are exceedingly large companies with far-reaching tendrils controlling a lot of what we see and do. But rather it's blatantly obvious that it's setting up a new target to avoid backlash against giving ISPs effectively more power, especially over said companies. I mean it would be less obvious if he literally didn't come out and say that thing, plus various far-right websites repeating the topic but that's the world we live in right now. I have a feeling the topic won't stick at all beyond being a convenient whataboutism.

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#158
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What might be of larger concern is the IP licensing aspect. If that's the larger concern, then why isn't it a concern for text or images? Lots of photographers would love Facebook-enforced DRM for the wedding photos they haven't licensed. No, it makes more sense to assume the concern is pursuing consumer and creator lock-in through vertical integration.

You are, obviously and of course, correct that Facebook stands to benefit from lock-in. Perhaps I fail to understand the IP issues correctly. Users uploading wedding photos to Facebook that they claim they have the rights to is in the same category, legally, as the videos that users claim they own the rights to. Both get the same (lack of) concern. That's my understanding, at least. Does your differ?

On a legal level, you are correct. On a practical level, people are able to share text and image files without consequences while companies like facebook and google provide tools to detect and proactively police copyright infringement in audio and video files.

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#159
post #97

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 revitalization is happening as we speak. Normally Big Tech would have been able to rely on establishment Democrats and Republicans to avoid antitrust scrutiny. But Democrats are on board with the progressive wing now [1], mainly as a result of seeing the fallout of Google/Facebook/Twitter's role in enabling Russian influence operations in the US (and Europe), but also because newspapers and rivals of Google have…

> They were successful in the EU (the shopping and Android cases are slam dunks in my opinion) but were stymied in the US under the Obama administration (despite FTC staff recommending a case be made) [2].

I wonder why that was.

https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close...

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#160
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…

Humans are social mammals. If you want the benefits of herd membership, then that requires some degree of conformity and surrender of autonomy. That is the price we all must pay. If you want to be independent and go another way then do so and don't cry about the consequences of your choice.

Don't show up to a high end night club wearing swimming trunks and crocs and expect the bouncer to let you in. Don't go to a klan rally preaching racial tolerance and expect to be invited back. Don't hang out in a diverse, multi-ethnic environment preaching white supremacy and expect people to pat you on the head.

Post reply on HN