I cant dispute the conclusion of the article on diversity of thought because the article is blocked by a paywall.
The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought
191–200 of 228 posts
Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
You say you want diversity of opinion because you are a "liberal" but mainstream liberalism has next to nothing to do with classical liberalism. Your average urban, coastal "liberal" adheres to their orthodoxies with about the level openness to other opinions as a stereotypical religious zealot.
I've heard all the alt-right arguments, long before the term alt-right made it into contemporary vernacular, and concluded that they are meritless ideas coming from idiots who lack the ability of genuine critical thought. They can say whatever they want, I don't really care, but I reserve the right to mock them and discriminate against them for being dangerous idiots. Being open to new and alternative thoughts is not…
> I've heard all the alt-right arguments, long before the term alt-right made it into contemporary vernacular, and concluded that they are meritless ideas coming from idiots who lack the ability of genuine critical thought.
All more the reason to shine a light on these ideas. They won't hold under scrutiny. Blind obedience is not a reasonable expectation of people. We need to understand how our civilization got to where it is while others failed. There really is no such thing as "final purge". If purging becomes part of our ideology there will always be another enemy to deal with and the division will never end.
Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought
#193The 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…
Kill Google, Facebook and Amazon and you will have Baidu, Tencent and Alibaba taking their place.
Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Watching what's happened on university campuses for the last couple of years Have you been on a university campus recently? Contrary to what some reactionary conservatives seem to think, they are not generally oppressive places with no tolerance for conservative thought. Yes, occasionally 19 year olds say and do some silly things. That's kind of what being young and having your first taste of adulthood is supposed…
>Contrary to what some reactionary conservatives seem to think, they are not generally oppressive places with no tolerance for conservative thought. It varies from university to university. Most universities don't experience anything like the authoritarian-left chaos at Evergreen [1], but you can find student organizations at universities all over America who hold these far-left beliefs. We had no scandals like this…
Saying we've overcorrected on racism is like saying we've overcorrected on feminism. If 2017 has shown us anything, its that there are a lot of skeletons hidden in many closets.
There's extremist in both groups that fight for overcorrection but lets not confuse that with an actual overcorrection of any kind.
Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought
#195The 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…
Kill Google, Facebook and Amazon and you will have Baidu, Tencent and Alibaba taking their place.
Not really sure if that is true, but I would really like to see eBay crushed by Taobao.
My message to the Chinese: you give us Taobao, we give you South China Seas. The nine-dashed line. All yours!
Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought
#196Earlier 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 don't believe this is a 'blind spot'
I think this is how blind spots are supposed to work
> Except they don't take issue with Sinclair the same way they have concerns of Google/Facebook.
Facebook case could be a very different proposition compared to traditional media outlets precisely because of it's sheer size and network effects. If you have concerns with a small media outlets controlling how we consumer information and view the world, Facebook is an order of magnitude bigger threat than Sinclair
> In all honesty I think its bad from a viewpoint diversity to have such a small number of outlets control this much of the flow of information. And so if this was a real concern of the WSJ then maybe they would take that approach to very similar and present concern - the purchase of Tribune Media by Sinclar. Tribune Media owns 40+ TV stations. Sinclair owns at least 100 stations. In some cities Sinclair owns 3 stations. Certainly if the WSJ cares about 'viewpoint diversity' they would be concerned about a single company owning that much of the media landscape
I don't think all their articles are supportive of the merger. For example, this article seems to present both viewpoints : https://www.wsj.com/articles/sinclairs-purchase-of-tribune-l...
Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've heard all the alt-right arguments, long before the term alt-right made it into contemporary vernacular, and concluded that they are meritless ideas coming from idiots who lack the ability of genuine critical thought. They can say whatever they want, I don't really care, but I reserve the right to mock them and discriminate against them for being dangerous idiots. Being open to new and alternative thoughts is not…
> I've heard all the alt-right arguments, long before the term alt-right made it into contemporary vernacular, and concluded that they are meritless ideas coming from idiots who lack the ability of genuine critical thought. All more the reason to shine a light on these ideas. They won't hold under scrutiny. Blind obedience is not a reasonable expectation of people. We need to understand how our civilization got to wh…
>If purging becomes part of our ideology there will always be another enemy to deal with and the division will never end.
This is a natural process of any organically evolving system. It keeps what helps it and expels what doesn't.
I agree there will never be an end to problems and division. The nature of them will simply change.
Regarding shining light on the ideas... this is pointless. First they come from an emotional place so discussing them with logic won't work. Second I could argue with flat-earthers all day but what's the point.
Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've heard all the alt-right arguments, long before the term alt-right made it into contemporary vernacular, and concluded that they are meritless ideas coming from idiots who lack the ability of genuine critical thought. All more the reason to shine a light on these ideas. They won't hold under scrutiny. Blind obedience is not a reasonable expectation of people. We need to understand how our civilization got to wh…
>If purging becomes part of our ideology there will always be another enemy to deal with and the division will never end. This is a natural process of any organically evolving system. It keeps what helps it and expels what doesn't. I agree there will never be an end to problems and division. The nature of them will simply change. Regarding shining light on the ideas... this is pointless. First they come from an emoti…
> This is a natural process of any organically evolving system. It keeps what helps it and expels what doesn't.
I don't think it is natural, I think its a sickness. The goal isn't to improve things the goal is to have an enemy to destroy. There is no point where behaviour of the un-purged will be acceptable enough.
> Regarding shining light on the ideas... this is pointless
So you understand the arguments, learned that it doesn't hold water and are therefore in a position to speak intelligently on the issue but you don't want others to go through the same process? That doesn't make sense to me and leaves the biggest question un-asked which is who gets to decide what can or cant be discussed?
Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If purging becomes part of our ideology there will always be another enemy to deal with and the division will never end. This is a natural process of any organically evolving system. It keeps what helps it and expels what doesn't. I agree there will never be an end to problems and division. The nature of them will simply change. Regarding shining light on the ideas... this is pointless. First they come from an emoti…
> This is a natural process of any organically evolving system. It keeps what helps it and expels what doesn't. I don't think it is natural, I think its a sickness. The goal isn't to improve things the goal is to have an enemy to destroy. There is no point where behaviour of the un-purged will be acceptable enough. > Regarding shining light on the ideas... this is pointless So you understand the arguments, learned th…
I never said I don't want others to go through the same process. Just don't expect anything from me. We all live in our own realities and I'm lucky to be privileged enough to be able to ignore hardcore Nazis. Life is too short to waste energy on debating them. I suspect many feel this way.
If it comes to a head and I find that I suddenly can't avoid them anymore I know where I stand and will act accordingly. If you spend you whole life arguing with everyone you disagree with on important issues no matter how ridiculous their counter-arguments are then it is likely you will carry the weight of the world on your shoulder and become terribly depressed. I've seen this happen too many times to count so I checked out and focused more energy on things that bring positive energy to me and the world. If that's a problem to you, that's your problem not mine, and you'll have to deal with it.
This conversation on the other hand is fine because valid questions were raised and points were made without judgement or threat of violence. I may or may not agree with you but as I said I can handle valid alternative thoughts I disagree with (which ironically is not a feature of alt-right ideology).
Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought
#200Which 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…
I would say Facebook and Google does the exact opposite of insulating people from alt-right media, it hobbles their competition quite a bit leaving alt-right media spread unhindered.
Serious publications spend a lot of money on research, distribution, and marketing that alt right publications like Breitbart and their smaller, European counterparts don't need to bother with because their material distributes itself. All they need is a headline that makes you angry at minorities and social media does all the legwork for them, people are not even going to open the article before they click "share" or interact with a reaction that promotes it in the personalization algorithms.
So, when Facebook and Google are basically the only digital players who have increasing ad revenues we have a serious problem.