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

211–220 of 228 posts

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#211

Post by ForHackernews »

dustingetz wrote: post #100
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose I see consolidation which is a function of the mechanics of the market as a good reason for nationalization and consolidation which isn't as a good reason for antitrust. So maybe Facebook/Google should be nationalized? I think the real test of that though is to break them up and see whether consolidation reoccurs. I'd love to have lots of competing Googles and I prefer that world to the one with a nationali…

maybe! i don't see how it's possible to have two competing world wide webs, or two competing facebooks. The fact that there's only one of them is why they are valuable. It's interesting that facebook wants to be the world wide web, and if they pull that off, they'll have just eaten the one network and merged it into theirs. Its as if the only way to compete with a network is to swallow it up by a bigger, more powerfu…

The difference between Facebook and the web is that Facebook is a monolithic service run by one company and the web is a set of open protocols that can be implemented by anyone who cares to do so.

It's easy to imagine a world where social media worked the way email already does: you'd pick your own provider, and they would interoperate with other providers through standardized protocols.

You can have one network that isn't run by one entity.

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#212

Post by uuuu91113e »

sintaxi wrote: post #192
rorykoehler wrote: post #190

Earlier 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…

> All more the reason to shine a light on these ideas. They won't hold under scrutiny.

That assumes people are rational.

What we know is, people are more likely to believe things they have heard before (mere exposure effect), and are more likely to believe things their peers believe (bandwagon effect).

I believe in free speech. As in, the government must not censor peoples speech. But we're crazy to think bad ideas will go away just because we expose them, or scrutinize them with arguments.

When you have an idea that is dangerous and perceived as fringe, you must individually choose not to give that idea more exposure. The risk is you normalize the idea for a segment of your audience.

When the idea is dangerous and breaking into the mainstream, you have no choice but to confront it. But you can't do so with arguments alone. You need to blend logical arguments with emotional appeals, because 1. that's how humans work and 2. the other side is doing it and you are at a disadvantage if you don't. Remember that the art of rhetoric originally encompassed 3 areas: Logos (logic) Pathos (feeling) and ethos (credibility).

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#213

Post by owly »

briandear wrote: post #205
acover wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about a consumer group to assert pressure? Edit: a consumer group could have monopsony powers and be capable of negotiating concessions. Such as an open api.

Consumers already can do that — they can refuse to use FB products — but they don’t. So a consumer group is pretty useless without enough consumers to actually exert their power.

This is exactly right. Consumers could organize a week without Facebook event, including deleting the app from their devices. If a significant number of people participated, FB would get the message.

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#214

Post by supernovae »

nailer wrote: post #203
supernovae wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without context what you are saying is meaningless. Sure, "liberals" seem closed minded in not accepting racism, bigotry or hate speech but in accepting people for who they are, it's hard to say their opinions are stereotypical at all... I mean the democrats/liberals/progressives agree to disagree more often than not.

I find a lot of US faux-'liberals' to be quite bigoted in terms of acting like measures against against illegal immigration from Mexico somehow are racist - implying all Mexicans are illegal immigrants. Similarly the same people speak as if all black people are working class, all white people are middle class, etc., which is also bigoted.

I can't agree with this at all because it doesn't reflect reality, in fact, is a projection of how conservatives "feel" so they can continue to ignore reality. Immigration isn't a black and white issue. Maybe if you feel that what liberals are implying has some merit of truth to upset you, then you would look at how to change those signals rather than pretend they're not there.

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#215

Post by ithilglin909 »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #180
ithilglin909 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lumping totally dis-similar arguments together is just intellectually lazy, which is most of my problem with the use of words like "racist, sexist, etc." They have valid applications, but are often used to circumvent rational debate.

Most people are intellectually lazy. Better get used to it. If you want your arguments to be consistently distinguished from the racist ones you will have to put in more effort to make them seem more distinct.

You don't even know what my arguments would be!

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#216

Post by abiox »

CasteTraitor wrote: post #156
supernovae wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I believe if you are in this country ilegally you should be deported. Apparantly, according to many many liberals, that makes me a "racist."

sometimes people present reductive versions of an argument and drop relevant contextual information and then complain that others respond unfairly. that said, favoring deportation for unlawful entry - wholly absent of any context or further data - doesn't contain much information to assert 'racist'.

however, there are serious 'racial implications' of various immigration policies, such as the 'papers please' arizona law, which says officers can harass people simply by being 'suspicious that the individual is an illegal immigrant'. if a person's status is unknown, the means by which such suspicion is derived would seem to principally lie within racial profiling and similar tactics. among other problems, this profiling creates an unreasonable burden on american citizens that are hispanic (particularly those of mestizo heritage).

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#217

Post by stale2002 »

mikebenfield wrote: post #149
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All right, here's some context. People are classified as "racist" for believing that the culture that came out of northern Europe is not inherently oppressive. (Source: Watching what's happened on university campuses for the last couple of years. I can't point you to a specific documentation of a specific event at the moment.) When that's the definition of "racist", then racism is indeed "nearly meaningless" - it's b…

> 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…

> Consider, among many other facts, the fact that Alabama just very nearly elected .....

ANNND how does that have anything to do with "northern eropean" culture being inherently, automatically oppressive?

> If that's not enough to convince you that racism is a serious problem

Yes, racism is a serious problem. And how does that have anything to do with what the person you are responding to just said?

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#218

Post by abiox »

hyperdunc wrote: post #183
mikebenfield wrote: post #149

Earlier 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…

If that's inherently oppressive then it's not much of a leap to say that disagreement, categorization and even existence is inherently oppressive. Which makes oppression a good thing.

> Which makes oppression a good thing

does it? waxing a bit philosophical here: is existence really any better than non-existence? it's not like anyone has experienced both. :P

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#219

Post by abiox »

chmln wrote: post #136
supernovae wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without context what you are saying is meaningless. Sure, "liberals" seem closed minded in not accepting racism, bigotry or hate speech but in accepting people for who they are, it's hard to say their opinions are stereotypical at all... I mean the democrats/liberals/progressives agree to disagree more often than not.

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

> The problem is that these words have become nearly meaningless from vast overuse

i do think it's sometimes thrown around unfairly.

however, from the other direction the criteria for such is nearly impossible. for some, racism 'doesn't exist anymore' and short of explicitly saying 'i am a legit racist for realz' everything can be explained away. be it 'race realism', stat framing or a variety of other things.

part of this is the issue of what it means 'to be a racist'. some people would (for example) happily endorse laws that would disproportionately burden hispanic americans and harass hispanics of any sort, but claim they're 'not racist' because they 'don't care about color'.

basically this dialectic allows real world racist activity through deferring the assessment of racism to a fundamentally unknowable and unprovable internal state.

Re: The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

#220

Post by acover »

briandear wrote: post #205
acover wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about a consumer group to assert pressure? Edit: a consumer group could have monopsony powers and be capable of negotiating concessions. Such as an open api.

Consumers already can do that — they can refuse to use FB products — but they don’t. So a consumer group is pretty useless without enough consumers to actually exert their power.

Boycotts aren't the only option.

Consumers have boycotted products in the past. Consumer pressure has worked against Facebook in the past.

I agree that it is an unlikely and difficult solution. I don't see an easy one.

Post reply on HN