Tech and Liberty • Hacker News Board

Re: Tech and Liberty

#21

Post by arminiusreturns » Tue, Nov 05, 2019, 6:43 PM UTC

Two points related:

One: Both platforms by providing a platform for public servants... cough-laugh politicians, there are good arguments to be made that in some cases they are public forums. I heard this argument put very well by a law podcast when discussing the "Trump can't block people on twitter" saga.

Two: Given the governments heavy involvement with these companies behind the scenes, I think there is also a compelling argument that that heavy involvement could change the view of the companies as purely private. (From initial funding via CIA VC In-Q-Tel to National Security Letters and other various entangling structures usually under the banner of "national security")

Great article, just wanted to add those two things.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#22

Post by twoquestions » Tue, Nov 05, 2019, 6:45 PM UTC

steven741 wrote: post #16

I feel that the biggest problem with social media isn't a matter of liberty but one of control. Individual consumers don't have enough control over what they see. For example, if I'd like not to see anything political whatsoever on my Facebook that right is often not respected. And it should be respected. It is my account. If someone says something I don't like or don't want to be affiliated with I should take steps…

Continuing from this, as they push content on you that you don't want to see, you become used to it. It's the same as getting used to a new musical genre; at first it all sounds like noise, but after the 50th or so hour you can hear the important parts clearly. Repetition legitimizes.

Harnessing that, they (Facebook, other advertisers) can push what ideas they want you to think into your mind, almost without your even noticing if you're not paying attention, and work to convince you you're the outlier even if you reject what they're saying.

You're correct, and the more I think on it the creepier it gets.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#23

Post by jldugger » Tue, Nov 05, 2019, 6:50 PM UTC

_xnmw wrote: post #15

The First Amendment was written at a time when the constraints of the available technology created "natural" boundaries as to what kind of speech could spread in a society. The very fact that publishing an opinion anonymously (edit: I should say without peer-review of any sort), at scale, was nearly impossible, prevented the development of many sordid, dark, and "evil" thoughts from reaching the point of public disco…

> The very fact that publishing an opinion anonymously, at scale, was nearly impossible, prevented the development of many sordid, dark, and "evil" thoughts from reaching the point of public discourse.

I find it somewhat amusing that you say this in response to an article citing the Federalist papers.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#24

Post by thrower123 » Tue, Nov 05, 2019, 6:53 PM UTC

_xnmw wrote: post #15

The First Amendment was written at a time when the constraints of the available technology created "natural" boundaries as to what kind of speech could spread in a society. The very fact that publishing an opinion anonymously (edit: I should say without peer-review of any sort), at scale, was nearly impossible, prevented the development of many sordid, dark, and "evil" thoughts from reaching the point of public disco…

This is decidedly ahistorical. Anonymous publishing was rampant in the 18th century. Broadsheets, pamphlets, political screeds, and all manner of printings were published anonymously or under pseudonyms in the time period, not least because there were consequences for putting your name explicitly on subversive materials.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#25

Post by lliamander » Tue, Nov 05, 2019, 6:58 PM UTC

This describes precisely my own reaction to Munroe's comic.

I mean, it's certainly true that discussion forums benefit from moderation to remove trolls. However, Munroe myopically assumes that the only people being de-platformed are trolls.

Even if some of the people being de-platformed are provocateurs, the fact is that there's still a difference between excluding people from what is essentially a private club (as most online discussion forums are) and excluding people from the public square (which Facebook and Twitter have essentially become). In the broader social sphere, the differences between troll and Socratic "gadfly" are difficult if not impossible to discern.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#26

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Nov 05, 2019, 6:59 PM UTC

_xnmw wrote: post #15

The First Amendment was written at a time when the constraints of the available technology created "natural" boundaries as to what kind of speech could spread in a society. The very fact that publishing an opinion anonymously (edit: I should say without peer-review of any sort), at scale, was nearly impossible, prevented the development of many sordid, dark, and "evil" thoughts from reaching the point of public disco…

[deleted]

Re: Tech and Liberty

#27

Post by supercanuck » Tue, Nov 05, 2019, 7:01 PM UTC

The idea behind breaking up Facebook, is simply to have Instagram, Whats App, etc compete as independent entities which would create competition.

That is the check on Facebook's power and lack of accountability.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#28

Post by _xnmw » Tue, Nov 05, 2019, 7:02 PM UTC

jldugger wrote: post #23

_xnmw wrote: post #15

The First Amendment was written at a time when the constraints of the available technology created "natural" boundaries as to what kind of speech could spread in a society. The very fact that publishing an opinion anonymously (edit: I should say without peer-review of any sort), at scale, was nearly impossible, prevented the development of many sordid, dark, and "evil" thoughts from reaching the point of public disco…

> The very fact that publishing an opinion anonymously, at scale, was nearly impossible, prevented the development of many sordid, dark, and "evil" thoughts from reaching the point of public discourse. I find it somewhat amusing that you say this in response to an article citing the Federalist papers.

The very fact that those papers made it to the publications means they were peer-reviewed and agreed to be redistributed by public institutions. Anonymous internet sites are not peer-reviewed.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#29

Post by _xnmw » Tue, Nov 05, 2019, 7:07 PM UTC

thrower123 wrote: post #24

_xnmw wrote: post #15

The First Amendment was written at a time when the constraints of the available technology created "natural" boundaries as to what kind of speech could spread in a society. The very fact that publishing an opinion anonymously (edit: I should say without peer-review of any sort), at scale, was nearly impossible, prevented the development of many sordid, dark, and "evil" thoughts from reaching the point of public disco…

This is decidedly ahistorical. Anonymous publishing was rampant in the 18th century. Broadsheets, pamphlets, political screeds, and all manner of printings were published anonymously or under pseudonyms in the time period, not least because there were consequences for putting your name explicitly on subversive materials.

Those ideas were still subject to a much greater level of peer review before they could be redistributed. You couldn't get a broadsheet or pamphlet in front of millions of eyes without the implicit approval of tens of thousands of voluntary distributors.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#30

Post by lliamander » Tue, Nov 05, 2019, 7:09 PM UTC

dieterrams2 wrote: post #19

lliamander wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? And is it different in a way that invalidate Mill's points?

igammarays' comment says what I didn't have time to say: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21455211 I don't necessarily think this invalidates Mill's points, but Mill believed in exceptions[1], and the dynamics of discourse on social media today would likely give him pause. 1. https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bul...

igammarays seems to be most concerned with "bad ideas" being spread by the recently unfettered access given to the common person to publish to the world at large. There was probably a similar grievance during the development of the printing press, and given that many people here would probably disagree with the "mainstream" ideas of even the recent past, it's hard for me to imagine how a renewed effort at gatekeeping will really solve the issue.

Given the quote from Mill listed in that article, I expect the biggest quibble Mill would have with the use of social media not the dissemination of "fake news", but with how outrage culture has been used to deprive people of their jobs (e.g. "dongle-gate") or how people have been "doxxed" and then harassed in person by lawless thugs (e.g. antifa showing up at Tucker Carlson's house).

Lastly, the Supreme Court decision cited in your article was addressed by the dissenting opinion quoted in the Stratechery article.