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

Tech and Liberty

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 170 posts

Re: Tech and Liberty

#81

Post by zozbot234 »

loudmax wrote: post #10

The fundamental problem is the near monopoly powers enjoyed by a select few social media and tech companies. If Facebook and Twitter's social networks were federated like email, it wouldn't matter whether they refuse to propagate one opinion or another. Unhappy users or anyone who feels silenced could simply switch to a different provider. The problem isn't that Facebook or Twitter are allowing or not allowing free s…

> I'm not arguing that these companies be broken up, either. What I am arguing is that they open up their networks to interact with other services using an open protocol such as Mastadon or Matrix.

This is essentially a 'breakup' though, of the sort that's actually effective. It's isolating the potentially-monopolistic, non-contestable part of the company - the "platform" standard - and making it accessible to others on an equitable basis. This is the model that any "monopoly breakups" should follow, whether simply "opening up to a standard" is viable or not.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#82

Post by germinalphrase »

zozbot234 wrote: post #81
loudmax wrote: post #10

The fundamental problem is the near monopoly powers enjoyed by a select few social media and tech companies. If Facebook and Twitter's social networks were federated like email, it wouldn't matter whether they refuse to propagate one opinion or another. Unhappy users or anyone who feels silenced could simply switch to a different provider. The problem isn't that Facebook or Twitter are allowing or not allowing free s…

> I'm not arguing that these companies be broken up, either. What I am arguing is that they open up their networks to interact with other services using an open protocol such as Mastadon or Matrix. This is essentially a 'breakup' though, of the sort that's actually effective. It's isolating the potentially-monopolistic, non-contestable part of the company - the "platform" standard - and making it accessible to others…

We need an extremely easy way to communicate this difference in system to the public - ideally an image as simple a the food pyramid. If it takes too much explaining, it won’t go anywhere. They’re not invested enough to care. But, adequately proposed, they can be moved from saying “whatever” to “yes, that makes sense”.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#83

Post by zozbot234 »

dave_b wrote: post #74
thundergolfer wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m confused by your first paragraph. In what way do progressives control the public space? Republicans are far more powerful than progressives in all branches of government (and remember Democrat != progressive). Corporations obviously dominate corporate space, which is a large sphere of life in the USA, and not at all “public space”. So what’s left?

By “public space,” I meant the predominant avenues for public discourse (maybe not the best choice of words). Mainstream media, tech platforms, and universities are the specific things I had in mind.

We usually call that whole complex "the Cathedral". It fits with progressives' historical origin in the gradual politicization of new religious movements of all sorts.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#84

Post by lliamander »

Barrin92 wrote: post #18

It's quite funny how stereotypical American Ben's blog is. The most important idea that is made explicit in the post (but not justified) is that of the marketplate of ideas, or that 'connecting people' (Zuckerberg) provides meaning, and that speech and an increase in information is a means to mount resistance against the powers that be. one alternative view was presented by Baudrillard in 1985, talking about the 'unc…

It's an interesting observation (and one which predates social media) but I'm struggling to see grasp whether you are suggesting that there is a practical implication for this debate. Is there a justification for censorship?

I don't think people who advocate for a market place of ideas are denying that there is often a low signal-to-noise ratio in such an environment. The point is that sometimes that chaos is the only way for the signal to be heard at all.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#85

Post by lliamander »

hedvig wrote: post #75
Barrin92 wrote: post #18

It's quite funny how stereotypical American Ben's blog is. The most important idea that is made explicit in the post (but not justified) is that of the marketplate of ideas, or that 'connecting people' (Zuckerberg) provides meaning, and that speech and an increase in information is a means to mount resistance against the powers that be. one alternative view was presented by Baudrillard in 1985, talking about the 'unc…

Or the Architect's speech in the Matrix correct? Where he reveals that the One is an accepted anomaly accounted for in the system.

I generally like Randall Munroe, and one thing he said was (essentially) "It's the conspiracy theorists who are the real optimists, because they are the ones who think there's someone in charge that actually has a plan and knows what they are doing".

Re: Tech and Liberty

#86

Post by stickfigure »

loudmax wrote: post #10

The fundamental problem is the near monopoly powers enjoyed by a select few social media and tech companies. If Facebook and Twitter's social networks were federated like email, it wouldn't matter whether they refuse to propagate one opinion or another. Unhappy users or anyone who feels silenced could simply switch to a different provider. The problem isn't that Facebook or Twitter are allowing or not allowing free s…

open up their networks to interact with other services using an open protocol such as Mastadon or Matrix

And here is where the two camps of Facebook-haters will go to war with each other:

* The decentralization mavens want open protocols and distributed control.

* The privacy mavens want to control information as it flows through the network, preventing friends from oversharing "your" data.

These two camps are mortal enemies, but they apparently haven't figured it out yet. You cannot share data with open protocols and still maintain control of that data.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#87

Post by widowlark »

dave_b wrote: post #44
lliamander wrote: post #25

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 m…

Progressives of the past were all about the principle of free speech. Now that they have the power to control the public space, all they seem to care about are the technicalities of the first amendment. Arguments like that in the comic revel in enforcing groupthink because the author thinks it will be used in a way he finds favorable. If you take a step back, it’s obvious that every censorious organization has very s…

We cant have it both ways.

On the one hand, Twitter, Facebook, et al. are "basically" town/public squares - they are also private companies. So we either regulate and minimize private companies ability to silence speech as they see fit, which is their right - or we allow them to exercise their own rights, thus bending to the masses and appealing to the lowest common denominator through censorship.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#88

Post by widowlark »

lliamander wrote: post #79
sanderjd wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What features make a private website a public square? I often wonder: Would people feel differently if platforms were honest and direct about being a private club of some specific kind? If Twitter came out and said they wanted to be a private club for people with progressive views to discuss politics and sundry, would that dampen the criticism of censorship?

> What features make a private website a public square? * The fact that that's what these sites bill themselves as (a place to connect everyone). * Their user base cross-cuts most demographics (even if the samplings are always representative). > Would people feel differently if platforms were honest and direct about being a private club of some specific kind? Yes. You don't hear much about the government wanting to r…

>The fact that that's what these sites bill themselves as (a place to connect everyone).

Companies never lie or have false advertising.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#89

Post by widowlark »

lliamander wrote: post #42
_xnmw wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let's not call this "peer-review" as if it were some sort of scientific process. What you're talking about is a social acceptability test. Now, that's fine , so far as it goes. Every society needs mores and norms to govern behavior (and speech) in order to function. But let's not suppose that suppressing an individual's freedom to express thoughts not pre-approved is going to result in a net win for truth.

>Every society needs mores and norms to govern behavior

What we are experiencing today are those new norms

Re: Tech and Liberty

#90

Post by amadeuspagel »

Barrin92 wrote: post #18

It's quite funny how stereotypical American Ben's blog is. The most important idea that is made explicit in the post (but not justified) is that of the marketplate of ideas, or that 'connecting people' (Zuckerberg) provides meaning, and that speech and an increase in information is a means to mount resistance against the powers that be. one alternative view was presented by Baudrillard in 1985, talking about the 'unc…

This sort of bullshit is exactly why people despise post-modernism. Because most speech doesn't accomplish anything, it's ok if people aren't allowed to speak at all?
Post reply on HN