Tech and Liberty • Hacker News Board

Re: Tech and Liberty

#121

Post by PureParadigm » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 4:26 AM UTC

jay_kyburz wrote: post #120

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 consider myself pretty progressive, but I find the idea of forcing companies to "open up their networks" distasteful and problematic. I just doesn't seem piratical. I've said it a few times before, I don't think the problem is the carriers, its that there are no penalties for telling a lie on the internet. This is where we should start to fix this problem.

For Americans, First Amendment protects telling lies (as long as there is no other crime such as fraud), so penalties for lying on the internet likely wouldn't stand up in court.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#122

Post by jay_kyburz » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 4:32 AM UTC

PureParadigm wrote: post #121

jay_kyburz wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider myself pretty progressive, but I find the idea of forcing companies to "open up their networks" distasteful and problematic. I just doesn't seem piratical. I've said it a few times before, I don't think the problem is the carriers, its that there are no penalties for telling a lie on the internet. This is where we should start to fix this problem.

For Americans, First Amendment protects telling lies (as long as there is no other crime such as fraud), so penalties for lying on the internet likely wouldn't stand up in court.

Well then, the problem is baked right into the first amendment. (But aren't most lies a kind of fraud?)

Re: Tech and Liberty

#123

Post by JeffL » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 4:45 AM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #101

program_whiz wrote: post #46

Its crazy how at the time, people argued that since there was no power given in the constitution to do something, that it would never happen (i.e. writing down that speech was protected was unnecessary since there was no power to reulate it). Its interesting how the system has figured out the "loopholes" in the document and used it to essentially control everything that wasn't expressly forbidden (and even have power…

Well the 10th amendment specifically says this: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. So we only delegate to the federal what is specifically enumerated in the Constitution. And the enumeration of certain rights does not preclude the existence of other rights not specifically listed.

And the interstate commerce clause had come to mean that the federal government can do almost anything.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#124

Post by sifar » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 5:06 AM UTC

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 is information itself which produces uncertainty

I would argue, information is uncertainty. That is basically baked into its definition. Something that is lost on almost all of us about the information technology paradigm.

So, you have the paradox of the act of "connecting people" leads to people growing further away.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#125

Post by SllX » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 5:13 AM UTC

widowlark wrote: post #87

dave_b wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or we move on. Mastodon and the like seem to show promise. Reddit is around for something in between Mastodon and Facebook/Twitter, although it is ultimately susceptible to the same problems as the latter. Snapchat isn’t nothing, and while TikTok has problems stemming from its country of origin, it also isn’t nothing.

I would say we have a lot of choices of platforms. Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn aren’t the end of all social networks and social platforms, they’re just parts of a larger ecosystem.

So maybe we can have it both ways. Maybe social platforms can regulate themselves into being the places they want to be, and we can move on when they don’t serve us anymore. Free markets are actually pretty wonderful in that way insofar as they provide us choices and we can take them or leave them.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#126

Post by sanderjd » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 5:45 AM UTC

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…

> I think people (and advertising revenue) would move to a different platform.

That may be, but that's not what I'm asking, I'm asking whether they would still be criticized for censorship. I think probably so?

Your point about reddit is an interesting one. You're right that they don't get much grief from lawmakers on the censorship question, but I suspect that has a lot to do with unfamiliarity. They have certainly gotten lots of grief from denizens of the internet for their moderation policies over time.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#127

Post by stickfigure » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 5:48 AM UTC

ryukafalz wrote: post #104

stickfigure wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>preventing friends from oversharing "your" data. I don't think this is really what privacy advocates are typically after. At least I'm not, and I'd consider myself one of them. It's more about what data the provider has access to, not your friends. If you don't trust your friends, uh... get better friends?

Every privacy advocate I've met seems to be most incensed at Facebook over Cambridge Analtyica. To recap: CA built a quiz app that recorded data that your friends shared with you; many users installed this quiz app and accepted the "share your friends' data" permission.

Facebook didn't share your data with Cambridge Analtyica; your friends did. Facebook was just the medium.

With a distributed social network, there's no feasible legal or technical means of stopping your friends from installing another Evil Quiz App. It's barely possible to stop with a centralized system - it's slowed down only because FB put enough friction in the process.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#128

Post by sifar » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 5:51 AM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #12

lordleft wrote: post #7

A powerful and provocative article. I love the quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes: "The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out." I am a bit of a libertarian when it comes to civil liberties -- I flinch at any circumscription of speech, even when it is noxious. Still, for a v…

When you consider how the common man behaved during the rise of Nazism, and even during the height of its power, you have to conclude that the truncheon really wasn't necessary. As hard as it may be for us to accept today, there were normal, regular women who would swear out completely false statements against some poor woman down the street to get that woman a free trip to a camp. Normal, regular, everyday guys swea…

Can you please point me to the references(books/online archives) please.

I see this happening in a few places in the world and have trouble getting people to understand that someone like a Hitler/Nazism doesn't rise unless the people are complicit in it.

"The people get a leader in their own reflection."

Re: Tech and Liberty

#129

Post by KozmoNau7 » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 6:30 AM UTC

jay_kyburz wrote: post #120

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 consider myself pretty progressive, but I find the idea of forcing companies to "open up their networks" distasteful and problematic. I just doesn't seem piratical. I've said it a few times before, I don't think the problem is the carriers, its that there are no penalties for telling a lie on the internet. This is where we should start to fix this problem.

Eventually you'll run into the problem of defining a lie. How about a half-truth? Lying by omission?

The laws in most western countries allow for consequences in cases of slander and libel or where a person directly seeks to sow hatred and division against minorites for instance, defined as hate speech. Even that last part is somewhat controversial in regards to free speech, as some people think there should be no limits on speech at all.

I think the solution (or at least part of a solution) is to mandate open standards and transparency, especially when it touches politics. Provide federated social network standards that interoperate, instead of the walled gardens we have now.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#130

Post by KozmoNau7 » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 6:44 AM UTC

nine_k wrote: post #115

stickfigure wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It does not work like that. If you have shared a bit of data, you have relinquished and lost control over it, passed it to someone else. This is what sharing means . If you want to keep a secret, don't share it, at least not with parties who are not legally required to keep your secret secret. Privacy advocates ask for different things. One desire is that entities who technically have access to someone's data, even i…

There is only power in that information because our society imbues that power. Knowing someone's medical details (as an example) shouldn't be something that could be exploited for personal power and financial gain, but here we are.

Our information is valuable because it gives leverage, either by the knowledge itself or by the threat of being revealed.

You can do your best to keep your information to yourself, but it does slowly slip between your fingers. Information wants to be free, after all. You can't put something back in the box, once it has been revealed.

Interestingly, the ones who gain the most from other people's information, are also extremely guarded about their own private lives. They know how much damage they do, and are desperate for it to not happen to them as well.