11–20 of 32 posts
But why is this the minority opinion at a conservative conference:
I can't believe I'm doing this, because I'm here to convince you at a conservative conference that government shouldn't regulate speech,"
People use Facebook/Whatsapp/Twitter/Reddit for many of the same things they used to use email and personal blogs to do in 2005. But with centralized control and the ability to shape what messages get broadcast to whom, it's far too great of a concentration of power.
Google is probably the most extreme. Consider the "Evil Larry" thought experiment. If Larry Page woke up one day in 2016 while he was still CEO and decided to use Google and YouTube purely to further his own goals, how many national elections could he tilt while maintaining plausible deniability from the outside?
My guess is, it would be quite a few. It wouldn't have to look that different. Counter-narrative results would still show up in search. They'd just be down-regulated. Links and videos supporting EL's preferred candidates and positions would be up-regulated and be shown up perhaps 10% more often than previously. With plausible deniability, election after election could be tipped by a few percentage points. That's often enough to change the outcome.
There are almost certainly some internal company safeguards that would have made this kind of crime a difficult, uncertain proposition and I do NOT think the real Larry Page would ever have done this. But being completely unconcerned would be a grave mistake. Giant tech companies already lobby extensively in nations all over the world and do not have goals perfectly aligned with each of those nations—e.g., Free Basics in India.
It's naive to dismiss concerns about such extreme concentrations of power being wielded to suppress speech along political lines simply because we're currently benefactors of the action.
It’s almost like modern conservatism doesn’t actually believe in free markets and personal freedom considering this and their stance on things like gay marriage, cannabis legalization.
Also see how drugs became a “disease” and not a “moral failing of culture” the minute it start hitting “rural America”.
One doesn't have to be conservative to see an issue with world-straddling tech companies flexing their ability to shape public discourse. People use Facebook/Whatsapp/Twitter/Reddit for many of the same things they used to use email and personal blogs to do in 2005. But with centralized control and the ability to shape what messages get broadcast to whom, it's far too great of a concentration of power. Google is prob…
One doesn't have to be conservative to see an issue with world-straddling tech companies flexing their ability to shape public discourse. People use Facebook/Whatsapp/Twitter/Reddit for many of the same things they used to use email and personal blogs to do in 2005. But with centralized control and the ability to shape what messages get broadcast to whom, it's far too great of a concentration of power. Google is prob…
Companies have always supported candidates and political parties of their liking with political contributions. What's different now is that these companies can now contribute not just with money, but by influencing the online discussion we see and the search results we get.
And this is the government that HN posters routinely want to “legislate big tech”. But why is this the minority opinion at a conservative conference: I can't believe I'm doing this, because I'm here to convince you at a conservative conference that government shouldn't regulate speech,"
Now we have a situation where the same conservatives are getting cut out, and it's no longer the free market speaking, and the government is supposed to step in to protect and affirm a particular set of opinions.
I don't think this is a particularly consistent viewpoint, and it makes me wonder how much the free market had to do with ditching the fairness doctrine and the less conservative radio and TV voices.
Bunch a snowflakes. Maybe if they had not stopped actually being conservative and hadn't traded their values...
I'd be interested in stopping the "shaping" problem. Where, by algorithm, people only see things said to their specific demographic slice. Let everyone see what you're saying to everyone else, and let your speech be judged and argued against.
You can fool all of the people, most of the time, if they're always divided into "some of the people" all of the time.
They don't seem to be interested in keeping 230 protections so companies can host content without having to be immediately responsible for every word they host.
They are either incompetent defenseless dolts. Or maliciously picking at platforms. They certainly aren't doing anything to safeguard & protect hosting speech online.
And this is the government that HN posters routinely want to “legislate big tech”. But why is this the minority opinion at a conservative conference: I can't believe I'm doing this, because I'm here to convince you at a conservative conference that government shouldn't regulate speech,"
[flagged]
Despite that, I do believe there's a pretty clear need to regulate to protect conservative speech. There's a clear problem with liberals taking over companies that were once neutral and systematically attacking conservatives online. They are much more aggressive about speech control than the other way around.