351–360 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It didn't happen overnight. 2016 U.S elections changed things a lot. Spreading misinformation is not free speech.
What? It absolutely is. A lie is covered under free speech. One can say anything under that doctrine.
As a recent example Alex Jones reversed his conspiracy theories on the threat of a lawsuit. Spreading misinformation comes with penalty.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School...
I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's 100% inline with free speech to let a given website decide what they want to publish. Even if it is a very popular website. If they make bad decisions, then people can go to competitors; it's as easy as typing in a different URL. That's how the Internet--and open societies in general--are supposed to work. What it looks like to me--someone who has been on the Internet since before the turn of the century--is tha…
Where does one go when Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube seem to take these steps in tandem? The joke of "go make your own social network" has been tried with places like Parler and Gab, but they get banned from app stores, ironically blocked from technically, but not ideologically, decentralized services like Mastodon, or even dropped from web hosts. The open Internet is dead.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We've been watching this happen for a few years now, and some of us are actively paving the road.
It's not good intentions. The tech giants are attempting to throw an election and they don't care who knows at this point. For the 2012 election Facebook execs bragged about illegally assisting the Obama campaign by giving them practically the entire FB social graph, for free. That violates federal campaign finance laws. Nothing was done about it and you'll never get anyone on HN to go near talking about that fraud,…
> The media ran every possible baseless story they could about Trump the past four years, often with zero supporting evidence to the story in question. Every time they turned out to be fake stories, the media conveniently ignored it, refused to run retractions and moved on to the next fraudulent story.
>You've got people inside of these companies directly working for the DNC and using company resources to violate federal campaign finance laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When guns were flint locks, the amount of damage one person could do was pretty limited. When machine guns became generally available (and i'm aware $200 is not "generally available" in 1920). That changed. These weapons were introduced to "force multiply" an individual. Before the internet, the amount of damange a single guy with free speech could do was pretty limited. But with the internet, we're all force-multipl…
Never owned gun, and never thought of owning one, until this year, precisely when politicians told us, on TV, that calling 911 is a privilege, and when politicians condoned publicly looting and robbery and violence and abolishing police. I never felt so much need to own many guns and train for tactical shooting to defend my family when needed.
1. Local newspapers (controlled by few)
2. Mail (1->1)
3. Radio (controlled by few)
4. Phone (1->1)
5. TV (controlled by few)
6. Internet (1->Millions)
7. WhatsApp/Texts (1->Few)
8. Social Media (1->Millions)
My first reaction to the social media companies is one of fear that a private type of "ministry of truth" is being setup. However, it would seem that in the vast majority of our history that is the same setup we've had. Of course newspapers, radio and broadcast TV all had small groups of people determining truth and what was worthy news. That gives me some comfort that maybe these problems aren't that dire or new.
My big fears are:
-Internet infrastructure companies blocking access to content they disagree with[1]. While yet that blocking has started with the most egregious content, will they continue to block less egregious content?
-The lack of trust in institutions and the differing priorities and truths pushed by different institutions. Why should the people trust any facts coming out of any of these major institutions when they appear so biased? Yesterday (when I looked) on the homepage of FoxNews.com Hunter Biden was referenced >20 times. Completely missing on CNN.com or MSNBC.com.
-How can these companies maintain a semblance of neutrality when their employee bases are so skewed and seem to have such a huge level of groupthink?
[1]https://tech.slashdot.org/story/19/08/05/0323200/cloudflare-...
I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.
It didn't happen overnight. 2016 U.S elections changed things a lot. Spreading misinformation is not free speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So HN can't remove posts either because that violates free speech? I grew up on the internet too and forum bans were always a thing. You haven't convinced me this is different.
The president doesn't make major annoucements using HN. The fact is, Twitter has taken on a different role.
I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.
Moderators still exist even though we are not just on IRC anymore.
Your idea of free speech doesn’t exist in communal internet spaces as abundantly as you might believe. Perhaps it never did.