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

Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

taibbi.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 596 posts

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#211

Post by hackyhacky »

mrfusion wrote: post #191

> Both the government and private companies can censor stuff. But private companies are a little bit scarier. They have no constitution to answer to. They’re not elected. They have no constituents or voters. All of the protections we’ve built up to protect against government tyranny don’t exist for corporate tyranny. - Aaron Swartz

I respect Swartz a lot, and he makes many good points. But let's not pretend that Twitter and Facebook hold information monopolies with equivalent power to the government's ability to censor. As proof, consider that we are having this conversation right now, about an article that was published and is freely, legally available online to anyone with a web browser. You can disagree with Twitter's editorial choices, but (as long as we prevent a literal technological monopoly, a prospect that seems increasingly probably) the consequences thereof are in no way similar to government censorship.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#212

Post by kodah »

hackyhacky wrote: post #202
kodah wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't get that vibe at all. To me Taibbi sounds like someone like me: a resident of the Democratic party who is willing to criticize the ends as well as the means of both parties. This sort of conviction is not looked upon very highly by our "free" society.

I think your reading of Taibbi is correct. Unfortunately, articles like this feed into the currently fashionable victim mentality of the Republican party, wherein they contend that big tech unfairly suppresses news from conservative sources, and that there's a grand conspiracy afoot to protect Biden. I don't think that's true, but that is how this will play out in that particular fever swamp.

"The other side is worse!" cannot be perpetually be the answer or response. Politics is not everything; at some point we have to understand that politics does not make a society, a society makes politics.

Ask yourself this: if these same mechanisms, that again are used by autocratic governments, get taken advantage of by a future administration and we somehow defeat them will you be willing to admit accountability and culpability for the outcome? If not, then walk cautiously, because this future is very real and discounting people that raise the flag does not age well.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#213

Post by yenwodyah »

mrfusion wrote: post #191

> Both the government and private companies can censor stuff. But private companies are a little bit scarier. They have no constitution to answer to. They’re not elected. They have no constituents or voters. All of the protections we’ve built up to protect against government tyranny don’t exist for corporate tyranny. - Aaron Swartz

And at the same time, private companies cannot force you to use their services, or threaten you with violence or imprisonment if you refuse to follow their rules.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#214

Post by mjfl »

r00tanon wrote: post #200

Drivel. No sensible person believes blocking QAnon nonsense is a "scandal." For many reasons, not the least being that it is also the very definition of "unsubstantiated" as is this Hunter Biden story. Applying editorial standards (finally) to some of the more outrageous content posted on social media platforms is no more controversial than that of print media's choice to do so. The term "social media" is a complete…

> No sensible person believes blocking QAnon nonsense is a "scandal."

It's not QAnon, and the fact that you made that statement betrays your political biases. Think of the harm you could be causing by your attitude. If the Jeff Epstein story broke during Bill Clinton's electoral run, would you also dismiss it as a conspiracy?

https://www.the-sun.com/news/1330253/bill-clinton-massage-ep...

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#215

Post by TwoBit »

radus wrote: post #122

I think Twitter was well within their rights to refuse to allow their website to be a vector for what they considered to be foreign meddling in an American election -- something that they've been criticized for in the very recent past.

If it wasn't a foreign meddling attempt then it was a domestic one. To me this is less a question about Twitter's right to block stories (which it absolutely has) but rather a question of whether election meddling attempts should be recognized on their own as blockable or censorable content.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#216

Post by krapp »

akhosravian wrote: post #210
krapp wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I can switch social media platforms a lot more easily than I can switch governments, and corporations don't have a monopoly on violence which would allow their tyranny to lead to torture, gulags and mass graves, but OK. I guess being banned from a forum is much much worse than being sent to the re-education camps.

You could switch off Facebook, Twitter, YouTube or Twitch, but for all but the most influential of people the folks you interact with won’t follow.

That's still not tyranny, that's just the network effect. They have a choice about what platform to use as do you and I.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#217

Post by sparky_z »

chroem- wrote: post #209
mrfusion wrote: post #191

> Both the government and private companies can censor stuff. But private companies are a little bit scarier. They have no constitution to answer to. They’re not elected. They have no constituents or voters. All of the protections we’ve built up to protect against government tyranny don’t exist for corporate tyranny. - Aaron Swartz

It gets better (worse?) though: reddit has removed any references to Aaron Swartz from its list of founders. https://www.redditinc.com/ > Reddit was founded in 2005 by two college friends. > Steve Huffman, Co-Founder/CEO > Alexis Ohanian, Co-Founder

Isn't that technically true, though? I thought Swartz joined them later, months after they had already launched the site.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#218

Post by hackyhacky »

gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #34

The left is obsessed with suppressing anything that’s “dangerous” cause they think the lowly under-class can’t be trusted to review information and form opinions. If they had less authoritarian instincts, they’d realize that prohibitions generally spectacularly fail. I suspect any of the things they wanted to ban just got attention they never would have otherwise due to the Streisand effect.

> If they had less authoritarian instincts, they’d realize that prohibitions generally spectacularly fail. I suspect any of the things they wanted to ban just got attention they never would have otherwise due to the Streisand effect.

If that's true, why oppose censorship?

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#219

Post by mjfl »

chroem- wrote: post #209
mrfusion wrote: post #191

> Both the government and private companies can censor stuff. But private companies are a little bit scarier. They have no constitution to answer to. They’re not elected. They have no constituents or voters. All of the protections we’ve built up to protect against government tyranny don’t exist for corporate tyranny. - Aaron Swartz

It gets better (worse?) though: reddit has removed any references to Aaron Swartz from its list of founders. https://www.redditinc.com/ > Reddit was founded in 2005 by two college friends. > Steve Huffman, Co-Founder/CEO > Alexis Ohanian, Co-Founder

why?

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#220

Post by TwoBit »

rootsudo wrote: post #5

I agree, twitter suppression made the story bigger. The NYPost has issued much fewer retractions than NYT and CNN, yet, Twitter does not attack those institutions. Ironic, considering the founder of the NYPost and his opinions on market economies.

It may well have made the story bigger, but also it may have benefitted Joe Biden anyway due to (e.g.) the education many people got regarding this attempt at election meddling. The polls didn't seem to get significantly worse for Biden as this unfolded.
Post reply on HN