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

ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 208 posts

Re: ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook

#101

Post by zepto »

krapp wrote: post #78
zadokshi wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is worried about a mentally deranged guy running around in a costume taking over the legitimately elected government. No one is actually worried about this; The democrats are not actually worried about this; Republicans are not worried about this; perhaps some mentally unstable people are worried about this?

>No one is worried about a mentally deranged guy running around in a costume taking over the legitimately elected government No, because that's not something that could actually ever have happened. Nothing that crowd could have done, or was planning to do, would have actually resulted in any of them "taking over" the government, that's not how this works. That asshole in the buffalo costume got his two minutes of int…

That doesn’t seem at all obvious. There were guys with zipties looking for elected representatives, and the electoral college votes could easily have been seized and destroyed. With hostages, a siege could easily have played out. What would Trump have done in that situation?

Re: ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook

#102

Post by acdha »

manfredo wrote: post #48
miles wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they're OK with bad speech being out there Might be time for a bit more nuanced view: Facebook admits it was used to 'incite offline violence' in Myanmar https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934 Four dead in Bangladesh riot over offensive Facebook post https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/21/asia/riot-deaths-facebook-pos... A Genocide Incited on Facebook, With Posts From Myanmar’s Military https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1…

I think it's simplistic to point to Facebook as instrumental in these instances of unrest. Sure, they were used as an instrument of communication but had Facebook not been there people would just use SMS or IRC. The 2002 Gujarat unrest, for instance, predates Facebook. We know what deadly unrest still forms in the absence of Facebook and other social media. I don't think we have evidence to claim that social media ex…

There are some key differences: Facebook/Twitter/YouTube don’t just send messages, they also chooses which ones to promote to a wide audience. SMS only spreads if I know your number and think to add you. IRC only spreads if I choose to connect to a server and join a channel. In contrast, Facebook will promote things to you unprompted and will use your friends’ names and pictures to promote them. YouTube will suggest videos and start playing them automatically (there was a time where almost any gaming related video would get unhinged anti-feminist rants next because the guys who were outraged by Anita Sarkeesian’s existence showed high engagement numbers and the ad maximization algorithm suggested other things they liked).

This is why Trump et al. are so outraged like this. He’s a millionaire and could afford his own copy of WordPress but that won’t come with a free recruitment machine.

Re: ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook

#103

Post by CharlesW »

iijlasdjkfj wrote: post #80
dwpdwpdwpdwpdwp wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were any laws broken by Twitter? Don’t businesses in the US have nearly every right to arbitrarily deny service to people (with a few exceptions when it’s explicitly denying on the basis of race, etc.)? Twitter literally didn’t exist 15 years ago. How can a lack of access to Twitter be an an infringement on free speech then?

The internet literally didn't exist 50 years ago. How can a lack of access to internet be an infringement on free speech then? Television literally didn't exist 100 years ago. How can a lack of access to television be an infringement of free speech then? Written language literally didn't exist ~5000 years ago. How can a lack of access to written language be an infringement of free speech then?

> The internet literally didn't exist 50 years ago. How can a lack of access to internet be an infringement on free speech then?

So the 14% of households with school-aged children in the United States without internet access don't have free speech?

https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2018/digital-divide-among-scho...

Re: ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook

#104

Post by dragonwriter »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #77
zadokshi wrote: post #4

I don’t care what side your politics are. When corporations can so easily control the voice of the elected leader of a country (one who has genuine legitimate support or about half of the country), I become very scared for the future. Corporations should not have more power than the elected officials.

It is extremely bizarre to me to watch the left cozy up to corporations. What happened to Occupy Wall Street, Chomsky, the real counterculture?

> It is extremely bizarre to me to watch the left cozy up to corporations.

The Left opposing the Right’s efforts to commandeer corporate resources to serve right-wing political agendas and demonize (and incite violence against) those insufficiently subservient to right-wing interests against the will of the corporations involved isn't “cozying up to corporations.”

Re: ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook

#105

Post by Grimm1 »

zadokshi wrote: post #61
Grimm1 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want businesses to be forced to do business with people it doesn't want to there are many avenues to address grievances with that already. For instance in this case, the Trump admin can sue and have the concern addressed in court. No business in the world can currently stand up to a government that wants to curtail it by the way.

> "I don't want businesses to be forced to do business with people it doesn't want to " But we are not talking about forcing general businesses doing business with general people. We are taking about allowing publicly elected representatives of the people having a voice on the platform that the majority of the country uses for communication. You are generalising, then building your argument on the generalisation.

So? Hold a press conference or something. These platforms aren't even close to the only communication tool they can use why should one tool be forced to suffer them. My life is certainly better without seeing Trump's asinine and sometimes dangerous commentary on Twitter if I want it I'll go check my NewsNation app.

This right here is part of the problem. It's the government they can post commentary on a us.gov twitter clone or blog or whatever. I don't even agree that outside of government funds we should provide special treatment for our elected officials. We certainly have the resources to establish any communication tool they could possibly conceive of outside of private business.

Re: ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook

#108

Post by Acrobatic_Road »

zepto wrote: post #96
Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not just "we don't want to do business with you". This is "we don't you want to have a platform anywhere". I start caring when several tech monopolies co-ordinate to take down alternative platforms like parler.

Parler can be sideloaded on Android.

What happens when Amazon drops them from AWS?

Re: ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook

#110

Post by jwalton »

dwpdwpdwpdwpdwp wrote: post #59
gumby wrote: post #23

The man literally has a press office and a press staff. There are any number of outlets who will cling to his every word in order to praise or criticize it. I don't use twitter and seem to learn what is said. It is difficult to see what the problem is.

Were any laws broken by Twitter? Don’t businesses in the US have nearly every right to arbitrarily deny service to people (with a few exceptions when it’s explicitly denying on the basis of race, etc.)? Twitter literally didn’t exist 15 years ago. How can a lack of access to Twitter be an an infringement on free speech then?

> Were any laws broken by Twitter?

Yes, but not the ones you think. The FAANG companies are basically all illegal monopolies.

Post reply on HN