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

EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

euractiv.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 286 posts

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#221

Post by bzbarsky »

readflaggedcomm wrote: post #36
j_walter wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. We don't have civil discourse anymore...people just yell and call people names. You don't like what the other person says they are a "libtard"...or a "racist". You don't like what they are doing online, get them kicked off or dox them to your friends. Justify online bullying like it's a sport. Now it's escalated to not just banning them from social media...but a coordinated effort to destroy the alternative pla…

When did speaking truth to power become "bullying"? And anyway, removing those who spew violent rhetoric is how civility is restored. The fact that the response to Twitter bans is so violent proves somebody needed to be silenced.

> When did speaking truth to power become "bullying"?

It _can_ become bulling when people will arbitrarily claim that the victim of the bullying is the one who "had power" while the mob that got them fired, say, was just "speaking truth". Which maybe they were and maybe they were not.

Not every incident of a bunch of people attacking someone on social media is "bullying", but neither is every incident of such "speaking truth to power", but a lot of the incidents of the former sure do try to pretend to be the latter.

I suspect that you're thinking of a specific set of incidents and that j_walter is thinking of a quite different set of incidents, for what it's worth.

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#222

Post by scrollaway »

shripadk wrote: post #208
scrollaway wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The very fact that Parler was banned by Big Tech and not by US Congress puts a very bad light on America. That you think a private company being shunned by other private companies, is worse for free speech than a private company being banned by the government, shows you don't really understand the american definition of free speech.

I don't care about American Free Speech. I'm not an American. I'm an Indian. Yes it is worse for America's image that a competitor censors another competitor. It puts a bad light on the US Government itself that it cannot regulate private companies and are at the mercy of private companies that even Government communications can be censored. This is far beyond what free speech is all about. And don't tell me US Gover…

Trade sanctions are a different thing to sanctions imposed for speech.

I'm not american either but if I'm going to comment on the USA, I'm going to respect their own definitions and culture. Meanwhile you're trying to make a point you don't fully grasp yourself. Sorry.

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#223

Post by mongol »

boplicity wrote: post #33
yummybear wrote: post #2

You really have to walk a censorship tight rope as a social media. You need to remove content that targets minorities and hate speech or face consequence, but only when it applies to the bottom 99% of society - apparently. The fact that the EU seems to want control over who gets to express themselves freely, is even more troubling than the inconsistent rules applies by the media themselves.

I've run a niche "social media" site for 12 years. There is no tightrope. The problem is that these large platforms want the benefits of scale, without being responsible for dealing with the problems of scale. It is imminently possible to build a thriving social media site that enforces standards of behavior. HN is a good example. However, it is work to actually enforce those standards. It takes leadership. Facebook,…

Exactly this. They want both control, and ability to wash their hands, while running their operations at scale. There is the famous saying, "time, quality and cost, choose two". There is a similar "social media law" I believe, that is yet to be stated, but where scale is one parameter.

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#224

Post by gnarlysasquatch »

shripadk wrote: post #208
scrollaway wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The very fact that Parler was banned by Big Tech and not by US Congress puts a very bad light on America. That you think a private company being shunned by other private companies, is worse for free speech than a private company being banned by the government, shows you don't really understand the american definition of free speech.

I don't care about American Free Speech. I'm not an American. I'm an Indian. Yes it is worse for America's image that a competitor censors another competitor. It puts a bad light on the US Government itself that it cannot regulate private companies and are at the mercy of private companies that even Government communications can be censored. This is far beyond what free speech is all about. And don't tell me US Gover…

> A company doesn't enjoy free speech rights.

Actually, it does according to Citizens United v. FEC.

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#225

Post by feoren »

echelon wrote: post #193
corty wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hypocrisy of the political class is even deeper, at least in Germany. Just recently, laws were passed to make platforms like Facebook filter, censor and rapidly delete content that might be against some law. Not after a court decision or at least an official order, no no, nothing so formal. A user complaint is sufficient to trigger the need to check within a few hours, have the platform decide to delete and repor…

100%. Germany is so wrong about this, and this is not the way we should go. We Americans needs to grow thicker skin and cherish our free speech more. If we don't, we're going to slip into a world with less liberty. Libel, slander, and "yelling fire" are sufficient limits on free speech. Seeing or hearing people say things you don't like isn't going to kill you. Society already has the tools to shun those who act egre…

>Libel, slander, and "yelling fire" are sufficient limits on free speech.

>fine trusted news organizations spreading misinformation

How do these two statements go together at all? The government fining news organizations for reporting what it decides is misinformation seems like a huge overreach even to me, and I'm more on the pro-censorship side.

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#226

Post by option_greek »

FranzFerdiNaN wrote: post #219
silexia wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, the worst possible party to limit your free speech is government. The government holds an exclusive monopoly on violence and killing. Almost every government that has obtained power over speech uses their violence monopoly to enforce it. The best party to limit speech that is considered bad is private individuals and companies in their own venues. If I own a comedy theater, I should be able to kick out obno…

Ah yes, let’s just let open Holocaust-denial or Hitler-worshipping or white supremacy all be absolutely fine. Or what about doxxing or a focused effort to destroy a business online through lies and slander, on a social network that doesn’t have any rules? Is that allowed? It’s my free speech to tell lies of course. Free speech without restrictions is a silly liberal dream that never works. It’s like capitalism in tha…

You do realise that Hitler was the government when all the atrocities were committed? The road to hell is paved with best intentions (of the supporters of these governments)

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#227

Post by taurath »

silexia wrote: post #216
tick_tock_tick wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with her but her only argument is the government should make these calls rather then private companies. She probably even agrees with what they did just doesn't think anyone except the government should have that power.

Actually, the worst possible party to limit your free speech is government. The government holds an exclusive monopoly on violence and killing. Almost every government that has obtained power over speech uses their violence monopoly to enforce it. The best party to limit speech that is considered bad is private individuals and companies in their own venues. If I own a comedy theater, I should be able to kick out obno…

A functioning democratic government is accountable to its people, while a private corporation is only accountable to its shareholders. Depending what you believe politically either, none or both could be true. Ultimately free markets can work against societal good just as much as an overly stringent and unaccountable government.

Maximally accountable government and a moderately and fairly regulated market seems to be best of both worlds, but as we know it’s difficult. We’re looking at the extremes now in terms of speech - Parler has people literally planning attacks on the government in the open, that’s probably bad in terms of societal good.

Finally a reminder that the ultimate point of corporations existing is for societal good. As is our government.

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#228

Post by agiroth »

zdragnar wrote: post #183
wolco5 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is to regulate social media for European citizens. They set the rules. If facebook or twitter cannot follow them they will pull out of that market allowing space for a local platform to take over.

It would be interesting to see how that pans out for social media, since they tried with Google News and that, if I was correctly informed, hurt local publishers rather than helped.

In the short term, sure it would. If you tear up one field in the middle of planting and plant another, it'll hurt short term; 10 years later it'll be a funny story.

Markets love a vacuum and it would be an opportunity for local players to dive in.

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#229

Post by agiroth »

proactivesvcs wrote: post #117
azernik wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because terms of service are vague and, more importantly, selectively enforced. Selective enforcement of private contracts is totally legal, and the EU('s executive branch) is uncomfortable with the public policy implications of that when it comes to social media and would like new laws passed to add extra regulation on uniformity and specificity of moderation policies.

The selective enforcement - particularly when it's overt - really grinds my gears. When they are finally applied that doesn't make said application invalid or incorrect. I think that some cases whereby $importantperson isn't banned because they're important are valid. It helps to have a public and verifiable record of a public office holder making provably false claims, particularly when a warning is then slathered o…

> But the thought of a government body deciding when a company may and may not enforce its rules is chilling.

In general I agree with you; I only consider this kind of thinking valid at Twitter/FB/Google/AWS scale - where one decision affects populations the size of entire nations (or larger). It's a problem less than a dozen companies would ever face and any reasonable law would need to make that abundantly clear. I wouldn't favor opening that door for smaller companies.

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#230

Post by agiroth »

quotemstr wrote: post #47
proactivesvcs wrote: post #25

Assuming that a company's terms of service are deemed fair and legal, why would it be "no longer acceptable" to apply them? I couldn't care less how high profile someone is, what public office they hold; if they break the agreement they made with a service provider, they should be subject to the consequences they agreed to. What I would like to see is a company being obliged to enforce its terms of service promptly,…

A corporation is an abstraction, an artificial person created to pool resources and do business at scale. It's a good, useful abstraction --- but like all abstractions, it's leaky, and sometimes the abstraction does more harm than good. Governments are run for the benefit of natural people, not artificial ones, and when the latter behave in ways detrimental to the interests of the former, there's nothing wrong with s…

For someone whose username is 'quotemstr' (quote master), that post is a great, short explanation of that idea and very.. quotable.
Post reply on HN