The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy
1–10 of 126 posts
Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy
#2Someone really needs to give the New Yorker some serious credit for publishing what can genuinely be described as a thoughtful, well written, and objective article on social media and big tech. Bravo.
I'm honestly convinced that at some point this kind of big tech social media witch burning will eventually lead to private lawsuits aimed at non-combatants like Signal and Wickr. Please leave a comment if you disagree - down votes don't help sow discussion.
Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy
#3Someone really needs to give the New Yorker some serious credit for publishing what can genuinely be described as a thoughtful, well written, and objective article on social media and big tech. Bravo. I'm honestly convinced that at some point this kind of big tech social media witch burning will eventually lead to private lawsuits aimed at non-combatants like Signal and Wickr. Please leave a comment if you disagree -…
The best sources of news seem to be the ones I pay for: New Yorker, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post
Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy
#4Who would have predicted 20 years ago that we should be more wary of Little Sister (big tech) instead of Big Brother?
I like to call them Little Sister because of how they name their seemingly innocuous digital assistants.
Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy
#5I almost lost interest in the article's stream-of-consciousness style rambling until its discussion of Section 230:
> In the United States, online speech is governed by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a piece of legislation passed in 1996 that grants Internet companies immunity from liability for user-generated content. Most public argument about moderation elides the fact that Section 230 was intended to encourage tech companies to cull and restrict content. But moderation is complex and costly, and it is inherently political. Most companies have developed policies that are reactive rather than proactive. Many of the largest digital platforms have terms-of-service agreements that are constantly evolving and content policies that are enforced unevenly and in self-contradictory ways.
I highly recommend reading from this point forward.
Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy
#6In my view, understanding all sides of the following question is central for anyone who wants to understand the implications of modern social technology.
> To cut a politician and affiliated organizations off from payment processors, Web-hosting services, and e-mail providers is to halt them at the level of infrastructure. It is a different game than the moderation of user-generated content, and raises different questions. Advocates for net neutrality have long argued that Internet service providers should not determine who their users are, within the bounds of legality; in this view, Internet service providers are akin to public utilities. For Trump, arguably, it’s as though the electric company has permanently turned off the lights.
Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy
#7Someone really needs to give the New Yorker some serious credit for publishing what can genuinely be described as a thoughtful, well written, and objective article on social media and big tech. Bravo. I'm honestly convinced that at some point this kind of big tech social media witch burning will eventually lead to private lawsuits aimed at non-combatants like Signal and Wickr. Please leave a comment if you disagree -…
Though the article doesn’t mention the coordinated and active censoring of the NY Post story, even in private conversations, which was already a heavy stroke of interference in the elections. It’s a lot of precedents. And there is nothing that suggests the temperature will cool down in the short term. I agree that big tech companies may do a lot more collateral damage but in my opinion they also already painted themselves with a bull eye on their back. Republicans will get back to power sooner or later and I think we should expect a regulatory backlash.
Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy
#8Someone really needs to give the New Yorker some serious credit for publishing what can genuinely be described as a thoughtful, well written, and objective article on social media and big tech. Bravo. I'm honestly convinced that at some point this kind of big tech social media witch burning will eventually lead to private lawsuits aimed at non-combatants like Signal and Wickr. Please leave a comment if you disagree -…
I completely agree with you regarding Signal. The main knock against Parker, at least at the beginning, was that it was used to plan violence, and that is too dangerous and public safety trumps “free speech”.
I can foresee a lot of the people who were on Parker before going to signal. I am sure there is close to a 100% chance that there will be messages advocating violence like death threats on there. Some enterprising investigative journalist will gain access to a private group and publish screenshots with vile threats. Of course, Signal is unable to do any moderation, and the calls will come for it to be de-platforms as well. Their hosting cut, their domain registration removed, their GitHub account locked, etc.
Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy
#9> We may see the emergence of new business structures for communications and media platforms, or an increase in collective actions taken by tech workers. In all likelihood, this past weekend was a turning point not only for Trump and Trumpism, but for the American technology industry.
I'd like to hear about some testable predictions from the HN community. What do you think will happen and with what odds? And, to put a finer point on it, how much would you be willing to wager on your prediction if you were given $1,000 in credits for a prediction market (this is hypothetical, but pretend like it is real money if you can).
Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy
#10Someone really needs to give the New Yorker some serious credit for publishing what can genuinely be described as a thoughtful, well written, and objective article on social media and big tech. Bravo. I'm honestly convinced that at some point this kind of big tech social media witch burning will eventually lead to private lawsuits aimed at non-combatants like Signal and Wickr. Please leave a comment if you disagree -…
One can simultaneously roll their eyes about slippery slopes, argue that this is simply banning obvious illegal activities, etc.--and be at least a little bit discomfited that a bunch of private companies can basically disappear someone from public discourse if they want to.
Mind you. Historically most people didn't have access to a platform anyway. And the record from at least some players like AWS is that their ban bar is pretty high. But it certainly suggests that big tech can decide to cut off some slices of discourse if they feel it's convenient.