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

The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 126 posts

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#31

Post by cm2187 »

Grustaf wrote: post #19
cm2187 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thems…

I think it’s exceedingly unlikely they will get back into power in anything like their current form. We will now see a democratic government that is fully aligned, and has deep ties with, silicon valley. The big tech industrial complex has infinitely more control over our thoughts and proclivities than any previous power center.

True but I still think there is a limit to how much one can influence a population’s opinion. My favorite example is Poland which after 60 years of communism, is the most conservative catholic country in Europe. Elections are often won at the margin (and this one was particularly tight in the key states), and therefore a marginal influence may be enough to tip the outcome. But I think it will do nothing to a broad base movement.

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#33

Post by xpe »

cm2187 wrote: post #7
koolk3ychain wrote: post #2

Someone 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 thems…

> 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.

You packed a lot into this one sentence.

Please share your evidence.

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#34

Post by kiwidrew »

xpe wrote: post #6

In 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 ques…

Yeah, to me this is the key point in the whole debate: to what extent are the private internet "giants" providing infrastructure and/or operating as a public utility?

I was concerned when Twitter and Facebook and other social media platforms started the mass deactivation of accounts they no longer wanted to host, but in the end I don't think these actions are wholly unjustified: nobody should be entitled to a megaphone for their speech. And as many have said, "if you don't like it go start your own social network" is an acceptable response.

The real issue is at the next layer down, the service providers which collectively operate what we know as "the Internet": what if you can't go start your own social network because none of the server hosts or domain registrars will provide their services to you?

But do we really want to mandate (and regulate) that hosting providers must provide service to anyone that asks, no matter how undesirable or troublesome they might be? Should there be a "provider of last resort" for those that are unable to find a willing host? I'd like to see more discussion and debate on this topic.

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#35

Post by rayiner »

paganel wrote: post #11
cm2187 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thems…

> Republicans will get back to power sooner or later and I think we should expect a regulatory backlash. It depends which type of Republicans, right now it looks like the party is de facto split in two. Even though today's vote showed that they still think the Trump side will win out in the medium to long term, otherwise I can't explain why they chose to face the media storm directly and voted against impeachment.

It doesn’t matter who wins, they’re united on that point. They’ve seen the power of the platforms to filter the information people get and the willingness of the folks who control it to put a thumb on the scale in favor of Democrats.

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#36

Post by bobmaxup »

Grustaf wrote: post #16
ghaff wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, people didn’t use to have a lot of things, it’s still a big problem if you ban certain people from a platform but not others. Those that are allowed gain a huge advantage. It’s especially problematic if these de facto monopolies take sides in elections.

How is it any different than if I was banned from HN or an IRC channel?

These "platforms" are just large message boards.

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#37

Post by mullingitover »

cm2187 wrote: post #15
paganel wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Republicans will get back to power sooner or later and I think we should expect a regulatory backlash. It depends which type of Republicans, right now it looks like the party is de facto split in two. Even though today's vote showed that they still think the Trump side will win out in the medium to long term, otherwise I can't explain why they chose to face the media storm directly and voted against impeachment.

I think Trump has become radioactive, even within the republican party. They may not want to impeach (and I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office) but I doubt a come back is on anyone’s mind at this stage. But Trump’s electorate will remain however.

> I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office

If a military officer commits a felony offense the week before they're discharged, I don't think the military would/should say "well you're so close to leaving, so we'll still give you an honorary discharge and a pension."

I feel like the same concept applies here, otherwise we're opening the door to the president being able to commit impeachable offenses with impunity as long as they're close to the finish line.

Also, not a lawyer, but I feel like conviction after impeachment would make conviction in subsequent civil suits a slam dunk.

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#38

Post by tonetheman »

While there are consequences and secondary effects to banning Trump off of all the things... There was a moment when the body count started adding up and anyone with common sense can see it is his fault. It was Trump that caused this, he in effect killed those people at the capital.

Had it gone worse someone would have been killed or hung on live TV. All of that is on him.

Maybe all the platforms did all call each other, but there is a moment where you just have to take action. And that action was to stop him from killing more people. Stop him from destroying more things.

It is not free speech ... it is at a cost. Those lives. He is a monster and does not need a platform. This is not a slippery slope. He had to be stopped.

Maybe it leads to more choices and actions and discussions as to why he had a voice on those platforms at all. In either case the right choice was made. Stop him.

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#39

Post by majormajor »

Grustaf wrote: post #19
cm2187 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thems…

I think it’s exceedingly unlikely they will get back into power in anything like their current form. We will now see a democratic government that is fully aligned, and has deep ties with, silicon valley. The big tech industrial complex has infinitely more control over our thoughts and proclivities than any previous power center.

> We will now see a democratic government that is fully aligned, and has deep ties with, silicon valley. The big tech industrial complex has infinitely more control over our thoughts and proclivities than any previous power center.

Nope. Huge swaths of the democratic party are opposed to these SV companies because they see Twitter, FB, etc, as having played a huge part in Trump gaining the influence he did and the conspiracy nutjobs evangelizing their craziness as well.

I expect pushes for regulation, just a different sort than Trump would've pushed for.

Here we have people dying because a President who was afraid of losing spent months preemptively setting up a fraud excuse. An excuse that was enabled and amplified by social media platforms that also helped people spread conspiracies about the supposed non-existence of a global pandemic, and thus the need for different behaviors.

Even if you end up saying Trump himself shouldn't have been banned, you have a huge echo chamber problem that has now passed the point where we can dismiss it with stuff like "they just need to feel heard." Lots of people listened, and it led to lots of violence, and is the way we're currently (not) regulating social media sufficient?

All of these nutjob theories have gotten MORE prevalent in the past 4 years DESPITE their candidate winning the 2016 election and DESPITE their candidate completely failing to expose any national pedophile conspiracy or any of the other nonsense they spout... The ultimate influence of the big social media platforms has been anything but left-leaning.

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#40

Post by tedunangst »

flyinglizard wrote: post #20
fortran77 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best sources of news seem to be the ones I pay for: New Yorker, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post

Do these newspapers provide thought provoking articles, or just fuel confirmation bias for their readers? I was a subscriber of NYT for a few years, and the one time there was a dissenting opinion - that of Tom Cotton - it led to editors being fired. WSJ seems better, maybe because business reporting tends to be somewhat less opinionated.

Pretty sure NY Times has published more than one dissenting opinion over the years.
Post reply on HN