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

81–90 of 126 posts

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

#81

Post by rhino369 »

theplague42 wrote: post #44
flyinglizard wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Was the editor fired because of a "dissenting opinion" or because Cotton was effectively calling for martial law against protestors? The NYTimes op-ed section has plenty of dissenting opinions and/or conservatives... just not ones calling for violence.

>Was the editor fired because of a "dissenting opinion" or because Cotton was effectively calling for martial law against protestors?

Cotton was just 7 months too early.

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

#82

Post by rdiddly »

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 -…

I found it a bit rambly and got annoyed at the "wow these are tough questions no one can ever answer" sentiment. Glenn Greenwald a.k.a. "the guy who helped Snowden get the word out" and could be described as a disillusioned liberal, seems to have clearer principles and hence wrote a clearer article: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-sho... One of the takeaways that nobody's really talking about is that Parler itself didn't really deserve this. If a bunch of Nazis walk over and stand near me, am I suddenly a Nazi? It's guilt by association, and if we're going with that... if we're going to, in the secret little court in each of our minds, "hold Parler liable for its moderation decisions" despite the fact that Section 230 won't allow that in a real court, then every outlet that has given Trump a voice for the past 4-5 years is just as guilty, starting with network news shows in 2016 putting his phone calls "from the campaign trail" on the air, knowing his wisecracks would draw more viewers. The profit motive accounts for 4 years of your never being able to escape Trump. And I believe the change of administrations (i.e. kissing up to the new one), not the Capitol thing, accounts for the sudden and belated change of heart. It's not Hanlon's razor but yeah never assume "ideology" as an explanation where "greed" will suffice.

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

#83

Post by d1zzy »

flyinglizard wrote: post #56
theplague42 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was the editor fired because of a "dissenting opinion" or because Cotton was effectively calling for martial law against protestors? The NYTimes op-ed section has plenty of dissenting opinions and/or conservatives... just not ones calling for violence.

There was absolutely nothing outrageous in Cotton's op-ed. Mind, the same National Guard that Cotton was calling for was now sent to the Capitol, and I don't think NYT was up in arms. That aside, he's a public representative of the highest order (a Senator). He needs to be heard whether we like it or not. I've not seen any public representative being censored in the country I'm from, that including opinion pieces fro…

> That aside, he's a public representative of the highest order (a Senator). He needs to be heard whether we like it or not.

And to achieve that you're going to force businesses to host content that hurts their bottom line (the loss of income from the advertisers that will pull out from working with a company that hosts such content).

> This is clearly a US thing.

In the country where you live all news organizations are forced to publish everything a politician says?

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

#84

Post by Chris2048 »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #41
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…

Private companies have been disappearing small business owners for two decades. PayPal locks your account. YouTube decides to kill your channel for copyright strikes to content you created. Amazon does - all the shady things Amazon is famous for. Apple kills your app because reasons. And so on. This is not about disappearing people. Or businesses. This is about disappearing politicians. The real game here is that the…

> the mainstream media - especially on the far right

What far-right mainstream media? In any case, why should any media own the narrative?

Your decision that Trump "Plan[ned] an insurrection" isn't well supported - He's accused of inciting a crowd. But why couldn't any similar narrative escalate (or be escalated) when all narrative are monopolised by left-associated media?

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

#85

Post by rhino369 »

ABeeSea wrote: post #47
_qcti wrote: post #24

After WWII when the Soviets took control of nations like Poland, they didn't flat out ban free speech. But they did make sure only the communist-aligned outlets had unlimited access to paper. Like so many censorship-happy people today, the USSR could also say that the government wasn't censoring speech. They were only controlling paper.

What did the government do here?

Congress has been investigating big tech for "allowing" violence, hate speech, election interference, etc. Its might not be a coincidence that they all started heightened moderation only after it was clear Trump was cruising to a loss.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/18/faceboo...

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

#86

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#87

Post by NestedLoopGoBrr »

xpe wrote: post #67
NestedLoopGoBrr wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Straight from the source itself: https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/facebook-twitter-block-the-pos...

The NY Post's credibility is in question on this matter, specifically. (Also, more generally.) Can you please point to another credible source?

That wasn’t what was in question, it was whether or not Twitter censored them, which they did. See the sibling comment to your post here for additional info from Twitter even on the topic. Even though they reversed the censorship, they _did_ do it.

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

#88

Post by NestedLoopGoBrr »

throw0101a wrote: post #71
NestedLoopGoBrr wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Straight from the source itself: https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/facebook-twitter-block-the-pos...

And Twitter corrected their action: * https://twitter.com/jack/status/1317081843443912706 * https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/twitter-facebook-blo...

That doesn’t make what they did okay — if anything it shows exactly how much power and influence they wielded in suppressing a news story at a critical point in informing people during an election cycle. That cannot be understated.

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

#89

Post by dragonwriter »

rdiddly wrote: post #82
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 -…

I found it a bit rambly and got annoyed at the "wow these are tough questions no one can ever answer" sentiment. Glenn Greenwald a.k.a. "the guy who helped Snowden get the word out" and could be described as a disillusioned liberal, seems to have clearer principles and hence wrote a clearer article: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-sho... One of the takeaways that nobody's really talking about…

> Glenn Greenwald a.k.a. “the guy who helped Snowden get the word out” and could be described as a disillusioned liberal,

Greenwald might be a disillusioned Leftist (not liberal), but then, so the original neoconservatives were disillusioned Trotskyites.

Disillusionment is what spawns radical conversion and radical converts are often the least-open-minded, most most fact-averse, ideological crusaders.

> if we’re going to, in the secret little court in each of our minds, “hold Parler liable for its moderation decisions” despite the fact that Section 230 won’t allow that in a real court,

Other than civil liability of the types which are specifically dependent on status as a “publisher or speaker”, Section 230 doesn’t prevent them from being held liable.

Criminal liability, or civil liability not dependent on status as a publisher (though some courts have, controversially, extended Section 230 to liability as a “distributor”) is generally outside of the scope of Section 230 protection.

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

#90

Post by intended »

What I find missing from a lot of the conversations on HN is why the power was used, and an overfocus on tech.

The people who marched on the capitol did it because their reality tells them that their country is being stolen, by Democrats. People will actively oppose the current administration, because they believe this is illegitimate.

Trump and the info bubble he inflates, collectively believe that American elections were a farce. Trump holds a 40% approval rating, down from 42% on Jan 1st. His party, and media enablers repeated and enforce this idea. If the coup didn't happen, they would continue to argue the point.

Parler? For all its claims to free speech, it enforced ideological conformity, as do a lot of conservative boards. Their reasoning is that you get banned for being a conservative. However they don't mention that they get banned for saying "COVID is a hoax", "Trump won" and the perennial "some communities just have problems". Death threats, hate speech are all too common.

That is how far things had gotten, before tech firms acted. If anything, they acted late, after the costs of inaction are obvious, and Trump is leaving the stage.

If you are uncomfortable with their power, know that research from 2016 shows that conspiracy content gets stronger the longer it is available and gets repeated. A fact absolutely not lost to tech firms.

Tech firms kept material they knew was dangerous, up longer, because they did not know how to handle the repercussions of doing the scientific thing when people think its the wrong action.

Post reply on HN