The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 1:28 AM UTC

mullingitover wrote: post #100

alasdair_ wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Also, not a lawyer, but I feel like conviction after impeachment would make conviction in subsequent civil suits a slam dunk. I doubt it. Congress can impeach for almost anything - it doesn't have to be anything illegal - they just need to have enough votes for it.

> Congress can impeach for almost anything - it doesn't have to be anything illegal - they just need to have enough votes for it. I know this part is true. However, and again I'm not a lawyer, but I think inciting an insurrection is actually illegal?

> However, and again I’m not a lawyer, but I think inciting an insurrection is actually illegal?

It is, but even if they use the name of a crime or tort, Congress isn’t bound to apply the same definitions or rules of evidence as a court of law, and the decisions of the Senate in an impeachment trial can’t be entered as evidence of the facts found by the Senate in a civil case the way a criminal conviction can.

So, while the trial (regardless of outcome) may generate a potential trove of free-for-others-to-use evidence, I don’t think a Senate conviction (or acquittal, for that matter) has much direct bearing on future civil litigation.

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

#102

Post by LudwigNagasena » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 1:50 AM UTC

ahurmazda wrote: post #73

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> erosion of civil discourse What erosion of civil discourse are you talking about? 10 years ago half or more Americans were against gay marriage, today 30% of the US is against that, except nowadays they are also called neonazis and are being deplatformed from major platforms. Do you think 50 years ago there could be civil discourse on legalizing rape or celebrating Holocaust? No, these people would get the same tre…

>If you think that an average citizen is too stupid to think for themselves, ... I sincerely have no such intent. Apologies if it came out that way. >> erosion of civil discourse Maybe my naivete but it seems that online discussions are much less nuanced compared to face to face discussions we had when growing up. Sure I disagreed with relatives but it certainly feels a lot more intense now a days (quite possible tha…

> Maybe my naivete but it seems that online discussions are much less nuanced compared to face to face discussions we had when growing up.

How often did you talk with complete strangers about politics when you were growing up? Are you now having more intense discussion with your relatives? Do you think it is can be attributed to Facebook?

> Do you have any recommendation on how to lessen this gap? I live in a major metropolis. But I keep getting a feeling that such a widening chasm can not be good for the society.

Uniform education with officially supported views on main topics will bridge the gap and, also anti free speech laws. Neither European countries nor China have such divergence of opinions. All of them police speech and ban certain viewpoints. Of course people from different stratas of society will always have different opinions: small business owners, industrial workers, intelligentsia, government workers, non-working people all have different interests. But common national viewpoints keep the fabric of society intact.

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

#103

Post by tptacek » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 4:10 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #35

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.

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.

No. Conservative thought absolutely rofltstomps on Facebook and is all over Twitter, which was, until a few days ago and by his own choice Trump's most important media venue. Conservative thought is so prevalent on Youtube that people post videos of the insane PragerU stuff their 8 year olds get recommended after watching a video or two.

There's really only two things that have reliably gotten people booted from any of these platforms:

* Appeals to violence

* Overt KKK-grade bigotry

I've been watching the "alternative" platforms for the last couple years. It got boring last year when it was looking increasingly like one of the major two, the one accurately described as "one of the less popular Mastodon instances", was simply going to fold --- the bot posts were outnumbering the real ones. That's because all the conservatives were on Twitter and Facebook, and they still are.

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

#104

Post by TYPE_FASTER » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 4:32 AM UTC

* Trump and former Senate Majority leader McConnell talk about rolling back Section 230

* Companies that could be held liable enforce Terms of Service after warning offenders

* Senators draft legislation to "prohibit social media censorship." (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-p...)

Ironically, if legislation like that was passed, Parler would be facing the same issues as any online forum that moderates content: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-pr...

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

#105

Post by Grustaf » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 11:41 AM UTC

cm2187 wrote: post #31

Grustaf wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ba…

Ah but a modern welfare state combined with the power of all the social networks, and much of the internet infrastructure, that combo can exert much more power than the soviet communists ever could.

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

#106

Post by d0100 » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 12:29 PM UTC

mullingitover wrote: post #60

d0100 wrote: post #52

Big Tech platforms are more and more functioning as utilities, and I believe they should be regulated as such. Actually, any digital platform with user-generated content should be regulated in such a way that frees platforms from pressures from the government (Section 230) and from social justice (ban bad guy that's not convicted and will have no recourse or penalty expiry)

> in such a way that frees platforms from pressures from the government (Section 230) Section 230 does free platforms from pressure from the government. A service provider that is responsible for the content posted by users would have much greater exposure and would be far more likely to censor. People don't understand that 230 is mostly enabling free speech, not stifling it. The anti-230 crowd is like a dog chasing…

The anti-230 sentiment is just a knee-jerk reaction from people that see an unfair situation and just want to punish the perpetrators. It's a guttural response to unfair treatment.

I think that what should be sought is another "Section 231" that makes banning users from platforms must go through the justice system, just like if you wanted to ban someone from the town square.

This gives platforms a scapegoat, "the government won't let me", but still allows the platform to do things like not list "bad" people in the "discover" feed and make better mute/ignore features

Unilateral and permanent banning just creates more problems

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

#107

Post by amanaplanacanal » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 1:40 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #98

cm2187 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> They may not want to impeach (and I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office) Trump has already been impeached the second time (it didn’t happen after he left office.) Conviction after he left office would be limited to a lifetime bar on future office (assuming it is legal at all, but I suspect that were it challenged it would be found to be), but the main purpose would arguably…

He could potentially also lose his pension. Given how strapped he is right now, this could be quite painful for him.

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

#108

Post by amanaplanacanal » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 1:46 PM UTC

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #102

ahurmazda wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you think that an average citizen is too stupid to think for themselves, ... I sincerely have no such intent. Apologies if it came out that way. >> erosion of civil discourse Maybe my naivete but it seems that online discussions are much less nuanced compared to face to face discussions we had when growing up. Sure I disagreed with relatives but it certainly feels a lot more intense now a days (quite possible tha…

> Maybe my naivete but it seems that online discussions are much less nuanced compared to face to face discussions we had when growing up. How often did you talk with complete strangers about politics when you were growing up? Are you now having more intense discussion with your relatives? Do you think it is can be attributed to Facebook? > Do you have any recommendation on how to lessen this gap? I live in a major m…

I would rather internet platforms censor only on their own platform than have the government censor all of us.

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

#109

Post by amanaplanacanal » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 1:51 PM UTC

Chris2048 wrote: post #92

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.

"martial law against protestors" suggests violence against protest. What was actually suggested: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers If lawbreaker = protestors in your book, then maybe we differ in what constitutes valid protest. Also, Cotton pre-emptively disagrees with your characterisation also: This [law] doesn’t amount to “martial law” or the end of democracy, as so…

I thought that’s what local police were already doing? An overwhelming show of force against peaceful protesters in an attempt to deter lawbreakers.

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

#110

Post by amanaplanacanal » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 2:00 PM UTC

d0100 wrote: post #106

mullingitover wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in such a way that frees platforms from pressures from the government (Section 230) Section 230 does free platforms from pressure from the government. A service provider that is responsible for the content posted by users would have much greater exposure and would be far more likely to censor. People don't understand that 230 is mostly enabling free speech, not stifling it. The anti-230 crowd is like a dog chasing…

The anti-230 sentiment is just a knee-jerk reaction from people that see an unfair situation and just want to punish the perpetrators. It's a guttural response to unfair treatment. I think that what should be sought is another "Section 231" that makes banning users from platforms must go through the justice system, just like if you wanted to ban someone from the town square. This gives platforms a scapegoat, "the gov…

More problems for who? Not for the platform. Maybe for the folks who are banned, they lose their free megaphone and have to actually pay to get their opinions heard, which seems like a fine trade off to me.

I’m slowly coming around to the idea that getting rid of section 230 would be a good thing overall. Social media platforms shouldn’t be amplifying ideas they think are odious. Why the heck would anybody do that? For money? Would you be willing to spread propaganda that you thought was terrible for money? I sure wouldn’t.