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

Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

taibbi.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 340 posts

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#71

Post by Barrin92 »

emptyparadise wrote: post #46

My question to everyone supporting restrictions on speech and supporting privacy violations, even for good reasons, is this: are you prepared to have these tools fall into the wrong hands? The same methods used to quickly shut down a dangerous website or to track down a terrorist by their online posts can be used to silence protests and to hunt down political opposition.

>are you prepared to have these tools fall into the wrong hands?

Yes, because society has a plurality of institutions that constrain power. Restrictions (even speech restrictions themselves) are subject to the court of public opinion (we're talking about them right now), there's the judiciary, political opposition and so on.

This argument never had any pull for me for the same reason I'm against abolishing the police or abolishing surveillance or anything else. Power, even in the hands of people I don't like, can't be exercised arbitrarily.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#72

Post by bawolff »

emptyparadise wrote: post #46

My question to everyone supporting restrictions on speech and supporting privacy violations, even for good reasons, is this: are you prepared to have these tools fall into the wrong hands? The same methods used to quickly shut down a dangerous website or to track down a terrorist by their online posts can be used to silence protests and to hunt down political opposition.

What tools are these actually - the delete button?

When it comes down to it - i like moderated spaces on the internet. I dont want to wade through spam, not to mention violent and abusive content. I don't like seeing shock images.

So yes, i support having moderation. The question to me is not: yes/no moderation, its where you draw the line; what are your policies and how are they enforced.

Fundamentally i think the solution is competitors. This was a much easier position to take when the web did not just have a few social media giants with network effects, but still: if youtube becomes to dranicon, start a new website. The tools to stream video (albeit not at scale) are just an apt-get away.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#73

Post by technick »

I'm starting to look forward to the downfall of any of the FAANGs that become censorship happy. This shit has to stop and I know the 1st wasn't mean for private business, but now that private business has such a reach, it needs to be forced on them.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#74

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #56
creata wrote: post #14

To Jordan Chariton exclaiming in all caps: > How are journalists supposed to chronicle history if YouTube — and others — are outlawing it? Regardless of what YouTube says, they are an advertiser-friendly entertainment website. Why in God's name would you use it to "chronicle history"?

> Regardless of what YouTube says, they are an advertiser-friendly entertainment website. Why in God's name would you use it to "chronicle history"? I don't understand this argument at all. The entire Fourth Estate in the US has always been primarily paid for by advertisers, and just saying YouTube is an "entertainment website" seems like a poor attempt to say it can only be used for cat videos or something. YouTube…

As a de facto monopoly, it’s certainly the only one that matters right now. But if, say, the porn tubes wanted to wall off a non-NSFW side, they could become a serious competitor overnight. Or if Netflix or Amazon started allowing end-user content, for that matter.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#75

Post by revnode »

duxup wrote: post #65
emptyparadise wrote: post #46

My question to everyone supporting restrictions on speech and supporting privacy violations, even for good reasons, is this: are you prepared to have these tools fall into the wrong hands? The same methods used to quickly shut down a dangerous website or to track down a terrorist by their online posts can be used to silence protests and to hunt down political opposition.

I'm not prepared to have them 'fall into the wrong hands'. But these platforms are owned by these companies. What rules do we put in place that they have to host some of this content? Blatant misinformation, vague encouragement of violence... hate? Is the price of free speech that someone has to host it? Who doesn't want to?

> What rules do we put in place that they have to host some of this content? Blatant misinformation, vague encouragement of violence... hate?

Why do they have to be rules? Why can't we have a culture of tolerance? Robots aren't running these companies. They're people, just like you and me. They can choose to be tolerant.

Tolerance is about tolerating the most horrid things. Not because it's nice or those things have some value. They're horrid, they have no value. It's because the alternative is worse. Because censorship is worse. Because when a person is censored, when they can't speak, they resort to violence and through censorship, you encourage violence. And violence can't be censored. It can only be suppressed with further violence.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#76

Post by joshuakelly »

emptyparadise wrote: post #46

My question to everyone supporting restrictions on speech and supporting privacy violations, even for good reasons, is this: are you prepared to have these tools fall into the wrong hands? The same methods used to quickly shut down a dangerous website or to track down a terrorist by their online posts can be used to silence protests and to hunt down political opposition.

They're already in the wrong hands. The only right hands are our own.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#77

Post by ufmace »

yew wrote: post #27

It's simply irresponsible for so-called "independent journalists" to cover material that neither they nor their audiences are in a position to understand. We've seen what several decades of totally unregulated broadcasting have done, to the detriment of our society - without well-funded expert guidance, conspiracy theories and extremism run rampant. Platforms must be restricted to those who prove they can use them ap…

I seriously have no idea whether this is serious or sarcasm.

Either way, once it is decided by all who have the practical ability to distribute information to large numbers of people that only "correct" viewpoints approved by "experts" may be published, you're a short step away from living in a single-party state.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#78

Post by duxup »

revnode wrote: post #75
duxup wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not prepared to have them 'fall into the wrong hands'. But these platforms are owned by these companies. What rules do we put in place that they have to host some of this content? Blatant misinformation, vague encouragement of violence... hate? Is the price of free speech that someone has to host it? Who doesn't want to?

> What rules do we put in place that they have to host some of this content? Blatant misinformation, vague encouragement of violence... hate? Why do they have to be rules? Why can't we have a culture of tolerance? Robots aren't running these companies. They're people, just like you and me. They can choose to be tolerant. Tolerance is about tolerating the most horrid things. Not because it's nice or those things have…

"culture of tolerance"

What does that mean exactly? By that you mean you require someone host, intolerance?

Is it a "culture of tolerance" if someone spews hate on me on a social media platform because of my race, because we're tolerating that?

I'm still trying to figure out what folks think this alternate choice looks like... do we require people to host whatever gets posted?

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#79

Post by emptyparadise »

bawolff wrote: post #72
emptyparadise wrote: post #46

My question to everyone supporting restrictions on speech and supporting privacy violations, even for good reasons, is this: are you prepared to have these tools fall into the wrong hands? The same methods used to quickly shut down a dangerous website or to track down a terrorist by their online posts can be used to silence protests and to hunt down political opposition.

What tools are these actually - the delete button? When it comes down to it - i like moderated spaces on the internet. I dont want to wade through spam, not to mention violent and abusive content. I don't like seeing shock images. So yes, i support having moderation. The question to me is not: yes/no moderation, its where you draw the line; what are your policies and how are they enforced. Fundamentally i think the s…

>Fundamentally i think the solution is competitors. This was a much easier position to take when the web did not just have a few social media giants with network effects, but still: if youtube becomes to dranicon, start a new website. The tools to stream video (albeit not at scale) are just an apt-get away.

I agree. I wouldn't have a problem with YouTube doing anything if YouTube wasn't the video website. We need decentralization.

But at the same time more and more often I also see these same concerns raised with decentralized networks (going beyond standard practices like blocking and preventing federation with instances), and that gets me worried.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#80

Post by yew »

vimy wrote: post #45
yew wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Experts are usually vetted by regulators and other experts, not random members of the public. As anyone is presently free to say whatever they please, I see no reason to share my personal information with the world.

Like the experts who said the virus wasn’t a problem and also that masks are useless?

> Like the experts who said the virus wasn’t a problem and also that masks are useless?

This being a wonderful example of the right-wing propaganda so prominent (though I won't say universal) in this mess. Cause a problem, then blame others for it.

We've all had more than enough of correcting it at every turn. Why not do something about that?

Post reply on HN