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

121–130 of 340 posts

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

#121

Post by joubert »

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…

> tolerance is about tolerating the most horrid things.

No it isn’t. No society survives if it is tolerant without limit. You are arguing that anything and everything should be allowed. No laws, no justice.

I suppose it is a valid position to have but I don’t think a practical one over the long term if you want to be alive.

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

#122

Post by dunnevens »

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…

>Because when a person is censored, when they can't speak, they resort to violence

But that doesn't actually happen in the vast majority of cases. Most people try other outlets. If there are no other outlets available, then they tend to give up. Deplatforming has been shown to work.

And it's worth remembering that going violent means putting their life at high risk. Their family at risk. Their possessions and personal freedom at risk. And it means hurting other people. There's fortunately not many people willing to take that step and pay that price.

Just think about what would cause more violence: banning all nazis from Twitter? Or allowing nazis free reign to talk about how horrible minorities are, and what they'd like to do to them?

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

#123

Post by thaumasiotes »

ghayes wrote: post #66
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #51

...speech loopholes? Oh that's right... The first amendment only applies to printed materials and live spoken word. The founding fathers couldn't have foreseen social media, and certainly would have worded the amendment differently if they saw how powerful Twitter was.

The First Amendment to the Constitution explicitly forbids "Congress" from "abridging the freedom of speech." It goes no further. There's certainly a question of public policy here, but that result will be unlikely to turn on the First Amendment.

> The First Amendment to the Constitution explicitly forbids "Congress" from "abridging the freedom of speech." It goes no further.

True but meaningless; the text goes no further than that, as to freedom of speech -- actually, it doesn't even go that far[1] -- but the amendment does go much further than that. For example, it is considered to be binding on the states through "incorporation" under the 14th amendment.

[1] The text prohibits Congress from making laws which abridge the freedom of speech. This is one reason I don't really understand the argument that the first amendment should protect Trump from being impeached over a speech which is unquestionably protected by the first amendment -- the legislative power and the impeachment power are two separate grants of authority.

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

#124

Post by yew »

agarden wrote: post #67
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 think you are getting this wrong. The problem is not all the inexpert persons styling themselves as "independent journalists", the problem is all the inexpert persons who think they understand enough about the world's problems to cast a vote on who should legislate solutions for them. The electorate must be restricted to those who prove they can use the franchise wisely. /s Okay, you probably are not opposed to dem…

"We the people" have never possessed that quality, and direct democracy is a terrible idea for precisely that reason.

Our democratic norms are intended to filter that irrationality into something more functional - though the election of a certain someone I don't feel like naming at the moment shows those norms aren't perfect. I expect quite a few people are thinking very hard about how to make sure none of this ever happens again.

Nevertheless, the ideal of representative democracy relies on experts.

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

#125

Post by nl »

Why does all discussion on HN devolve into a "yes; all speech should be free" vs "no; any censorship is reasonable" discussion.

There are sophisticated discussions around the limits of free speech available (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Tolerance...) and yet no one attempts to address them. It's pretty frustrating to see another "oh no censorship = bad", which is a complete strawman argument.

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

#126

Post by colllectorof »

tribby wrote: post #50

independent media would probably do well to look at independent infrastructure. owncast[1] is an interesting project (no affiliation), I’d be curious if there are more like it. 1. https://github.com/owncast/owncast

The fact that an "independent infrastructure" project gets referenced by linking to GitHub should tell you everything you need to know about the state of "independent infrastructure" in 2021.

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

#127

Post by bawolff »

Barrin92 wrote: post #71
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…

I find this argument confusing. There is plenty of historical precedent for tyrany overcoming public opinion, judiciary, politics. I don't think the current topic is an example of this, but as a general statment on power i find this contrary to my experience.

You're basically saying, I don't worry about abuse of power because there will always be some check on it, no matter how ineffectual. That just flies in the face of every time someone managed to use their power to overcome whatever checks were in place.

And this is like a constant theme in history. All the checks on Ceaser's power didn't prevent the Roman Republic from falling.

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

#128

Post by devmunchies »

sli wrote: post #87
devmunchies wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so if you publish on an alternative platform and nobody reads it... no sound.

Unlike hearing a sound vs. just the pressure waves, data's form doesn't change when someone interacts with it. It's the same before and after. Sure, the pressure waves don't change, but it's the interaction with them that we call sound. Data is data before and after you look at it.

pointing out literal discrepancies to a figurative comparison? I like the cut of your jib.

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

#129

Post by throwawayboise »

korethr wrote: post #85
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…

Assuming this post is in earnest instead of accidentally omitting tags: Have you payed attention to mainstream journalism over the past couple decades? The material they cover and the framing with which they do so reflects an understanding not any better than the one you attribute to independent journalists, to say nothing of an expectation that the audience is even less capable of understanding. Have you never seen…

Case in point the mainstream media headlines leading up to these events: "credible threats of violence" ... officials were "on edge" ... "possible secondary attack."

It's plainly apparent they were just salivating, waiting and hoping (some might say inciting) that something violent would happen, and yet the events "turned out to be peaceful and unremarkable." I'm sure there was profound disappointment in the major newsrooms that day.

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

#130

Post by duxup »

technick wrote: post #73

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.

I don't think FAANGs are any more or less likely to take this stuff down than anyone else.

If Pepsi was hosting a social network for 'the next generation'... they would take similar actions.

Post reply on HN