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

191–200 of 340 posts

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

#191

Post by CivBase »

sneak wrote: post #178
CivBase wrote: post #147

The constitution protects our freedom of speech from the government, not from private entities on their own private property. Make no mistake, that's what centralized social media platforms are - private property. Freedom of speech is not protected by the constitution on social media platforms and, frankly, I don't want 100% free speech on social media. Take a look at HN. HN mods do a brilliant job of moderating. We…

> The constitution protects our freedom of speech from the government, not from private entities on their own private property. Yet, it's somehow still illegal for the phone company to cancel your phone service because you said something they didn't like while making a call on their telephone network ("private property"). You seem to be conflating constitutional rights violations by the government (1A) with the abhor…

Keeping with the analogy, if you call into a radio show with your phone, they aren't obligated to keep you on the air regardless if what you say. They can drop you at any time. It's their show and their hardware.

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

#192

Post by edmundsauto »

Const-me wrote: post #116
judge2020 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't forgo them voluntarily, the section makes it a fact that a service and the service's users cannot be treated as the 'publisher' of content if all they do is re-broadcast or propagate said content. The only way this dream scenario happens is if Google's lawyers put out a statement saying "we accept full responsibility for user-generated content and welcome anyone to sue us over such content, and we will not…

Paragraph b3 says this: “It is the policy of the United States to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet” I think the technologies where a centralized commercial company controls which information is received by users violates at least the spirit of that law.

Centralized spam filters are an interesting test case. We generally agree they are good, and necessary. How are they different than algorithmic ordering that we agree to in the TOS?

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

#193

Post by julianmarq »

shrimpx wrote: post #151
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.

You can make the same argument in the opposite direction: for those who support unbridled electronic speech amplification, are you prepared for it to fall in the hands of people who are bent on changing minds en masse to fill society with falsehoods, uncertainty, and violence? On a more detailed note, I draw a sharp line between normal speech and selectively amplified speech. Twitter and Facebook are in a bind becaus…

> for those who support unbridled electronic speech amplification, are you prepared for it to fall in the hands of people who are bent on changing minds en masse to fill society with falsehoods, uncertainty, and violence?

You mean a society where the most charismatic/popular members get the attention of the masses, mostly by telling them what they want to hear? Yes, I think I'm prepared to live in such a society.

I think, in your attempt at making free speech look undesirable with your mention of "amplification", you forgot that this amplification is for everyone, including you and those who agree with you.

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

#194

Post by varvar »

joiguru wrote: post #118
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.

It is important to acknowledge that this is a conflict between two ethical ideologies: Deontology/Kantian ethics vs Utilitarian ethics. The Deontological argument is that free speech is good, and any effort to curtail it would lead to a domino effect which will be disastrous. The Utilitarian argument is that this curtailing of free speech is acceptable as the alternative is causing more harm than good. Both ideologie…

The philosophy that those who hold the power have will be the one winning, since they have the actual means to impose it, regardless of arguments.

In this case it is Utilitarian ethics.

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

#195

Post by emptyparadise »

miguelmota wrote: post #132
emptyparadise wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 dec…

There's always talk about decentralizing content platforms but these decentralized non-blockchain social network and messaging protocols have existed for years: - Scuttlebutt - GNUnet - Secureshare - Fereenet - ZeroNet - Retroshare - Diaspora - Mastadon - Matrix - Cabal Decentralized platforms put more responsibility on the user (key management, account recovery, content hosting, etc) which is unlikely to get mass ad…

They exist, but I'm worried that they can't break out because of network effects and lock in by the big players.

What would be a good way to make these platforms mainstream? Would you support some sort of a mandatory requirement to federate for the big players? Of course, they would still be able to refuse to talk to instances that violate their own policies.

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

#196

Post by vmception »

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.

The US has strong speech protections, somehow when people are wrong in their beliefs about what that means they move the goal post to this mythical “ethical” free speech maxim.

I dont believe in what those people imagine free speech means. I believe in the “first amendment” which includes freedom of association including for the non-government people that create venues and platforms. “We have the right to refuse service to anyone” as seen on any shop any where.

If you would like Congress to create a new regulation on interstate commerce preventing internet platforms from doing some particular thing, then articulate that specific position.

I am absolutely not bothered the current reality, it is the expected reality and I would like the same privileges on my own venues and platforms.

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

#197

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

SulfurHexaFluri wrote: post #177
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that the first step is to stop letting the tech corps control your world. If the range of opinion on popular platforms is too restricted, make a deliberate effort to step back from popular platforms onto group chats and random blogs and web forums, the same way we used to a decade ago. Most people who do this, in my experience, realize that it's actually pretty easy to see and talk about what you want…

These tech companies make it harder and harder to avoid their lock in platforms. They crush and buy all the competitors and end up with userbases so big that if you do not participate you will be missing out. I never wish to sign up for facebook but they have crippled the alternative buy and sell sites, obsoleted most forums and are now invading the VR space with their spyware. At some point we need to stop blaming t…

You'll only be missing out in the same sense that you're missing out if you don't go to church on Sundays or don't watch NCIS on Tuesdays. There may be commercial advantages to having accounts for your business, but there's absolutely no reason you need to personally participate in the discourse or know about the most viral tweets.

I think we've gotta step back and recognize how strange this would sound just a couple decades ago. If you talked to someone in the 70s, they'd tell you that of course mainstream media platforms are sanitized for public sensibilities; that's just what it means to be a mainstream media platform. If you want to show things that might shock and offend people, you have every right to do so, but you've gotta do it in a smaller forum. My argument is that they were right, and the past decade of nation-scale but unsanitized platforms has been an inherently unstable aberration.

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

#198

Post by andrewprock »

golemiprague wrote: post #113
bawolff wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't have a problem with moderation but I do have a problem when infrastructure providers like AWS decide how their clients should moderate their content. You can't have competition when some of the competitors can't use the infrastructure. It is not without reason that utility providers can't discriminate and I think it is time to decide what is considered a utility in the internet age.

AWS is by no means the only infrastructure provider.

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

#199

Post by jb775 »

marcinzm wrote: post #181
jb775 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the private companies start getting billion dollar contracts with the government, or are lobbying politicians for laws massively benefitting the companies in the long run, it's safe to say the decisions behind the "private rules" will be impacted accordingly.

Nothing is a perfect system, I support the one I feel has the best chance of ensuring a stable but evolving society. Not restricting things has resulted in the governing body of the US getting attacked by an angry armed mob inside a federal government building. So that's not a viable option for a stable society. The government is both subject to changing political whims and has a history of overusing it's control in…

How is it best for a society to evolve by suppressing diversity? In this situation, I'm talking about diversity of ideas relating to politics.

Have you ever considered why Silicon Valley exists in America? It's because as America grew, it welcomed in people from all over the world with extremely different backgrounds with extremely different ideas about how to do things. Over time, that situation resulted in extreme innovation where the best ideas prevailed.

Post reply on HN