Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content • Hacker News Board

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

#251

Post by jeanjogr » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 9:14 AM UTC

colllectorof wrote: post #206

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…

>if youtube becomes to dranicon, start a new website. You are clearly ignorant of the kinds of shit actual YouTube alternatives have to deal with. Their websites and videos get de-ranked or de-listed from search (Rumble [1]), their apps get removed from app store (LBRY [2]), their infrastructure gets constant attacks (BitChute [3]). Meanwhile, the mainstream media smears them at every opportunity. This is nothing lik…

There's (somehow) a widely held belief that there is no barriers to entry, on any market, ever. Things from anticompetitive behaviour of incumbents to needing enormous upfront capital invesment simply do not exist. This has to implications:

- Nothing should be done, whether regulation or consumer action, because everything can and will be fixed by the entry of a new company.

- We are living in the best of worlds. Otherwise, a new company would have sprung to fill the gap and then we would be living in the best of worlds again.

I am yet to convince people holding this belief that it may not be the case.

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

#252

Post by erklik » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 9:33 AM UTC

emptyparadise wrote: post #230

ogre_codes wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The public square analogy makes much more sense here. But even then, in a lot of places there are impartiality requirements on media outlets, as flawed as they may be. The "Public Square" assumes the space is owned by... well the public. Either the town or city. That's not the case here. Even if it were, the reach of a person in the public square is tiny... a few hundred people if they are absolutely lucky. Besides…

So let's go after TV and radio stations too, then? I'm not opposed to that. By the way, I don't think forcing broadcasters or social media to not police their content is the way to go - I'd much rather make sure they don't become monopolistic. The situation you describe with TV must not happen with social media too.

I think the point was that we didn't seem to mind that consolidation nor the censorship/biased reporting in those media sources yet want to ask Twittter/Facebook to hold themselves to a new standard.

Is it more because it's conservative views being censored now?

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

#253

Post by bawolff » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 9:33 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #189

Barrin92 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is basically that I'm much more afraid of insufficient checks on radicalism and inability of society to deal with extremism than I am just with this abstract idea of tyranny. To bring it back to the topic of the US and Facebook. To me the censorship is not a sign of authoritarianism or anything, but lack of strong institutions. In the face of rising extremism and disorder Facebook effectively has to step in…

“Face of rising extremism” is just your recency bias showing and demonstrates the power of the media to shape our perceptions. There are many periods in the past where the US was experiencing far more extremism and violence than today.

The US had a literal civil war at one point; the bar is low. Things don't have to be the worst ever to still be concerning.

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

#254

Post by username90 » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 9:36 AM UTC

dunnevens wrote: post #243

sneak wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? This seems to equate the ability to publish with a society that's filled with falsehoods, uncertainty, and violence. Is it possible that soc…

You're just going to ignore the body count from the spread of falsehoods? The lynchings? The wars? The genocides? None of that matters? Not to mention the world is getting better only in a very narrow sense. Environmentally, we're entering a very dark period. The falsehoods surrounding climate change will cost us a great deal.

> Environmentally, we're entering a very dark period. The falsehoods surrounding climate change will cost us a great deal

Those falsehoods comes mostly from old people watching fox news. Young people who grew up with mostly unfiltered communication on the internet are typically for doing something against climate change. So this only strengthens the point that free flow of information is more desirable than filtered communication.

People who want to manipulate the masses hates this though, so they try to make every argument they can that free flow of information is harmful and we need to stop it. Basically anyone with power have nothing to gain from you and me being able to freely communicate, so they want to reign that in as much as possible. I'm not sure why you want to make the rich and powerful even richer and even more powerful, but that is what you are arguing for.

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

#255

Post by shrimpx » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 9:41 AM UTC

julianmarq wrote: post #193

shrimpx wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

We should clarify that "free speech" is unrelated to what Twitter and Facebook are doing. Free speech is a constitutional concept, protecting people from draconian government laws that suppress their speech, or discriminate them based on their speech.

What Facebook and Twitter are doing is providing a product that amplifies and places speech in front of particular eyeballs and ears. There are many, many issues with what Facebook and Twitter are doing, but they're all unrelated to the legally-protected constitutional free speech.

Some people have argued that "posting on Twitter/FB may as well be considered protected speech, since society depends on it so much" which is an interesting concept for sure, but has no basis in law yet.

Finally, to your last point, the amplification is not for everyone, and that's at the core of why people hate these companies right now. Users are subjectively amplified or suppressed, or kicked off. And this unequal treatment of users is at the very core of their business model: they make money by selectively amplifying content.

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

#256

Post by username90 » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 9:41 AM UTC

marcinzm wrote: post #109

emptyparadise wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you support breaking the near-monopolies that certain organizations have?

Yes although that's a tangential topic I feel related more to power concentration in a society. None of the organizations have close to a monopoly on communication or content. They simply all agree right now which is generally how implicit social rules tend to function. Eventually they'll start to disagree again in one way or another.

They all have American left wing bias. Personally I'd prefer if they had either European left wing bias or European right wing bias, but right now we only have one option and that is the American political bias which is a really shitty situation. I can't wait for Europe to either ban them in some way or reign in their rights to moderate.

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

#257

Post by shrimpx » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 9:56 AM UTC

username90 wrote: post #254

dunnevens wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're just going to ignore the body count from the spread of falsehoods? The lynchings? The wars? The genocides? None of that matters? Not to mention the world is getting better only in a very narrow sense. Environmentally, we're entering a very dark period. The falsehoods surrounding climate change will cost us a great deal.

> Environmentally, we're entering a very dark period. The falsehoods surrounding climate change will cost us a great deal Those falsehoods comes mostly from old people watching fox news. Young people who grew up with mostly unfiltered communication on the internet are typically for doing something against climate change. So this only strengthens the point that free flow of information is more desirable than filtered…

I think the point is not that "all speech should be suppressed", but that, generally speaking, the suppression of speech should not be disallowed. Users and employees should be allowed to pressure companies to suppress hate speech; a bar owner should be allowed to kick into the street a racist and profane customer; a school should be able to fire a teacher who is getting a lot of complaints for teaching racist ideas or gaslighting students.

It would be a horrible outcome if speech maximalism succeeded and prevented people from acting to protect their customers, property, society, etc., against destructive speech.

Of course, you can say "yeah but if you allow suppression of speech then it'll be used for evil" -- as in, Twitter can kick off whoever they want. But going as far as legally protecting any and all speech, in any situation and on any public or private property, is far more destructive in my opinion.

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

#258

Post by cudgy » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 9:58 AM UTC

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…

“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?“

This is truly ironic given that exact abuse has been perpetrated by these tech companies in order to build their empires in the form of advertising and manipulating users on their platforms.

Also, your dismissal of humanism is appalling.

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

#259

Post by onlydeadheroes » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 10:01 AM UTC

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 will be easier to see who were the useful idiots when the usefulness runs out.

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

#260

Post by krapp » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 10:01 AM UTC

btinker wrote: post #233

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…

Yep, that's part of why reddit is so great. > 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. There's no serious YouTube competition because YouTube is not (jus…

>You could build yet another video host and even have niche success with it. But you have no chance of providing the equivalent effect of a video landing on the YouTube frontpage.

Most people on Youtube never even have their videos land on the frontpage, and yet many of them are successful. That network effect and scale isn't necessary for the ability to broadcast and disseminate speech online, so it doesn't really contradict the premise that free speech on the web (as far as video is concerned) requires Youtube as a host, or that competition couldn't be as effective as, say, repealing Section 230 or having the government take over Youtube and force it to act as a public utility.

At the end of the day, all Youtube is, is popular. They're not like J.P. Morgan, holding monopoly power by physically controlling infrastructure and making competition impossible. The reason there isn't "effective" competition isn't because Google controls the web, it's because no one considers anything less than Google-scale to be "competition," so they write off the tons of other media streaming sites and social media platforms as irrelevant because they can't gain dominant market share. But this conflates the free speech argument with arguments about effective business strategy.