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

261–270 of 340 posts

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

#261

Post by krapp »

emptyparadise wrote: post #195
miguelmota wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Of course, they would still be able to refuse to talk to instances that violate their own policies.

But isn't that ability exactly what many people consider a violation of free speech on mainstream social media platforms, only applies to accounts rather than instances?

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

#262

Post by krapp »

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…

So we should tolerate violent and hateful speech because if we don't, the violent and hateful will only turn more violent and hateful. Got it. Makes sense.

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

#263

Post by nathias »

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…

There would be no issue if this was plausible in practice, but its not.

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

#264

Post by shrimpx »

cudgy wrote: post #258
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…

“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 adve…

This is a tough issue, and I don't see how it would be more humanist to support something like "all speech, in any situation, must be allowed and protected". Clearly some of that speech will be destructive, and harm people. I don't think you want to advocate that those people who are being harmed should be unable to protect themselves from speech they see as harmful and destructive.

Neither side of this coin is a straight answer; you can easily poke holes in either by imagining the terrible consequences of the alternative. The answer IMO is people, groups, societies, should decide what's constructive and destructive and converge on a balance that works for them.

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

#265

Post by Traster »

stale2002 wrote: post #173
erikpukinskis wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where would your law end? I’m curious how you’d write it... Would it be something like: “No person may delete content which has been made publically accessible on a server they administer without a court order demanding that content’s removal”? Would you have a certain size threshold, like the law kicks in when you hit 1 million monthly uniques?

> Where would your law end? I’m curious how you’d write it... There is an easy answer to this. We could just model this stuff after other similar laws, that apply to other networks. Those similar laws, are called common carrier laws, and they could be expanded to apply to more things.

Common carrier laws are woefully inadequate for this. Social media doesn't function by me going to your webpage and seeing what you've written. Twitter, TikTok, Facebook, Youtube, every single one are primarily driven by algorithmic discovery. You go to youtube, youtube says "Hey! Here's our curated list of what we think our usres want to see". Making youtube a common carrier would be fine- they would be forced to host porn videos, spam and gore. The result of common carrier legislation on facebook is you'd have Alex Jones on facebook and not a single link, not a single trending page, would ever link to him ever. It would be functionallly undiscoverable. Which is basically where Alex Jones is today.

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

#266

Post by cudgy »

tspike wrote: post #188
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…

Do you think we are observing a symptom (unbridled speech amplification) of the disease (monetization of algorithmically targeted content), so to speak? Do you think that if we somehow broke this monetization model, that companies like Twitter, Facebook and Google would cease to be the behemoths they are, and the amplification mechanism might go away?

Yes. Imagine if the telecoms could play ads before, after, and during your conversations on your phone(s)? Why do we accept it from big tech social media?

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

#267

Post by emptyparadise »

krapp wrote: post #261
emptyparadise wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Of course, they would still be able to refuse to talk to instances that violate their own policies. But isn't that ability exactly what many people consider a violation of free speech on mainstream social media platforms, only applies to accounts rather than instances?

If mainstream platforms were federated, you could move to a third instance that would communicate both with the big instance and the banned instance. Hell, you could even host your own instance and still be able to talk to people on the big social network. That's the missing piece that would make those "you don't have to use that website" arguments valid since it would greatly lower the cost of moving away from one social media website to another.

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

#268

Post by Rochus »

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…

There are also private highways and railroads, and yet the laws of the respective country apply there as well.

The laws are full of property restrictions that limit the ability of private individuals or companies to act in favor of the general interest. Our society depends on the state to impose such restrictions where necessary.

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

#269

Post by emptyparadise »

erklik wrote: post #252
emptyparadise wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think that consolidation was a lot less visible, plus people's attitudes are changing. Finally, this ship has not sailed yet, while TV is pretty much doomed.

American conservatives, being as... loud as they are, did make the issue more mainstream, but people have been bringing up these problems for as long as the internet has been around.

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

#270

Post by refurb »

bawolff wrote: post #253
refurb wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

I see your point, but you can just go back to the 20th century. Anarchists bombing Wall Street in the 20's, racial and antiwar riots (and bombings) during the 60's and 70's. Right wing militias blowing up federal buildings in the 90's.

Obviously you don't want to dismiss a growing problem, but things seem much more manageable today than during these past incidents.

Post reply on HN