Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship • Hacker News Board

Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship

#201

Post by talentedcoin » Sun, Jul 18, 2021, 9:29 PM UTC

rektide wrote: post #125

ctoth wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does any part of this need to happen in public? Not in a text group? Random discord server? Is it just some sort of underlying exhibition drive that Myspace originally tapped into? To me, my friends are the 15-20 people I've grown to know and like. From reading what you said here, it seems as though to you the word friends captures your entire extended network, with friends of friends, old coworkers, etc. If your…

You propose replacing public commons with something different, immediately showing you have gained no sense of what Metcalf's Law implies or what value social networks enable. None of this sounds in any way realistic or like a viable replacement for what we are right now stuck with. Giving people broadcast, in public capabilities is different, it's easier. I wouldn't necessarily say it's better, but the ease & ambien…

This idea of “the public” is a distorted, commercially-mediated fantasy. Facebook is a product, it is not a public square.

Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship

#202

Post by root_axis » Sun, Jul 18, 2021, 9:32 PM UTC

trentnix wrote: post #184

spamizbad wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because the "marketplace of ideas" is being distorted by algorithms that are going to favor "provocative" ideas that drive clicks. Exciting lies defeat boring truths.

The lab-leak hypothesis is provocative (and probably true), but got smothered anyway. It was just inconsistent with the narrative .

It seems to me that it has been a popular meme since the start of the pandemic.

Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship

#203

Post by version_five » Sun, Jul 18, 2021, 9:32 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #26

>First of all, the internet’s “marketplace of ideas” is severely lopsided at the platform level The marketplace of ideas itself has been show to be a bust in recent years, IMHO. Better ideas, better models of truth and reality don't win out. People have not shown themselves interested in intellectual debate or argument. We do not see the 'best' ideas rise to the top. And before anyone asks who I am to judge the best…

It's ironic (or maybe appropriate) that this, talking about how better ideas don't rise to the top, is the top comment. The most abhorrent idea of all to me is that there are stupid, weak people that are worse than "us" that we need to shield from bad ideas because they are not smart enough (like we are) to handle them. Lots of support for this view in downstream comments (we're just intelligent apes etc).

The strawman of the existence of factually incorrect content is irrelevant in my view. Everyone loves to jump on conspiracy theories or whatever other stuff is out there as proof that people (other people) are too dumb to be exposed to the world. First, I think the relevance and the number of serious adherents in the extreme version of these conspiracies etc are dramatically overstated because they reinforce a narrative. Second, I think most of it is an effect, not a cause, of people being told what to do and what to think. People uncomfortable with narratives that end in them giving something up will take shelter in alternative explanations. The problem is not the nutty theories being available, it's in the way that one group forces itself on another in the first place.

All this to say, we can be adults and let everyone get the same information and make their own choice, or we can go the other way where someone who thinks they know more than us (and you hope it's you but it doesn't have to be) gets to decide. Frankly, the latter idea is ridiculous to me.

Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship

#204

Post by Nursie » Sun, Jul 18, 2021, 9:33 PM UTC

kbelder wrote: post #195

justbored123 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That tells you that "marketplace of ideas" is a dumb idea, because we already have proved a million times that people are not the rational creatures that we were sold we were for a long time. We are smart apes, but apes none the least: emotionally driven by our limbic system, very tribal and status seeking. Prone to rationalize all these basic impulses in a million different ways creating the illusion of rational ind…

There is a marketplace of ideas. That's not anything that is ever going to change. Concepts spread and are accepted or they don't. The question is only how. Is it going to be by dictate? Is a church or government or institution going to enforce which ideas spread, or is it going to be free, spreading at the level of the individual? There is no moral alternative to the free exchange of ideas. The only alternative is a…

> or is it going to be free, spreading at the level of the individual?

And what are the consequences of that?

When people talk about the marketplace of ideas they tend to think of good, beneficial, ideas winning out over foolishness, conspiracy and just plain inaccuracy.

This has been shown up as naive lately. And if we really are talking about the "marketplace of ideas" being raw, Darwinian, strongest wins, then are we prepared to deal with the fallout of the fact that loud, motivated, well funded bullshit merchants will continue to have a huge grip over the public dialogue?

Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship

#205

Post by politician » Sun, Jul 18, 2021, 9:34 PM UTC

MrStonedOne wrote: post #151

politician wrote: post #68

It would be workable to designate these social platforms as public spaces, removing liability for speech entirely off of the proprietors and onto the courts if we also implemented mandatory licensing for use of these networks. You can’t drive without a license and identification. It’s not dystopian to suggest that, as a society, we’re at a point where we need to insist on public places on the Internet and personal ac…

>You can’t drive without a license and identification. It’s not dystopian to suggest that, as a society, we’re at a point where we need to insist on public places on the Internet and personal accountability for speech. ay yo you got a license for that speech? ya, no, it is dystopian to suggestion people should have to have a license to speak. And you will never sell me that speaking on the internet and speaking in th…

They’re completely different. On the Internet, no one can grab you by the cuff and arrest you on the spot. On the Internet, you can disappear into a fake profile, a pseudonymous account, and create continue to create chaos. On the Internet, Sybil attacks are a real problem in a way that is completely foreign to speaking on your soapbox in the park.

Speech on the Internet is more like a hit-and-run.

It’s dangerous foolishness to pretend otherwise.

But we agree that this speech should be handled by the government and the courts, and removed from the sham jurisdiction of big tech “terms of use”.

Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship

#206

Post by root_axis » Sun, Jul 18, 2021, 9:36 PM UTC

PontifexMinimus wrote: post #162

root_axis wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find the idea of Zuckerberg as an arbiter of morality both absurd and dystopian This is a very common characterization that I find frustratingly absurd. Zuckeberg is not "an arbiter of morality" in any respect, the contents of Facebook is a corporate business decision, not a reflection on morality.

If FB are blocking things that they deem bad, then they are clearly setting themselves up as arbiters of morality, even if they say they aren't.

Facebook has opinions about the type of content they'd prefer not to facilitate on the Facebook platform, that doesn't make them "arbiters of morality", it just makes them curators of their product identity.

Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship

#207

Post by Rd6n6 » Sun, Jul 18, 2021, 9:38 PM UTC

spamizbad wrote: post #59

Nursie wrote: post #26

>First of all, the internet’s “marketplace of ideas” is severely lopsided at the platform level The marketplace of ideas itself has been show to be a bust in recent years, IMHO. Better ideas, better models of truth and reality don't win out. People have not shown themselves interested in intellectual debate or argument. We do not see the 'best' ideas rise to the top. And before anyone asks who I am to judge the best…

That's because the "marketplace of ideas" is being distorted by algorithms that are going to favor "provocative" ideas that drive clicks. Exciting lies defeat boring truths.

Speaking of, I wish hn would hide upvote counts. If I wrote something provocative and stinging here against social media, it would be karma city, and it feels good to see your number go up. Thats not a temptation I like

Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship

#208

Post by 11thEarlOfMar » Sun, Jul 18, 2021, 9:38 PM UTC

smoldesu wrote: post #194

LoveLeadAcid wrote: post #174

Just do what smart people have been doing for years - stop using big tech. Stop using Google, Facebook, Apple, IBM, Microsoft. Buy a used computer and install a Free OS and just check out of the entire big tech ecosystem. Otherwise you get what you deserve. And let’s all disabuse ourselves of the incorrect notion that it’s big tech alone which is ordering censorship. It’s our own governments, who use the many secret…

This right here is it, for the most part. I see a lot of people who lament how terrible the takeover of "big tech" is, but they still use Facebook on a regular basis and don't go out of their way to seek alternatives. It's like complaining that Kraft has taken over your local supermarket aisle while you're buying 10 boxes of name-brand mac and cheese.

Well, that Mac & Cheese is free cuz you're giving them your phone number so they can call you and sell you a gym membership.

Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship

#209

Post by SV_BubbleTime » Sun, Jul 18, 2021, 9:44 PM UTC

_ykl9 wrote: post #193

OrvalWintermute wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are waging political warfare on HN, and violating the guidelines of "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity." It is important to never demonize your opponents too much, if you are going to try and remain civil with them. >* Pro-life Christians >* Gun owners >* Right-leaning libertarians >* "Selfish"/anti-tax rich people >* The alt-right / neo-Nazi / Q culti…

Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. I didn't attack any particular ideology. I politely described my opinion on a specific organization that attempted to overthrow my country's government, first via a soft coup and then by force, as it related to the current discussion. This smacks of making a list.. And? Are you suggesting that HN is anti-lists?

> The greatest threat facing humanity today isn't climate change. It's the current Republican Party

> I didn't attack any particular ideology.

Well, sorry, my fault, it just seemed that when you aligned anyone right of center with neo-Nazis that some people probably took it that way.

Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship

#210

Post by jsnell » Sun, Jul 18, 2021, 9:44 PM UTC

MrStonedOne wrote: post #161

jsnell wrote: post #30

This all sounds very nice, but there's a bit of sleight of hand here since the article goes out of its way to avoid details. That way everyone reads into exactly what they want, and it's totally non-obvious whether this is actually a workable proposal or not. But what's the concrete proposal here? How would things actually work? Will the services be forced to accept whatever unmoderated feed of filth the linked to se…

>But what's the concrete proposal here? How would things actually work? Will the services be forced to accept whatever unmoderated feed of filth the linked to service sends their way? If not, how is this supposed to fix the moderation problem? Does gmail block emails from your friends containing misinformation? Why should facebook be allowed to do the same thing?

Gmail does all kinds of filtering on the incoming messages, such as detecting spam, malware and phishing. So it certainly isn't the case that they're just delivering every email to your inbox. Do they block misinfo? I genuinely have no idea.

But if it's not happening, it seems pretty obviously like an explicit product decision rather than some kind of regulatory requirement.