Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 600 posts

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

#231

Post by clucas »

PontifexMinimus wrote: post #47
Nursie wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Will the services be forced to accept whatever unmoderated feed of filth the linked to service sends their way? I was kinda wondering that. If a user gets banned, and moves off-platform to continue the behaviour there, but is somehow magically still linked to everyone they were linked with before... has anything really changed? Will facebook be forced to show its users the same nastiness it just booted off, because…

> Will facebook be forced to show its users the same nastiness it just booted off, because of the interop necessities? Facebook should be forced to show me the feeds I choose to subscribe to. I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself whether I find something nasty, and I find the idea of Zuckerberg as an arbiter of morality both absurd and dystopian.

I think this gets you into really weird places really quickly.

How do you not end up with a censorship department of the government, that is tasked with writing moderation rules? It probably wouldn't be called a censorship office, but that's what it would be: a government office determining what can and can't be posted on social media. This seems entirely antithetical to the idea of the first amendment.

Do you have any other way to implement your idea of forcing Facebook to show you the feeds you subscribe to?

EDIT: Just saw in your profile that you might not be from the USA - feel free to substitute "the idea of free speech in modern liberal democracies" for "the idea of the first amendment" as needed. :)

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

#232

Post by version_five »

amelius wrote: post #221
version_five wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 strawm…

> we can be adults and let everyone get the same information and make their own choice One of the problems is that we don't all get the same information. > 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. You've bumped into the exact same problem that exists with our democracy. Do…

> You've bumped into the exact same problem that exists with our democracy. Do you want our future determined by a few well-informed, rational people? Or do you want it determined by an ignorant, short-sighted mass?

Isn't this an argument for limiting the power we give to those in power? It's unrealistic to think that only people who are right will be in charge (I doubt I need to give examples). The realistic thing is strong controls on the power they wield, to that "short sighted masses" cannot take over. This idea underpins liberal democracy.

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

#233

Post by tshaddox »

throwawayboise wrote: post #170
mandmandam wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The marketplace of ideas works. It may not work in the timescale you want I'm astounded anyone can say that with a straight face. The misinformation for profit strategies employed by big tobacco, oil, military, pharma etc. have proven extraordinarily effective, time and time again. The timescales are nothing to do with "what I want" and everything to do with the fate of people's lives. From losing relatives to cance…

How can you say that with regards to tobacco? It's all but illegal, completely banned in most public places, you can basically only use it in your home or outdoors alone. "Not on the timescale you want" is the salient point.

But timescales actually matter. Without any expectation of a specific time scale, you can claim that anything is actually working perfectly and just hasn’t worked yet.

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

#234

Post by tshaddox »

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 didn’t get smothered though. Since the early days of the pandemic I haven’t seen any discussion of the pandemic of any appreciable length that doesn’t contain mentions of that hypothesis.

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

#235

Post by GekkePrutser »

throwawayboise wrote: post #170
mandmandam wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The marketplace of ideas works. It may not work in the timescale you want I'm astounded anyone can say that with a straight face. The misinformation for profit strategies employed by big tobacco, oil, military, pharma etc. have proven extraordinarily effective, time and time again. The timescales are nothing to do with "what I want" and everything to do with the fate of people's lives. From losing relatives to cance…

How can you say that with regards to tobacco? It's all but illegal, completely banned in most public places, you can basically only use it in your home or outdoors alone. "Not on the timescale you want" is the salient point.

If the system actually worked tobacco would actually be banned and not almost.

Despite being only able to smoke outdoors I still see many young people in Spain taking up the habit.

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

#236

Post by throwawaygh »

version_five wrote: post #203
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 strawm…

This post is pretty off-topic and unresponsive.

A central premise of Doctorow's argument is the "marketplace of ideas" metaphor. Proceeding from that framing, he proposes that the ACCESS Act as an important middle ground that could, among other things, help stave off the death of Section 230. OP points out that our better angels don't always win in that marketplace.

Let's get less abstract. The article envisions a market-based approach toward online censorship. The idea that a "marketplace of filters" would create a "live and let live" scenario seems extraordinarily naive to me. It seems much more likely that making it easier to choose filter bubbles -- and introducing a profit motive into the construction of such filters -- would just escalate the appetite to censor, on both sides.

> 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

You seem to be confusing critique with a proposal of some alternative. Just because OP believes that the "marketplace of ideas" thesis is a farce and that the ACCESS Act is probably a non-solution to the wrong problem, doesn't mean OP wants to censor people.

It's possible to both believe that Doctorow's argument is wrong and also not be a full-throated supporter of aggressive censorship.

In fact...

> The most abhorrent idea...

You take rather flagrant liberties when interpreting parent's post, constructing an unrecognizable strawman out of a post that contains phrases like "Is censorship the best way to deal with it? Probably not." and "And before anyone asks who I am to judge the best ideas, I'll answer - nobody".

> The strawman of...

Those in glass houses...

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

#237

Post by DSingularity »

version_five wrote: post #203
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 strawm…

Why is it ridiculous? You don’t respect the potential injustice which can occur due to disparity in information and/or knowledge. Think about the popularity of crypto. How can you think your position of complete lack of regulation is moral? You think it’s okay to allow the targeting of the economically vulnerable to continue without restrictions via ads or - my favorite - celebrity endorsements?

This is ridiculous.

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

#238

Post by slibhb »

Nursie wrote: post #220
version_five wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 strawm…

> The most abhorrent idea of all to me is that there are stupid, weak people that are worse than "us" Not what I said. However the idea that everyone is equally able to parse out good information from bad is absurd, and I make no claims to be one of the group of enlightened ubermensch who should be able to decide for the rest. Neither do I argue that such people exist or are necessary. > we can be adults and let ever…

> I make no claims to be one of the group of enlightened ubermensch who should be able to decide for the rest

I would say you did:

> And before anyone asks who I am to judge the best ideas, I'll answer - nobody, but I can see that factually incorrect, scientifically illiterate, conspiratorial, harmful crank ideas gain legs in the online world we've created. Often at the root of these is a profit motive.

You asked the right question (who are you to determine the truth?) but then you didn't answer it. You continued on to imply that, in fact, you are in a position to sort out what's true unlike those other, inferior people who fall for conspiracy theories and pseudoscience.

> Or we can ditch bland cliches and false dichotomies and look at pragmatic steps that can be taken to, for instance, improve access to good information, improve education around critical thinking, and perhaps (as mentioned in other comments) re-examine things like automated algorithms that feed people ever more extreme content because it increases engagement levels, clicks and ad revenue.

"Improving access to good information" is usually a euphemism for some kind of censorship. As far as I'm concerned, all of these "problems" are not problems, they're justifications for controlling other people and expressions of impotent rage at the failure to control those people. I'm vaccinated and I voted for Biden but I do not understand why peope care that others decide not to get vaccinated or voted for the other guy. Part of freedom is the freedom to be wrong.

I think these are not new problems. Democracy, pluralism, free speech, trial by jury, etc are our solutions to these problems. They aren't particularly satisfying solutions because, as you said in your first post, the truth doesn't always win. Rather they're tragic compromises. But I don't see any serious suggestions about how we should improve them.

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

#239

Post by clucas »

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?

I think it's OK to say (1) you are allowed to send pornographic magazines through the mail from your place of business, but (2) you are not allowed to put a pornographic image on the front of your building.

I also think it's fair to carry this analogy over to the internet, and the difference between an email and a social media post.

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

#240

Post by shrimpx »

drstewart wrote: post #19

It was certainly weird to see all the "they're private businesses, they can do what they want!" takes from the internet when Trump and Parler were banned, after the same people have been yelling for years that these same corporations have too much power over the public narrative.

Prior to Trump getting banned, an outrage was mounting over Facebook/Twitter banning all kinds of content that was seen as far less dangerous, yet continuing to enable what was seen as extremely dangerous content from Trump.

It was outrage over inconsistent policy it wasn't your cynical read that people are just self-interested morons.

Post reply on HN