Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
241–250 of 600 posts
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#242>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…
Maybe we attack should sleazy commerce rather than speech?
The reason people go in for crank ideas is because they recognize that the people who sell them things are constantly manipulating them. They work so they don't have time to investigate everything themselves, so as a proxy many tend to believe marginal people who they don't know at all due to the signal that their speech is being suppressed by known liars who are never called out because of their power.
Meanwhile, the upper middle-class people who provide the infrastructure and strategy for the biggest frauds are smug in the belief that their betters are being honest about what is true and false, because their income depends on it.
The problem with people is that they are unmoored, with absolutely no sources of information that are not trying to squeeze cash out of them. They come up with sketchy heuristics to give them some semblance of stability between shifts at work and climbing pointless complications in their lives created by rent-seekers.
The problem with the comfortable upper middle-class is that they are too moored, too sure they're at the end of history. Too sure that they know what is true between stitching together half-remembered NYT and WaPo headlines with their discussions with each other at restaurants and dinner parties. Too sure that truth can and should be dictated by people who have a better degree than they do. As if maintaining that comfort is not an interest, as if bias towards themselves as "the middle" is actually the definition of being unbiased.
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#243https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Surveillance_Capi...
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#244If that's the world you want, good news, that's the world we have now. And the magic of AI and recommender systems has disrupted that old and stupid model of if "it bleeds it leads" to get you outraged faster and with far less effort than it used to take in the old and stupid days.
But that's not the world I want to live in personally and if it takes some imperfect even sometimes ham-fisted regulation to get us to a better place I'm willing to deal with that rather than embrace the status quo because it sucks and it's just getting worse as the tools to hack social media have been democratized at scale.
Ideally I'd love to let the free marketplace of ideas work this out (and it eventually will and I am a huge believer in weakly efficient marketplaces), but unless I get a 1000 plus year lifespan, I only have so many years left in my lightcone so I side with being more proactive.
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#245Earlier 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…
Or that a few algorithms created by a few companies does not constitute anything remotely resembling a marketplace.
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#246Earlier 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" that we need to shield from bad ideas because they are not smart enough (like we are) to handle them. I find this idea abhorrent as well, but I’m curious if you find it abhorrent because you think the claim is false and/or unsubstantiated, or if you find it abhorrent because even if it’s true it ought to be rejected…
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google is apparently going to be doing that with content on Drive. Not sure what they've said or not said about gMail but what's the difference, really?
The difference is that gmail isn't publicly serving your emails to an open audience. The restrictions on Drive are only for publicly-served content.
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#248Yes, censorship is bad, but which is worse: admitting a little bit of censorship, or Nazis? Because uh, right now, we have Nazis. In Germany, if you express Nazi views you will be arrested and thrown in prison. Germany is, according to many metrics, freer than the USA. Perhaps because of its laws that put Nazis in prison.
We do not, in fact, have Nazis.
Allow me to re-phrase:
Yes, censorship is bad, but which is worse: admitting a little bit of censorship, or Islamic Terrorists? Because uh, right now, we have Islamic Terrorists.
At least one was real in the last couple decades.
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#249This 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…
You don't have to map everything so the platform interactions are the same, simply make them equal-access via API call.
It seems flawless to me but I also only spent the time I took to type this thinking about it, so it may be 98% flawed.
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#250I'm not concerned. If I ran a platform serving out qanon BS I'd ban and log their details. Terrorists don't get protections from a private company, nor should they. People don't understand just how insane these groups of people have become. Without FBI interference these terrorist groups would have murdered multiple state governors and carried out plenty of bombings. I'm not going to "be neutral" to such people. 1. G…
You should familiarize yourself with the rest of post-War 20th century history in the United States, then. Far, far more deadly and dangerous "conspiracy theories" existed before the internet and caused actual deaths of sitting politicians. It's the Presentism of all of this that is making people forget how pernicious it is, letting these powerful organizations have this authority to ban "misinformation".