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

321–330 of 600 posts

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

#321

Post by naniwaduni »

trainsplanes wrote: post #314
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" that we need to shield from bad ideas because they are not smart enough (like we are) to handle them. Gullible people exist. I mean, it's such a well-known phenomenon that the term "gullible" exists to describe people who fall for what should be obviously false information and lies. We all have our instances of gulli…

The term "elf" exists to describe a kind (well, a few kinds) of supernatural vaguely-humanoid being. This is not generally considered evidence for the existence of elfs.

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

#322

Post by cartoonworld »

TheFalun wrote: post #318
cartoonworld wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer to your questions are very many, and some. The numbers are of course relative, but consider the following: During the 1980's early internet, white supremacist groups were among the first[0] to being using the new medium for organization and information purposes. They used it then to publish among other things a list[1] of "race traitors" etc including name, address, phone number, promulgate misinformation,…

Are there less neonazis now than the 1980-90s? Are there more people now than ever who totally disavow white supremacy? What is the population the KKK right now? What percentage of America is that? Don't get lost in the narratives.

No, don't get lost in the insincere gaslighting.

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

#324

Post by isaacremuant »

betterunix2 wrote: post #119
AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You certainly must love the way things are going in Belarus then.

I prefer the way things are run in countries like France and Germany, where people understand the value of free speech in debating politics and spreading new ideas while also recognizing that some limits are necessary (e.g. limits on speech that promotes a resurgence of nazism).

The problem is, that the sentiment of "limits speech that promotes resurgence of X" is the same that dictatorships like Argentina used against the "subversives" that would promote and bring about communism.

When you allow the powerful to define "dangerous speech". Criticism of the government very quickly becomes dangerous when it's successful.

We've seen it with everything related to covid where in some countries people get arrested for "misinformation".

The slippery slope many warned about is very real, and very damaging.

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

#325

Post by rektide »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #12
rektide wrote: post #7

I tend to agree with this article: we all should be worried about being dependent on having only a few core systems where speech happens, especially when network effect & switching costs are very very high. I believe platforms have the right to moderate themselves as they see fit. They get that freedom, and we're better for letting private systems regulate themselves. Or, (as mentioned) as Twitter is floating, creati…

> If we leave the one network our friend is on we lose all digital connection with that friend, lose the view we'd get of them interacting with others. Ever since I started using the Fediverse, I haven't had this problem. Sure, most of my friends aren't there, but I'm happy to IM or email them instead.

yeah i actually like seeing my friends talking with each other & being able to join in the various conversations they're having.

if you're fine just leaving the online social circles your friends are in good for you. but i hope you can see how very very very very very short an answer & how rude is comes across to most people. and i'm sorry your friends are so boring.

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

#326

Post by zamalek »

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…

> improve education around critical thinking,

Aye. This would improve so many things. Critical thinking is, in fact, not an instinctual ability. It's perfectly okay to talk mathematics illiteracy, but propaganda literacy? "No, no, we can't imply that people aren't capable of thinking for themselves." We have multiple historical instances of extremely successful disinformation campaigns, and people fell for it en-masse.

These "let people decide" trolls are effectively correlating critical thinking skills with intelligence, and it's patently absurd. Philosophers, some of the greatest thinkers there are/were, have spent years of their lives pondering the art of critical thinking.

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

#327

Post by TheFalun »

cartoonworld wrote: post #322
TheFalun wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there less neonazis now than the 1980-90s? Are there more people now than ever who totally disavow white supremacy? What is the population the KKK right now? What percentage of America is that? Don't get lost in the narratives.

No, don't get lost in the insincere gaslighting.

Can you answer my questions? They paint a different story than what the NYT is telling you.

I'm being very sincere I want to get to the truth. If one person of a specific group does something bad and it gets mainstream news does the size of that group and overall impact it has increase? Of course not.

If there are less neonazis now than in the early days of the internet then doesn't that mean that having the ability to see their information actually exposed their bad ideas and allowed people to see them for what they actually are? Consider it.

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

#328

Post by monkeybutton »

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 don't understand how one could look at the current state of affairs regarding rampant misinformation online and say "yeah this is the best we can do without compromising our ideals". Its not good enough.

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

#329

Post by zamalek »

Nursie wrote: post #285
exporectomy wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> with actual vaccine science Who decides what that is? Plenty of actual scientists publish papers in actual science journals that conflict with each other and with official public health advice. The whole vaccines cause autism idea came from what looked like actual vaccine science. Knowledge isn't actually that sure. Sometimes the authorities are wrong. Remember when bread was at the bottom of the food pyramid? > bu…

So there’s no way at all, to your mind, to distinguish millions of shitposts about “The covid vaccine causes infertility, and contains 5G chips” from, for instance, genuine risk information? We truly are swimming in a world in which nothing is true. Or you are anyway.

> The covid vaccine causes infertility

The bizarre thing with this hoax, is that it looks like the mRNA vaccine increases swimmer motility.[1] Vaccinated folks should have no issues having babies if, for example, they need to improve their 5G reception at home.

[1]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2781360

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

#330

Post by Clubber »

cratermoon wrote: post #128
Nursie wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We are drawn to sensational, scandalous stories for some combination of entertainment and self-righteous outrage/virtue signaling to the others in our tribe. While I agree, I think there's more to it than that, I think it's more serious than that, and I think the message amplification capabilities afforded to profit-driven (or ideologically driven) bad actors is something we've not really seen before. Certainly not…

"major platforms’ amplification features have also caused or contributed to real damage in the world. At a societal level, they have spread misleading political material, to the detriment of democratic governance" https://knightcolumbia.org/content/amplification-and-its-dis...

The Catholic Church felt the same way about Gutenberg's press.
Post reply on HN