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

541–550 of 600 posts

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

#541

Post by renewiltord »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #408
renewiltord wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have read all of these explanations multiple times and have always had trouble reconciling everything here. What do the words “liberty”, “purchase”, and “security” mean in this quotation? As best as I can tell: - liberty: the right to be sovereign and able to defend oneself - security: safety from having taxes levied - purchase: the guys being taxed said instead “look, we’ll give you money this one time instead but…

I wouldn’t necessarily assume that purchase means with taxes. I think there’s an interpretation this is a non-monetary cost.

If you don't mind, can you kindly explain?

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

#542

Post by naasking »

tlholaday wrote: post #180
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.

It seems unfair to deprecate algorithms which "favor 'provocative' ideas that drive clicks" as a `distortion` of the marketplace of ideas. It seems more that by driving clicks, the algorithms are `facilitating` the marketplace. People are signaling the ideas they prefer, idea suppliers are producing more of such ideas, and the people get these ideas at ever-lower prices. How is that in any way a distortion of an idea…

Provocative ideas are not the same as good ideas. These algorithms artificially promote provocative ideas because that drives revenue. That's a market distortion, just like subsidies distort economic markets.

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

#543

Post by shoemakersteve »

int_19h wrote: post #467
monkeybutton wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't understand how one can say "it's not good enough" without proposing options that are actually better. I've yet to see any; all the censorship proposals on the table are far worse than the present state of affairs.

What, we aren't allowed to talk about issues if we haven't already solved them? Surely you can see how ridiculous that sounds. Ironically, you're also saying "these proposals aren't good enough" without proposing options that are actually better.

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

#544

Post by naasking »

boring_twenties wrote: post #406
rootusrootus wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tribal politics is probably a better predictor than fringe theories.

I have a friend who's gone off the deep end in the past year (like so many others). He freely admits that he doesn't believe the vaccine is bad, and might even be good. His sole reason for not taking it is, and I quote, "because they want me to." In other words, simple spite. We're not talking about a teenager here, but a successful man in his 60's who is probably the single most well-read person I know.

You see no value in the instinct to resist conformity? All major social and scientific progress has been made by someone with that kind of mindset.

You could argue that it's misplaced in this case, but that's already a more charitable interpretation of anti-conformists that will serve you better than just saying they've "gone off the deep end".

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

#545

Post by stale2002 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #533
stale2002 wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No they can't. The legislature would Yes the courts would. Lol. Any laws that infringe on our rights, can be struct down by the court system. Thats literally the point of the court system. To strike down laws that infringe on our rights. > Do you trust Nancy pelosi and Ted Cruz to write censorship rules you agree with? Hey, at least if they write them, the courts can strike them down, if they infringe on our rights…

You're simultaneously advocating for a sweeping change in how the courts interpret our rights, while proclaiming that they will continue to protect them. Currently, the courts have an opinion on censorship that is extreme enough that it protects what Facebook is doing. Today, the government cannot write censorship rules. They all, to use your words, "infringe on our rights". So if you want the government to be able t…

> while proclaiming that they will continue to protect them.

Well, are rights aren't particularly protected, from the censorship that happens right now.

There are zero checks on balances on the censorship that already happens. At the very least it would be better if we had more courts involved, so as to make sure that those courts have some say over what censorship can happen or not.

> Today, the government cannot write censorship rules

Sure they can. They are already doing so. Go look at the laws that cover phone companies. The government already has laws, that prevents phone companies from engaging in certain acts of censorship, or whatever we want to call that, on the telephone network.

Those laws don't apply to other things at the moment. But they could, if we changed them, and it would be no bigger of an issue than how those existing laws, already apply to phone companies.

> you have to amend the constitution

No we won't. All we have to do is take our existing common carrier laws, and expand them.

Common carrier laws, as they apply to phone companies, are already constitutional.

> to change the very framework

There is no massive change to the framework of free speech, when we already have similar laws, that already apply to a similar thing, which is the phone network.

Just whatever is happening there, already, and which already does not infringe upon our rights, could be expanded to apply to other things, and no massive constitutional change would be needed to apply these existing laws to new things.

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

#546

Post by totony »

joshuamorton wrote: post #534
totony wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we were the censor, we would have the government do it (which represents us). Facebook's opinion of what they perceive to be morally dubious does not represent anyone but facebook themselves.

> If we were the censor, we would have the government do it (which represents us). Well sort of. We can't legally, right? The constitution prevents that. If Facebook is simply censoring the things that consumers ask it to, it is absolutely serving itself (in a profit driven way), but it isn't asserting Facebook's morals. It's asserting something more like "American consumer morals".

Facebook clients are not individual, they're ad-centric. Facebook is serving what it believes to be advertisers' interest, which may not align with most people.

Plus, the reason we can't legally is because we agree it shouldn't be done.

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

#547

Post by joshuamorton »

totony wrote: post #546
joshuamorton wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we were the censor, we would have the government do it (which represents us). Well sort of. We can't legally, right? The constitution prevents that. If Facebook is simply censoring the things that consumers ask it to, it is absolutely serving itself (in a profit driven way), but it isn't asserting Facebook's morals. It's asserting something more like "American consumer morals".

Facebook clients are not individual, they're ad-centric. Facebook is serving what it believes to be advertisers' interest, which may not align with most people. Plus, the reason we can't legally is because we agree it shouldn't be done.

> Facebook clients are not individual, they're ad-centric. Facebook is serving what it believes to be advertisers' interest, which may not align with most people.

But this still ultimately consumer morals, since it's about content that advertisers don't want to be associated with because that content will reflect badly on them in they eyes of the consumer.

> Plus, the reason we can't legally is because we agree it shouldn't be done.

We (generally) agree that the government shouldn't engage in censorship, yes. The claim that individuals and groups should not be able to themselves moderate the stuff that appears on their websites is a much more controversial claim.

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

#548

Post by joshuamorton »

stale2002 wrote: post #545
joshuamorton wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're simultaneously advocating for a sweeping change in how the courts interpret our rights, while proclaiming that they will continue to protect them. Currently, the courts have an opinion on censorship that is extreme enough that it protects what Facebook is doing. Today, the government cannot write censorship rules. They all, to use your words, "infringe on our rights". So if you want the government to be able t…

> while proclaiming that they will continue to protect them. Well, are rights aren't particularly protected, from the censorship that happens right now. There are zero checks on balances on the censorship that already happens. At the very least it would be better if we had more courts involved, so as to make sure that those courts have some say over what censorship can happen or not. > Today, the government cannot wr…

> Well, are rights aren't particularly protected, from the censorship that happens right now.

Given that I don't believe that it is fundamentally possible for any private entity to infringe on my right to free speech, I'm going to have to disagree with you here.

> No we won't. All we have to do is take our existing common carrier laws, and expand them.

The Cato institute appears to disagree with you that it's that simple[0]. It's not clear that applying common carrier status to Facebook or Google could be constitutional, because they do not and have never claimed to be neutral, so using the force of law to make that so would be an infringement on the companies' rights to speech and association.

[0]: https://www.cato.org/blog/are-social-media-companies-common-...

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

#549

Post by naniwaduni »

LimaBearz wrote: post #484
naniwaduni wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"since 9/11" is one hell of a cutoff cf. https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/31/terrorists-vs-chairs-a...

Just to point out… 9/11 is close to 20 years ago now.. society has marched forward quite a bit since then. While that date as a cutoff point is fairly arbitrary there has been a substantial and alarming rise to extremist right violence I’m the last 10 years or so and that can’t just be swept under a rug

That date is not arbitrary. It is selected to optimize the metric.

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

#550

Post by stale2002 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #548
stale2002 wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> while proclaiming that they will continue to protect them. Well, are rights aren't particularly protected, from the censorship that happens right now. There are zero checks on balances on the censorship that already happens. At the very least it would be better if we had more courts involved, so as to make sure that those courts have some say over what censorship can happen or not. > Today, the government cannot wr…

> Well, are rights aren't particularly protected, from the censorship that happens right now. Given that I don't believe that it is fundamentally possible for any private entity to infringe on my right to free speech, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. > No we won't. All we have to do is take our existing common carrier laws, and expand them. The Cato institute appears to disagree with you that it's that si…

> they do not and have never claimed to be neutral, so using the force of law to make that so would be an infringement on the companies' rights to speech and association.

You are not being creative enough, with how we could apply these laws.

One big reason why phone companies are claiming to be neutral in the first place, is to get certain protections, that those laws give them.

They claim to be neutral, to get certain benefits.

Phone companies are claiming to be neutral, for a reason. Its not because they simply want to. It is because they are doing that, on purpose, because the law is strongly incentivizing them to do so.

A similar strategy could be used against Facebook. What can be done, is we take away certain protections, that we currently give them, and only give them back, in exchange for them following something similar to common carrier laws.

The most common thing that people bring up, of a right to take away from them, is section 230 protections.

When the smart people talk about repealing section 230 protections, it is not to actually remove those protections.

Instead, the strategy, is to make it so, if companies want to keep those protections, they then have to follow other requirements, by making those protections contingent on acting a certain way, such as by following common carrier laws.

That is the way to get around being unable to force Facebook to follow common carrier laws. You don't actually force them to do it. Instead, you make the alternative, extremely difficult, by making previously necessary protections, contingent on following new neutrality laws.

Post reply on HN