31–40 of 264 posts
There was another submission a few minutes ago in the same light. It linked to an article about how Big Tech companies are censoring doctors and decide what is accurate medical information. It was removed.
Just to be clear, when you see [flagged] on a submission it means that users flagged it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
That started when politicians shifted their responsibilities of governance and policy making to private entities to cover for their inefficiencies and their vote bank politics.
Regarding trump being banned: "Twitter can ban whomever they want".
We are now in a screaming match. Who can scream at the twitter exec louder win.
I think this article spot-on. In my opinion, there is very little (but not zero) actual misinformation on the Internet. Most of what we call “misinformation” is an influence campaign by one side, which is thoroughly disliked by the opposing side. When Big Tech labels something “misinformation” they are essentially taking one side or the other on the issue at hand.
The misinformation may be coming out of a organized campaign or it may arising organically, but it definitely exists in droves and is spread by social media. It exists on both sides, but it is not balanced.
* thankfully, she’s pretty discerning and don’t believe any of this, but believes it is important to not le this sort of behavior cause her to “unfriend” people she’s known for decades.
** just to be clear, they weren’t, and the evidence was that pictures of insurrectionists appeared on an antifa web site. That was true, but that’s because they appeared on the part of the website dedicated to documenting people as fascists
*** I found the original source in about a minute, and a public rebuttal from Dave Ramsey in two
The obsession with class (in the title, and content) and misunderstood genius reads more like within-class squabble than an argument for a different order.
I did some freelance work helping someone worried about Google censorship move their services to more independent alternatives, including EasyDNS. This post makes a lot more sense to me as signaling, in that respect.
I remain confused as to why anyone thinks they have unlimited first amendment rights on social media. It sounds a lot like thinking one has first amendment rights at a private employer. Let's clear this up right now. TLDR: you don't unless you explicitly do. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/setting-the-record-straigh... Edit: keep bringing those freethinker(tm) downvotes. It won't change the law one bit, but I guess…
Sauce. Goose.
Edit: Maybe you should start your own tech news site. Or if that's too hard, why don't you apply to work at YC and work your way up to a position where you control the moderation for this site?
Once again: Sauce. Goose.
I think this article spot-on. In my opinion, there is very little (but not zero) actual misinformation on the Internet. Most of what we call “misinformation” is an influence campaign by one side, which is thoroughly disliked by the opposing side. When Big Tech labels something “misinformation” they are essentially taking one side or the other on the issue at hand.
> there is very little (but not zero) actual misinformation on the Internet. It’s not the amount to take issue with but the spread of its influence. Anti-vaccine ideology was given a platform by big tech and now we have an endemic disease because folks believe that nonsense and let it hold sway over their medical decisions. Edit: for folks voting this down I’d be interested in a rebuttal or at least an explanation of…
Mailchimp is "big tech" now? Can't these folks just throw a RSS feed together (hosted on the cheapest static webhost around) and tell people to subscribe to it? This is a big fat nothingburger if I ever saw one.
What you're saying is roughly equivalent to "So what if they can't use the telephone or television? Can't these folks just use Morse code?"
> These companies think they’re the patricians of internet discourse. The reality is they’re the plumbing. That was true until they started promoting and demoting content in order to drive engagement and juice their ad revenues. Big tech is not plumbing. The minute Facebook invented the news feed they became editors and content promoters. If they really want to just be plumbing, they can shut down their algorithms an…
Ok. If they are editors and publishers then perhaps the law should change so that should be treated like other content editors that exist already.
We could do this by treating them legally equal to things like the New York Times, with all the legal responsibilities, freedoms, and liabilities that such a thing entails.
And these companies that don't want to be treated like editors, then we could create new provisions in the law, that give them protections if they act like how the phone company acts.