Exactly, tech giants are now a natural monopoly, which means we should force them to provide more utility than they want to give in exchange for tolerating their privilege. Either that or break them up.
Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse
41–50 of 264 posts
Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse
#42I 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…
> Edit: keep bringing those freethinker(tm) downvotes. It won't change the law one bit, but I guess it gives good feels.
Freedom to comment is not freedom to not be downvoted into oblivion. You can complain but we'll grey that one, as well. There's lesson in the irony.
Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse
#43I 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…
> Edit: for folks voting this down I’d be interested in a rebuttal or at least an explanation of how this doesn’t add to the conversation. I try to be a good citizen here and thought I was engaging in good faith
"Misinformation", someone might say, and we wouldn't have to give you any justification. No freedom from consequences, they say.
Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
You don't get to argue that it should be permissible to shut down people's opinions and then complain when your own opinions get shut down.
Especially when in the latter case, it happened organically.
Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse
#45Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't use the common carrier argument to force someone to be a common carrier. If you pick and choose your clients based on policy you are by definition not a common carrier. Mailchimp is a private carrier. They choose what to carry.
Agreed -- but a lot of social media sites say "we just connect people" and then turn around and are forced to play moderator so things don't burn out of control...
I don't know why social media companies haven't tried letting users opt out of different categories of censorship.
Presumably every user appreciates the anti-spam filtering these sites do, and anti-scam/phishing, but there should be a separate checkbox (ticked by default) for "Remove misinformation about covid/vaccines", and one for "Remove misinformation claiming the election was stolen", etc.
Then the social media companies can say to governments "If you would like all users in your jurisdiction to be unable to opt out from these categories, please pass a law requiring us to hardcode these settings for them, and we'll update our UIs to tell users why they can't opt out."
Better yet, the social media companies should say to governments "Please provide your own list of which posts are misinformation, and we'll make sure that users see a blank page saying 'Your government has deemed this post to be misinformation' instead of the content they want".
Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse
#47Odd critique coming from the head of a DNS company, that could easily offer a competitive service with MailChimp. 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. Thi…
> Odd critique coming from the head of a DNS company, that could easily offer a competitive service with MailChimp.
I think you missed the author's point. His point is not that someone needs to start a competing service. his point is that the feel that tech companies are patricians rather than plumbers is widespread and common place.
Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse
#48I'm also gonna flag this, after careful deliberation. I'm gonna leave a comment, because I'm not the shadow powers that be, I'm just a dude who thinks this is an incohesive rambling that's a waste of everybody's time and, despite the promising title, ultimately rehashed flame-baity non-tech non-news.
[deleted]
Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse
#49Should big internet companies by plumbing and not exert control over content on their system? As much as it annoys me some of the things Google, for example, does exercising the power they have, it does have the right to control what is on there, to some extent. As I interpret it, I think the OP is saying it is not right to censure, but I am not sure how this applies to a private company and content on their own system.
I agree a big company shouldn't have _complete_ power to control content on their site for reasons the OP says because at some point this becomes a danger to society. At the same time it is a danger to society to freely let users promote whatever content they want, for the same reasons.
For all the examples or people who have been persecuted (or whatever word would fit better) for saying the "truth", like scientist who said the earth was not at the center of the universe, there are countless others who, for the better, were quieted from issueing harmful information.
The OP says people should be taught a lesson in critical thinking, but I don't think this is a problem. I think most people are pretty logical, they are just dealing with misinformation, no matter what "side" they are on.
So this is a real problem. It is good the OP raises these questions, but I don't think it has the solution.
Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse
#50Lately being on the internet is feeling more like Junta era Argentina with content disappearing left and right.
I agree but it’s exceedingly rare that this is because of political reasons - usually, it’s because of music rights issues.