Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse

bombthrower.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 264 posts

Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse

#101

Post by tstrimple »

WalterBright wrote: post #98
bumby wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re right in your assessment of “evil” but pragmatically wrong (or maybe just oversimplifying) the solution. When there are large asymmetries (for example, in information or risk) regulation can be warranted. For example, most people feel regulating fissile material is prudent because the risk of it coming into the wrong hands is too high to just let unchecked freedom ring when it comes to owning it or not…

The problem with fissile material is the potential for hurting others. Stopping hurt of others is a reasonable function of government. Legal adults, however, have a fundamental right to hurt themselves. Yes, I know there are grey areas.

If anti-vaxxers just hurt themselves, there wouldn't be nearly as much animosity around these issues. They pose a legitimate risk to other people. Not just through direct infection of other people, but by offering themselves up as a breeding ground for more effective versions of the virus.

Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse

#102

Post by j-bos »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #96
cblconfederate wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who gets to decide what's misinformation? Whoever wants to. and then people can compare the competing arbiters and decide who would earn their trust. That used to work with mass media until the internet came along. Now we no longer have multiple newspapers, but "The Newspaper" , "The TV" and "The telegraph" (Twitter?), like 2-3 news sources in total which are basically politically aligned. The name of the game chan…

> I m not sure if this can ever change within a centralizing communication medium like the internet, The internet, centralising… what went wrong?

I found this to be a novel perspective on your question: https://samoburja.com/the-centralized-internet-is-inevitable...

Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse

#103

Post by asymptosis »

dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #75

I'm not going to comment on the author's credibility or overall quality of his arguments. However, I think he brings up a very important point: who gets to decide what's misinformation? * Private organizations are run by fallible humans, chasing money and reduced liability * Governments lie. If you don't believe me, read any history book * Scientists are not a spherical mass floating in a vacuum with a unified opinio…

> only engineers believe most of the important issues in the world actually have an objective answer to them.

Was this really necessary? How many engineers do you know, and how many of them actually ascribe to this belief?

Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse

#104

Post by cblconfederate »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #96
cblconfederate wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who gets to decide what's misinformation? Whoever wants to. and then people can compare the competing arbiters and decide who would earn their trust. That used to work with mass media until the internet came along. Now we no longer have multiple newspapers, but "The Newspaper" , "The TV" and "The telegraph" (Twitter?), like 2-3 news sources in total which are basically politically aligned. The name of the game chan…

> I m not sure if this can ever change within a centralizing communication medium like the internet, The internet, centralising… what went wrong?

wrong or right? The internet was designed to be "decentralized" in the sense of robust communications, but ultimately the goal was to convey the commands of one, centralized US army

Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse

#105

Post by distantsounds »

> We see Fauci removing his mask the moment the cameras stop rolling. We see AOC sitting amongst a fairly close knit crowd put one on for the express purpose of a photo op and then take it off again. But if you send an email to your own subscribers via Mailchimp wondering out loud if masks are nothing more than performative theatre, you’ll get shut down.

no, when you nitpick an _extremely complicated scientific matter_ to where you are actively going against CDC guidelines for the sake of pushing your own argument, you get shut down. imagine that. it's almost as if Mailchimp would rather you believe scientists than some tech bro with a podcast.

Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse

#106

Post by tstrimple »

varelse wrote: post #55
mancerayder wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

And yet still not a single counter argument explaining why you guys don't build your own social media site instead of whining about the old and stupid leading brands. There's lesson in the irony.

They keep trying to build their own social media sites and are confused as to why they all degenerate into cesspools.

Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse

#107

Post by psacawa »

Barrin92 wrote: post #65

Not sure if there's a more eloquent name for these kinds of "throw enough shit and hope some of it sticks" arguments but the article is very confused, from claiming ad hominem attacks are as bad as racism, to ranting about millenials and throwing in WMD's in Iraq for good measure. The actual key issue is somewhere in the middle of that article: > "When tech companies take it upon themselves to arbitrate what is or is…

I think the term you're looking for is "gish gallop" [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse

#108

Post by dj_mc_merlin »

asymptosis wrote: post #103
dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #75

I'm not going to comment on the author's credibility or overall quality of his arguments. However, I think he brings up a very important point: who gets to decide what's misinformation? * Private organizations are run by fallible humans, chasing money and reduced liability * Governments lie. If you don't believe me, read any history book * Scientists are not a spherical mass floating in a vacuum with a unified opinio…

> only engineers believe most of the important issues in the world actually have an objective answer to them. Was this really necessary? How many engineers do you know, and how many of them actually ascribe to this belief?

It's a playful jab at a category of people I am part of too, although I do not share that belief. The statement I made is wrong on purpose regardless (for light comedic effect): not only engineers hold that belief, nor are they the only ones who do.

There is a significant overlap (higher than a random person's picked from the population) between engineers and what I would call "fundamentalist rationalists". That is, people who believe in reason and science to the point they wrap the speedometer back around to religious belief again. Those people become unable to think outside that framework and consider nuanced solutions. Not everything worth solving has measurable or falsifiable solutions. The world can be very uncertain and work against all common sense at times. This doesn't mean one shouldn't attempt to make sense of it obviously, but science does not a god make. It may, hopefully, but pretending it is that way now is no good.

Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse

#109

Post by objectivetruth »

tstrimple wrote: post #101
WalterBright wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with fissile material is the potential for hurting others. Stopping hurt of others is a reasonable function of government. Legal adults, however, have a fundamental right to hurt themselves. Yes, I know there are grey areas.

If anti-vaxxers just hurt themselves, there wouldn't be nearly as much animosity around these issues. They pose a legitimate risk to other people. Not just through direct infection of other people, but by offering themselves up as a breeding ground for more effective versions of the virus.

Same with the anti-maskers. They cry out for their "rights" (to not wear a mask) but won't accept their responsibility (to somehow otherwise prevent themselves from spewing viral particles on us).

Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse

#110

Post by devwastaken »

WalterBright wrote: post #90
dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #75

I'm not going to comment on the author's credibility or overall quality of his arguments. However, I think he brings up a very important point: who gets to decide what's misinformation? * Private organizations are run by fallible humans, chasing money and reduced liability * Governments lie. If you don't believe me, read any history book * Scientists are not a spherical mass floating in a vacuum with a unified opinio…

Most evil in the world is perpetrated not by evil people, but by people with good intentions who believe they know what is best for others, and believe that justifies forcing it on those others. > So, who gets to decide? Each individual gets to decide for themselves.

>Most evil in the world is perpetrated not by evil people, but by people with good intentions who believe they know what is best for others, and believe that justifies forcing it on those others.

Other way around. Evil would convince you that leaded gasoline is fine, and that "good intentions" of regulating lead out of gas are evil because government power.

Post reply on HN