Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by gavinhoward » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 10:36 PM UTC

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.

> They pose a legitimate risk to other people.

This is not true, any more than it is for vaccinated people.

Viruses will still spread through a fully-vaccinated population, and they will still mutate in a fully-vaccinated population.

The CDC released a report [1] showing proportional numbers of cases coming from fully vaccinated people (74% of cases against 69% of the population fully vaccinated).

Treating people who are not getting the vaccine as enemies is not going to convince us. In fact, this whole thing has made me, in particular, suspicious of other vaccines that I will research and make decisions for myself about.

[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7031e2-H.pdf

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

#112

Post by mancerayder » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 10:37 PM UTC

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.

Us guys?

You're making a lot of assumptions. One of the saddest and most frustrating aspects of big tech's narrowing of permissible discourse is the association of defenders of discourse with red ties, right wing ideas and all of that.

An Intro to Constitutional Law course or book would demonstrate how false that is, that up until only a decade or less ago, conservatives were the ones assaulting free speech. And Progressives were vigorously defending freedom of speech. This includes hate speech. They were preventing 'consequences' as people like yourself like to remind us we have no protection from. I can suggest materials to read, but what has degenerated is this thread, so it's pointless effort unless someone wants it.

The philosophical arguments made by the Progressives in those days in defense of speech resonate timelessly, from the 1600s to the 2020s. The arguments resonate also beyond narrow ideas of what constitutes government restrictions.

Today the question is around whether the FB's and Twitter's and YouTube's should be regulated as utilities and in the public interest, rather than an outmoded ideal around private ownership rights and the 1st Amendment not applying. From misinformation to viewpoint discrimination, it's the real question of our present time.

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

#113

Post by varelse » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 10:38 PM UTC

fighterpilot wrote: post #57

varelse wrote: post #8

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…

I have no problem with social media companies kicking off anyone they please. I do have a problem when the lines between government and private get blurred, and a government can indirectly or directly influence the censorship decisions of private companies through threat of regulation, a revolving door, or by explicitly flagging certain posts. That's a grey area 1A violation in my mind.

When has any of this not been blurry?

Tech gets all sorts of tax breaks to innovate. That's okay, but if they proactively kick people off the platform so as to head off government regulation, that's not okay?

Or wait, let me guess, all tax breaks are good! How'd I do?

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

#114

Post by naasking » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 10:39 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #91

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…

OK, but, we already have social/legal/cultural norms for deciding what thoughts are bad and what thoughts are good. Here are some things I can't do via Mailchimp for either legal or cultural reasons (see also https://mailchimp.com/legal/acceptable_use/ ): - Advertise pornography - Plan attacks against the United States government - Advertise medical cures that the government doesn't approve of - Sell counterfeit prod…

They're not just thoughts but also actions. Actions are typically what's regulated by governments, not thought. Maybe by "thoughts" you meant "ideas".

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

#115

Post by objectivetruth » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 10:44 PM UTC

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #68

ordinaryradical wrote: post #14

Earlier 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…

I have downvoted you because you seem to believe that if there were no anti-vaccine sentiment, SARS-2 would not exist, which is patently absurd

Nope, OP didn't say SARS-2 was caused by anti-vax sentiment, they said it became endemic because of it. Words matter.

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

#116

Post by varelse » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 10:51 PM UTC

mancerayder wrote: post #112

varelse wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Us guys? You're making a lot of assumptions. One of the saddest and most frustrating aspects of big tech's narrowing of permissible discourse is the association of defenders of discourse with red ties, right wing ideas and all of that. An Intro to Constitutional Law course or book would demonstrate how false that is, that up until only a decade or less ago, conservatives were the ones assaulting free speech. And Prog…

Cool, how about some specific references to settled cases that are relevant to the situation rather than vague references to law books?

Back in the day, I remember how Tipper Gore was all about warning us of the dangers of explicit lyrics and videos and she wasn't a conservative or have I lost track of who's on which team?

Disliking what became of one political party because of the embrace of a demagogue does not necessarily make one a strong adherent of the other leading brand or is that too nuanced for you?

I support the rights of social media sites to moderate content as they see fit and I support the rights of their customers to take their business elsewhere if they don't like how it's run. I won't be going into Hobby Lobby anytime soon nor will I be going to Carl's Jr, but I'm also not going to tell them how to run their businesses. I think that's where we really differ here. Facebook and Twitter will ultimately fall to superior successors that catch the zeitgeist just like they did. But not on any of our schedules.

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

#117

Post by Turing_Machine » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 10:52 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #51

Turing_Machine wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because to a first approximation everyone understands, and can get, email, while maybe 5% of the population, if that, understand RSS feeds. My 80 year old aunt can read email. While I'm sure I could teach her to use RSS feeds, it would not be a task I would look foward to. And she has me. Most people don't have me, or anyone like me (or, likely, you, or the majority of other users of this site). What you're saying is…

> Because to a first approximation everyone understands, and can get, email, while maybe 5% of the population, if that, understand RSS feeds. At some point in history, 5% or less of the population understood email. RSS feeds are not inherently more complex than email, in fact they're quite a bit simpler. (And even if you don't grok RSS feeds, you'll probably grok a weblog; RSS is only relevant here because it gives t…

Other than not coming preinstalled on every operating system and having reply capability, you mean?

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

#118

Post by Turing_Machine » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 10:53 PM UTC

varelse wrote: post #63

Turing_Machine wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Edit: keep bringing those freethinker(tm) downvotes 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.

You're assuming I'm not okay with the content moderation of Hacker News. You should never assume. If anything you should jump with joy at the rights of people who disagree with this article to flag it and at your right to register discontent without any substantive argument as to why you are registering your discontent with but a simple down vote. That's freedom of speech in action! And while my tone here is sarcasti…

I'm not assuming anything.

You were complaining about being modded down, so you quite clearly had a problem with it.

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

#119

Post by robertlagrant » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 10:53 PM UTC

dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #108

asymptosis wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

I'm not sure that the other end of the rationality axis is "nuanced".

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

#120

Post by SV_BubbleTime » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 10:56 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #86

rosmax_1337 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulation of private companies is sane and normal, there is no need to appeal to their inherent freedoms and such, everyone should be on the same page about that. If you ideologically believe that no regulation should ever be imposed on a company, or individual, then take that idea to where it goes logically. Add problems like ecology, climate, transportation, and yes: control over information. The problem is rather…

There is a simple, straightforward answer here - prevent companies from amassing such power in the first place. It is far more obvious to me that there is an inherent right to choose whom you do business with and whom you don't than that there is an inherent right to have a single corporate entity employing unbounded numbers of employees and making unbounded amounts of money. The individual person can buy and sell on…

So we’re on to time machines this early in the discussion?

Government is toothless and unmotivated to reign them in for the same revolving door issues you wrote about already happening today. The only thing that changes any of this will be whistle blowers and exposition from the inside of these companies. Then you have the issue of what media company will run that story? Think about how much the media rely on Twitter for “content” now.

I am skeptical of any positive changes for quite some time.