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

141–150 of 264 posts

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

#141

Post by varelse »

fighterpilot wrote: post #140
varelse wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, it's definitely not okay for a government to threaten a private company (through which most public discourse flows) into censoring its political opponents. It is no different in practice to a 1A violation. The extent to which this happens at all can be debated. But the principle of the matter should be clear, if it is shown to be happening, it is certainly morally wrong, it's anti-democracy and (although it's dif…

That's funny, I didn't hear any of this righteous self indignation during the last administration over its bogus antitrust threats. Were those okay with you or did it take you this long to work up a really good lather?

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/05/trump-looking-into-antitrust...

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

#142

Post by owisd »

umvi wrote: post #136
Ir0nMan wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until recently I thought we already settled this: -People you believe are saying true things get to speak. -People you believe are saying false things get to speak. -People you believe are saying nice things get to speak. -People you believe are saying mean things get to speak. Everyone gets to speak. Individuals get to decide.

That was until we collectively decided harm reduction is a greater cause than freedom preservation. Now any and all freedoms we previously had can be temporarily, permanently, or conditionally suspended in the name of harm reduction (saved lives, fewer offended, etc.)

It’s not some recent idea that freedoms need to be balanced against the harm they can cause others. The harm principle has been around at least as long as On Liberty (1859), and it wasn’t really a new idea then.

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

#143

Post by jayd16 »

Ir0nMan wrote: post #131
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…

Until recently I thought we already settled this: -People you believe are saying true things get to speak. -People you believe are saying false things get to speak. -People you believe are saying nice things get to speak. -People you believe are saying mean things get to speak. Everyone gets to speak. Individuals get to decide.

This is not what is currently up for debate. The current conflict is over control of private forums.

Its not a cut and dry issue either. If you were to own a site, anyone forcing you to post things to your site you don't believe is also an infringement of your rights. It cuts both ways.

In my eyes the major issue is the consolidation of discourse onto a few private forums, not whether or not those forums should be able to police themselves.

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

#144

Post by another_story »

Ir0nMan wrote: post #131
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…

Until recently I thought we already settled this: -People you believe are saying true things get to speak. -People you believe are saying false things get to speak. -People you believe are saying nice things get to speak. -People you believe are saying mean things get to speak. Everyone gets to speak. Individuals get to decide.

While this is great in principle, some people's voice is much louder, and their words can devastate the lives of individuals, the economy and our society. Should there not be something in place to prevent people from spreading falsehoods that can lead to harming others? The solution is not as easy as what you've stated. In fact, I don't think there is a solution, only a continual rebalancing.

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

#145

Post by jerf »

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…

"Misinformation" is one of the most brilliant propaganda coups of my life time.

It does not exist. There is no such thing as "misinformation".

There is only misinformation according to some party.

"Google is going to remove misinformation from YouTube." sounds incredible laudable to the modern ear.

"Google is going to remove things that are misinformation according to Google corporate policy." is much less compelling.

A challenge for anyone reading this: From now on, whenever you read the word "misinformation", fill out the "according to ..." yourself. I've been doing it for a while now. It really improves your perspective.

(I do believe in objective truth. However, if we had a mechanism for objectively determining it in a way we all agreed upon, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place. Whatever the objective truth may be, I seriously doubt "according to the corporate policy of X" is it.)

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

#146

Post by shkkmo »

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…

> Unless someone explains to me, in plain English, why we ought to abolish the very important freedom of deciding for themselves who and how private entities do business with,

Is there no room for nuance here? Can't we support freedom of association without encouraging expanding levels of censorship?

The reason why big tech platforms have been moving towards more censorship isn't just out of natural inclinations, but directly due to people blaming those tech for allowing types of speech.

There are strong arguments, some of which the article puts forward, for the value of free flowing information. This doesn't mean we have to abrogate freedom of association, but it does mean that we should push back against censorship.

We could also limit freedom of association without abolishing it. (There are already laws restricting freedom of association to prevent discrimination against protected classes.)

> Tech companies are large yes, but competitors are, as Google actually correctly put it at one point, one click away.

It often is far more than "one click". If your email provider terminates your account, you'll have huge problems everywhere you signed up with that email. If your twitter account is revoked, you lose all your followers and history. If you have digital "purchases" on an account, you permanently lose access to them if the account is revoked.

There are all kinds of ways that a corporation, exerting their freedom of association, can have huge negative impacts on their users. The power imbalance here is sufficient to warrant concerns about abuse.

I don't think we should revoke freedom of association from tech companies, but I do think we need to create limitations on how they can exercise that right and provide checks and balances in that process. I am not certain what those limitations should be but I think that is the direction the discussion should move.

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

#147

Post by secondaryacct »

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.

I disagree: we live in societies and can vote. In my country we decided that trading, joking, lauding, repeating anything nazi can be prosecuted: so we do prosecute it, a judge decides, according to past judgment and his opinion of the law, and done.

No need to give everyone the job to be clever - we can actually blacklist any opinion we dont want to see circulated and vote on it.

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

#148

Post by motohagiography »

I'd take it a step futher and borrow an adage to say platforms and media mainly say they are fighting misinformation to convince you that the rest of their content is meaningful.

Base reality is, they all make money on selling your attention to advertisers, and they need for you to believe that your encounters with them are "real," serendipitous, and that you aren't just being managed like an animal in an existential zoo. Sure, there are true believers who think abusing trust and technical power to shape narratives is honest and necessary work, and via Twain, there is no argument that will change their mind so long as they are being paid to believe in it. These would not be the first managers to mistake their own credulity for skill.

I'd reject that any of the platforms are seriously combating misinformation, and state it is just another trope in support of the same end, which is the global brandsafing of all public discourse on behalf of their main essential coalition members - the worst, wideley acknowledged, most objectively evil and mendacious organizations in the history of world. If you don't like how a platform puts you on a target list and actively wipes out your social capital and isolates you from your relationships and ability to make a living, people are perfectly free to just go and start up their own purges...

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

#149

Post by TeMPOraL »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #129
devwastaken wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

The architects of the really big atrocities, the holocausts, genocides and purges, argued them necessary for the greater good.

Private companies justify their abuse by playing the "greater good" line too. From "we're gonna change the world" slogan that was the in every 2010s startup's marketing copy, through spinning "disruption" as something good, all the way to the usual corporate talk about creating jobs and innovation.

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

#150

Post by TeMPOraL »

cblconfederate wrote: post #104
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

The packet switching network was designed to be decentralized. That's layers 2-4 of the ISO/OSI model. Layer 7, the application level, is and always was a force of centralization.
Post reply on HN