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

161–170 of 264 posts

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

#161

Post by varelse »

fighterpilot wrote: post #154
varelse wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

This is presumptive whataboutism with fairly incendiary language. You don't know my views on this question and have lumped me in with am amorphous blob you've labelled "conservative". You might be surprised to learn that I am not against social media censoring hate speech, for example. For the record, what Trump was doing was clearly authoritarian and had the intention of controlling moderation decisions on these pla…

They didn't censor it, for nothing really significant has come of it since other than he was exploiting existing law for his own personal gain. So they decided to mostly ignore Giuliani's fantastical tales of the stolen laptop. Seems like a good call to me. Imagine a congress willing to work together to change the laws to make what he did illegal in the future though. That's how things used to mostly work IMO.

We seem to be in a quarterly pandemic wave cycle right now and it's overwhelming our healthcare system and it's killing Americans and ultimately depressing the economy. Given all the changes and adaptations we made as a society post 9/11, attempting to control the flow of covid disinfo seems minimal to me. And it's easy to criticize our leaders. But just like a true first amendment zealot should build their own social media site centered around the first amendment to find out why that's impractical, try leading this country when it's on a course to be an indefinite pandemic purgatory.

But you raise a valid point. I'm very concerned with YouTube's slut shaming through demonetization of Naomi Wu's YouTube channel. It's not a good look for them but then very little is these days.

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

#162

Post by jerf »

shkkmo wrote: post #155
jerf wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 compellin…

> It does not exist. There is no such thing as "misinformation". I'm sorry, but this is complete BS. If someone makes statements that they know are false, then they are a liar and are spreading misinformation. If someone makes statements for which they have incontrovertible proof, this is absolutely not misinformation. Just because the gradients between those two are complex, doesn't mean that misinformation doesn't…

I was, perhaps, unclear. Of course objective falsehoods exist. However, it's a motte & bailey argument to talk about how objective falsehoods exist, but then as soon as we're talking about policy to pretend that we've got some kind of objective way of determining what they are.

My point is that "misinformation" should always come attached with an "according to X". Some Xs are more reliable than others.

However, as I said and will certainly stand by, "according to Google corporate policy" or "according to Facebook corporate policy" is not one of the more reliable of them. Google and Facebook corporate policy is not in a position to be making that determination, and whatever metrics they are using it is certainly not any definition of truth I recognize.

There's also going to be quite a lot of disagreement about which of those Xs are reliable and how much. This disagreement is not suddenly resolved by stripping away the provenance of statements and letting the word "misinformation" float free without worrying about provenance. It is absolutely valid to discuss how much to trust a given source, but the propaganda word "misinformation" is like the passive voice of propaganda... it isn't misinformation according to X or according to Y, it's just... "misinformation", floating free and objectively determinable. It's a pretty serious step back in philosophical sophistication.

I also think there's a lot of people accepting "misinformation according to our global elite" who, if they thought about it a bit more clearly, would wonder why they're accepting that definition so easily and thoroughly.

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

#163

Post by john_moscow »

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, I don't want to read any essay length pieces any more about the Gulag archipelago, Orwell or how his friend being cancelled by Mailchimp is like being stuck in Soviet Russia.

Because the government is supposed to enforce antitrust laws to make sure there is always a handful of private companies competing with each other, and taking different stances at various topics, so that the consumers could find the one that suits them.

Currently, if you want others online to hear your opinion, you need to rely on a very limited set of free-to-use services that have an increasing appetite in deciding what opinions should be heard. You cannot easily outcompete them, unless you can find billions of venture capital to subsidize your service until it grows large enough for the big advertisers (that are part of the same club) to consider it interesting.

I would say, if a private company doesn't directly charge its users for the services it renders, it should be treated as a government service.

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

#164

Post by [deleted] »

motohagiography wrote: post #148

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…

[deleted]

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

#165

Post by smileypete »

trompetenaccoun wrote: post #2

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.

I emailed dang and he kindly unflagged it on request, but it got flagged again soon after. Maybe he can permanently unflag it?

He also said:

'I've unkilled it so you can respond now. It's not really on topic for HN though. Too much of a provocative opinion piece and not enough significant new information (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...). That guarantees a flamewar, which we're trying to avoid on HN.'

I thought it was worth posting because it was written back in August 2020, so was quite prescient.

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

#166

Post by l33t2328 »

secondaryacct wrote: post #147
WalterBright wrote: post #90

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. > 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.

What a scary place to live.

I’d hate to live in a place where a joke can get you jailed.

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

#167

Post by bumby »

secondaryacct wrote: post #147
WalterBright wrote: post #90

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. > 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.

Some societies have limits on these votes as a means to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

In the U.S. the Bill of Rights outlines specific rights that cannot be infringed, including the freedom of speech. Now, this amendment could technically be repealed but that is a very high bar since it’s considered a fundamental right by which the others are derived.

Edit: downvotes are fine but at least add to the discussion. I would be interested in hearing what parts you think I’m not interpreting correctly

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

#168

Post by shkkmo »

jerf wrote: post #162
shkkmo wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It does not exist. There is no such thing as "misinformation". I'm sorry, but this is complete BS. If someone makes statements that they know are false, then they are a liar and are spreading misinformation. If someone makes statements for which they have incontrovertible proof, this is absolutely not misinformation. Just because the gradients between those two are complex, doesn't mean that misinformation doesn't…

I was, perhaps, unclear. Of course objective falsehoods exist. However, it's a motte & bailey argument to talk about how objective falsehoods exist, but then as soon as we're talking about policy to pretend that we've got some kind of objective way of determining what they are. My point is that "misinformation" should always come attached with an "according to X". Some Xs are more reliable than others. However, as I…

> My point is that "misinformation" should always come attached with an "according to X". Some Xs are more reliable than others.

The value of specifying epistemic sources is as important when putting forward information as it is when labeling misinformation. Yet most people are generally pretty lax at including and verifying epistemic justifications (especially for claims they are inclined to agree with.)

It is true that the act of labeling things as misinformation can itself be a form of misinformation.

The issue, as I see it, is that we have accepted the practice of deliberate misinformation as long as it is "for a good cause". We don't place as much value in people trying accurately convey information and nuance as we place on the function that information is serving.

I see this everywhere: in the statements about masks that were made early in the pandemic to make sure healthcare workers had supplies. You see this is narratives about the last election. You see this is in a lot of the reporting about Russiagate. There are little to no consequences or reprobation from people who agree with the end goals.

The incentives are all wrong and I don't know how they get fixed, but the problem is much bigger than just "Big Tech", "Social Media" or a bunch of stupid people on the otherside of the partisan divide.

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

#169

Post by kook_throwaway »

motohagiography wrote: post #148

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…

Thank you, this is one of the best posts I've read on here.

>on behalf of their main essential coalition members - the worst, wideley acknowledged, most objectively evil and mendacious organizations in the history of world.

Very few people seem willing say this out loud. These groups are not your friends, and are often the biggest offenders of many of the things they claim they are trying to prevent. 'the coalition' is social engineering on an industrial scale and it's disgusting regardless of the stated or unstated intentions.

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

#170

Post by myrryr »

john_moscow wrote: post #163
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, I don't want to read any essay length pieces any more about the Gulag archipelago, Orwell or how his friend being cancelled by Mailchimp is like being stuck in Soviet Russia. Because the government is supposed to enforce antitrust laws to make s…

Except that isn't true. You can fire up a BBS from your home machine. Anyone who wants to hear your opinion on things can read it. Freedom of speech is NOT the same as freedom to force people to listen to you.
Post reply on HN