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

171–180 of 264 posts

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

#171

Post by fighterpilot »

varelse wrote: post #161
fighterpilot wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 see…

They did censor the original New York Post story. The media chose to ignore it, but the social media companies were censoring any links to the story, actively encouraged by Democratic Party operatives such as Schiff who were falsely labelling it as Russian disinformation and encouraging a blackout. This has potentially election moving consequences, so coercive Democratic influence over social media is absolutely a real threat to democracy.

Regarding your comment about a 1A-friendly platform, I don't advocate for a censorship-less social media platform. It's stupid on its face. But moderation should either be voluntary with no coercive influence of government (whether that influence is achieved by carrot or stick), or it should be defined by the legislative body (hate speech laws) instead of implied threat of regulation or via the executive branch.

Regarding the flagging of COVID misinformation, that's fairly lower on my list of worries, and it's not that I don't favor removing that toxic information, it's that the executive branch is the one coordinating it. The encouragement of political censorship (the Hunter Biden case above) is much higher on my list of concerns and much more directly anti-democratic.

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

#172

Post by myrryr »

tstrimple wrote: post #106
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.

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

Yeah, there is no limit to new social sites, there is a limit to ones which work.

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

#174

Post by myrryr »

dane-pgp wrote: post #46
jasonjayr wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You could do that, but the end results will be the same as the social media sites which don't do moderation. They turn to shit, extremely fast.

It isn't there wasn't a lack of social platforms which didn't try to remove moderation "because of free speech" but they don't last long before they collapse under their own crazyness, and the crazyness of their users.

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

#175

Post by bena »

refenestrator wrote: post #158
irrational wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is objective truth. Trump did not win the last election if you look at it in the right light. The absolute truth is, he lost. That isn’t misinformation. That can be applied to a myriad of other things. The earth is not flat. The vaccine does not contain microchips. Masks do prevent the spread of airborne disease. Jan 6th was an insurrection by the Republicans and not a tourist trip.

That last one is a choice of descriptive words, not an objective truth. Personally, my bar for 'insurrection' involves at least one gunshot. You can differ! But it's not objective.

So insurrections were only possible after the invention of firearms? That's weird.

And I'm assuming you mean one gunshot "from the aggressors" as one of the Capitol Police officers did fire their weapon in defense of the Capitol.

What would you call a group of armed people who forcibly enter a building in order to disrupt the work of a government and install an unelected leader to a position of power?

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

#176

Post by hattmall »

l33t2328 wrote: post #166
secondaryacct wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah it sounds like something the Nazis would do...

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

#177

Post by shkkmo »

l33t2328 wrote: post #166
secondaryacct wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That includes most of the world

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

#178

Post by WalterBright »

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.

> we live in societies and can vote

A vote is simply not the same thing as a choice.

How would you feel if 51% of the people voted to force you to become a Druid?

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

#179

Post by hattmall »

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.

All evidence shows it to be the other way around, the vaccinated are far more dangerous to the unvaccinated than vice versa, it isn't even close. Leaky vaccines create more virulent and deadlier viruses in the unvaccinated.

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

#180

Post by WalterBright »

bumby wrote: post #167
secondaryacct wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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've come to conclude that the right to free speech is the most important right in the Constitution.

The reason is straightforward - without free speech, nobody would know if/when the government is abusing any of your other rights.

Post reply on HN