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

201–210 of 264 posts

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

#201

Post by irtigor »

tayo42 wrote: post #186
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…

You're getting mixed up. Good and bad isn't the same as misinformation. The intent is important. Bad faith arguments and presenting misleading conclusions to further an agenda is misinformation.

Yes, sometimes it is hard to distinguish between extremely dumb and dishonest behavior. Like, a few years ago in my native language someone made a news piece about some women that were working for Google suing the company for unfair wages (according to them, they were making less for the same work) and whoever edited the piece decided to include that according to glossdoor women in tech make less than men, but completely forgot that the same glossdoor said that google was a exemption (based on the information they got).

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

#202

Post by zeteo »

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…

Some of the smartest people I know went to work for Facebook or Google. Heck, most people on this site probably would too if offered the chance. Suggesting that thousands of highly skilled, well paid employees who could have their choice of a job anywhere are just "paid to believe in it" is frankly insulting to a lot of people.

The fact is we are in the middle of a pandemic and spreading some types of misinformation is directly akin to facilitating the spread of the virus. If you were in a situation where your basic choices were a) use whatever means you have to limit the spread of harmful misinformation or b) do nothing and watch as the thousands of extra dead and suffering pile up, I hope you would have the same basic human decency as these "true believers who abuse technical power" and choose the former.

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

#203

Post by borland »

A horrible person got deplatformed and they're all angry with the world. Companies get to decide how to run their platforms; if you don't like it, send your money to other horrible companies, or try and convince lawmakers that your horrible case should be protected. Ultimately though, stopping being horrible is probably the easiest option but these people never seem to want to take it?

HN doesn't allow downvotes so I upvoted literally everything else on the front page to compensate. Thx

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

#204

Post by zippergz »

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.

Each individual deciding for themselves causes the tragedy of the commons.

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

#205

Post by irtigor »

temporalparts wrote: post #200
tayo42 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're getting mixed up. Good and bad isn't the same as misinformation. The intent is important. Bad faith arguments and presenting misleading conclusions to further an agenda is misinformation.

I think it's a good point, but... what information do we use to determine intent? And aren't they subject to the errors of normal information in addition to possible ill-intended misinformation?

If you are judging a single action from someone it is impossible to distinguish between "dishonest behavior" and "stupid behavior" (that's assuming you disagree with what they did), so more offen than not you need to dig deeper and compare what they said prior to the incident and what they have to gain with a change. But to make it clear: it doesn't mean that you are wrong (if what they said align with what you believe, it just means that some people are trying to get the same thing you want for other reasons).

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

#206

Post by tayo42 »

temporalparts wrote: post #200
tayo42 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're getting mixed up. Good and bad isn't the same as misinformation. The intent is important. Bad faith arguments and presenting misleading conclusions to further an agenda is misinformation.

I think it's a good point, but... what information do we use to determine intent? And aren't they subject to the errors of normal information in addition to possible ill-intended misinformation?

Tactics used is a place to start. Leading questions, things like "you can draw your own conclusions", blatantly uncredible sources. Taking quotes out of context. A history of being caught being misleading. There's patterns used in frequent misinformation spreaders i think.

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

#207

Post by _carbyau_ »

gavinhoward wrote: post #122
taurath wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CDC study gives some credence to your theory but your conclusion is by all evidence wrong. It shows nothing about the transmissibility of vaccinated people who test positive. It also disregards previous evidence before the delta variant that vaccinations widely prevented positive tests. So there is SOME effect there. Taking a study that says “there’s definitely some chance of transmission” and making the conclusi…

Most of what you say is correct, but saying absolutely that unvaccinated people are endangering other people and vaccinated people are not is also false.

Making an irrelevant but true statement about vaccinated people doesn't make the antivaxx stance correct.

Similar manner to drink driving, sober people can also hurt others when driving.

This is about where we draw the line. When it comes to drink driving and antivaxxers they both endanger others to an unacceptably high level.

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

#208

Post by emodendroket »

Says who? We're seeing some negative side effects to certain kinds of content flowing through social networks, and perhaps more importantly, from the tech company's perspective, politicians do not actually want them to sit back and not touch this content. If they did that, they'd likely end up getting regulated.

Also, a truly unmoderated social network would quickly become a clearing house for garbage content nobody wants to look at.

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

#209

Post by kfprt »

WalterBright wrote: post #180
bumby wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Freedom of speech is a natural right that just so happens to be enshrined in the constitution. It's very disturbing to see how modern discourse ignores the existence of natural rights. I don't see how the 1st amendment is a tenable position anymore when the government is now actively censoring by proxy. https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/563547-hypocritical-...
Post reply on HN