Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nobel Peace laureates blast tech giants and warn against rising authoritarianism

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 233 posts

Re: Nobel Peace laureates blast tech giants and warn against rising authoritarianism

#211

Post by krapp »

7189126744 wrote: post #180
krapp wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Then you theory is exceptionally hard to disprove, as someone would have to come up with a huge number of individual examples to have "statistical significance". It isn't my theory. The right claims the entirety of social media has been engaged in an orchestrated conspiracy to purge non-leftist speech from their platforms in favor of pushing a radical socialist agenda for years, and that this is so widespread that i…

“I’d bet” not an argument if what youre saying were true, then uncensored forums would look like twitter. but obviously they look like the exact opposite. uncensored forums are full of right wing shit because it’s not allowed on twitter. obviously

If you're going to make a troll account and copypaste an argument into the same thread twice, at least try to make it a decent one.

Uncensored forums were full of right-wing shit long before Twitter was a gleam in Jack Dorsey's eye. The right-wing shit on Twitter comes from uncensored forums spilling their toxicity out into the rest of the internet, not the other way around. Uncensored forums will never look like Twitter regardless of how it or any other mainstream forum moderates, because the only people who are attracted to uncensored forums are rejects, edgelords and bigots.

Re: Nobel Peace laureates blast tech giants and warn against rising authoritarianism

#212

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #162
voz_ wrote: post #60

Nobel Peace prizes? The one that Obama got for drone striking Pakistani kids? Or the one that Arafat got for bombing Israeli kids? Oh no, wait, the one that Kissinger got for bombing Vietnamese kids, must be that one, right?

Maybe it was the one Aung San Suu Kyi got before all that unpleasantness with the Rohingya.

Abiy Ahmed? I can keep it up.

Re: Nobel Peace laureates blast tech giants and warn against rising authoritarianism

#213

Post by q1w2 »

smt88 wrote: post #14
whitepaint wrote: post #6

Aren't governments (especially Germany and Australia for what they are doing at the moment) way more scarier than big tech? I am not scared of Google or Facebook at all. I am, however, scared of governments. Especially seeing how the pandemic was handled and how little resistance the handling got from the citizens.

Those governments (and the ones in the US) are at least beholden to voters. Large companies have no accountability, and if they disrupt the democratic process, they have no consequences either. Mark Zuckerberg is the authoritarian ruler of an extremely powerful entity that, in some countries, is more powerful than any local government.

The real danger is when they act in unison. ...as we are seeing developing in China.

If anything we need to create moats between big tech and gov't. ...and one of those tactics is breaking up tech monopolies/oligopolies.

Re: Nobel Peace laureates blast tech giants and warn against rising authoritarianism

#214

Post by lostmsu »

krapp wrote: post #210
lostmsu wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And I'd bet dollars to donuts something other than mere political speech was involved in each case. I can think of reasons why Facebook wouldn't want links to pirated software on its platform other than political bias, for instance. You chose to ignore the part about thedonald.win, that basically disproves your point.

>You chose to ignore the part about thedonald.win, that basically disproves your point. thedonald.win was banned for supporting the violent overthrow of the government, and before, when it was t_d, for brigading, harassment and supporting political violence. If you want to read more about this community's well documented bad behavior, it's on wikipedia[0], or literally anywhere else on the internet. [0] https://en.wi…

The did not ban Facebook for supporting genocide in Myanmar, so clearly failure to moderate calls to violence is not the issue here.

Re: Nobel Peace laureates blast tech giants and warn against rising authoritarianism

#215

Post by nverno »

pvaldes wrote: post #208
nverno wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By this metric, everyone's personal opinions/worries/etc. are anti-democratic. The only pro-democratic material, with all the 'facts' and data, would be that put forth by the people with access to said information, which in this case is people working in the government.

I can think that somebody is a bad person, even suspect that is a criminal. This is a personal opinion. Not problem with it. But If I say in a public media that a known public figure is a criminal or eats children alive for dinner, and I repeat this for months with a clear purpose of obtaining a personal benefit for me. If I do this while refusing to show any real proof of it and, when cornered by the truth, I claim…

> If I do this while refusing to show any real proof of it and, when cornered by the truth, I claim that it was just my opinion and should be respected... well, this is a different issue.

If that 'public figure' is the government itself, or a member thereof, then making 'false' statements was, at one point, criminalized in the Sedition Act of 1798 [1]. This was extremely unpopular, and while never directly ruled upon in the Supreme Court, is roundly assumed to be unconstitutional [2].

Making up shit about the federal government is simply a protected right of free speech in the USA.

> > You would say other thing if it was somebody from "your party"

Not sure where this is coming from, but I think you are responding to someone else.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts#cite_n...

Re: Nobel Peace laureates blast tech giants and warn against rising authoritarianism

#216

Post by q1w2 »

1cvmask wrote: post #11
mc32 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be impossible. Can you imagine: United States imprisons Nobel prize laureate.

I can imagine them imprisoning Nobel Prize laureates as they have bombed Nobel Prize recipients as well. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/doctors-without-borders-bombi...

The Nobel Peace prize has become somewhat of a joke. It's been handed out by politics, with prizes handed to people who have ordered attacks on civilians time and time again.

Re: Nobel Peace laureates blast tech giants and warn against rising authoritarianism

#217

Post by q1w2 »

shkkmo wrote: post #195
F6F6FA wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you have integrity of the justice system if you don't have integrity of facts? What you call torture, is the isolation and lack-of-stimulus we put all prisoners through. This treatment is not specific to harass Assange, but Assange and his team wants special treatment specific to Assange. Assange is different in many ways. A journalist normally does not convince a suicidal army recruit in Iraq to search the l…

> What you call torture It has been called torture by a large number of people, including Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. You can dispute the definition, but it has a strong basis in international law. > A journalist normally does not convince a suicidal army recruit in Iraq to search the local network for more encrypted files he and his team can crack themselves. Journalists do a wide variety of t…

Encouraging military personnel to search for and exfiltrate data goes WAY beyond what a normal journalist does.

Regardless of whether you think it's unethical - it's illegal.

Re: Nobel Peace laureates blast tech giants and warn against rising authoritarianism

#218

Post by toss1 »

lostmsu wrote: post #196
toss1 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is an editorial decision. When a newspaper editor decides a story has insufficient credible sources, or lacks any of a variety of qualities that constitute good and responsible journalism, and so does not publish or broadcast it today, that is an editorial decision, it is not censorship. When an algorithm or human decides that a story has the same qualities, or that it has insufficient 'engagement metrics', an…

I guess you missed this debacle: > There are also a few websites, whose entire domain is banned in Facebook Messenger. It was discussed here previously. thedonald.win is a political example of such censorship. Besides, "no, IT is a X" is not a valid counterargument to "IT is a Y" unless "is a" is a relationship of IFF (which it is not in this case) or X and Y do not intersect (which they do).

>>I guess you missed this debacle ...entire domain is banned in Facebook Messenger... a political example of such censorship.

If you are an absolutist about free speech, you should be loudly cheering this decision. Facebook Messenger is a private company — they should be fully free to say or not say, broadcast or not broadcast, serve or not serve, anything/anyone they want. Did I miss some governmental agency ordering them to not broadcast that source or set of messages? Should HN be unable to ban bad actors?

>>Besides, "no, IT is a X" is not a valid counterargument to "IT is a Y" unless "is a" is a relationship of IFF (which it is not in this case) or X and Y do not intersect (which they do).

Not quite. It is true that an IFF relationship would establish it absolutely. If not, it's still in a fully arguable area, and my argument is not to have some govt censorship bureau, but a requirement for more responsibility, that the tech companies, who now make editorial decisions at a scale and scope that dwarfs any newspaper ever, are held as responsible for their content as any newspaper or broadcaster.

(And, if they want to go back to being a 100% straight carrier, with zero 'recommendation' engine, and preseinting only a chronological timeline of posts from your actual contacts, & similar restrictions, then they can go back to being carriers.)

Re: Nobel Peace laureates blast tech giants and warn against rising authoritarianism

#219

Post by lostmsu »

toss1 wrote: post #218
lostmsu wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you missed this debacle: > There are also a few websites, whose entire domain is banned in Facebook Messenger. It was discussed here previously. thedonald.win is a political example of such censorship. Besides, "no, IT is a X" is not a valid counterargument to "IT is a Y" unless "is a" is a relationship of IFF (which it is not in this case) or X and Y do not intersect (which they do).

>>I guess you missed this debacle ...entire domain is banned in Facebook Messenger... a political example of such censorship. If you are an absolutist about free speech, you should be loudly cheering this decision. Facebook Messenger is a private company — they should be fully free to say or not say, broadcast or not broadcast, serve or not serve, anything/anyone they want. Did I miss some governmental agency orderin…

> If you are an absolutist about free speech, you should be loudly cheering this decision. Facebook Messenger is a private company

What? The freedom you are talking about is the freedom of association, not the freedom of free speech.

> ...

Doesn't matter if you call this stuff "recommendation engine" or "editorial decisions", it is still censorship by definition. This is the newspeak George Carlin had a relatively known take on.

Stop calling the censorship "editorial decisions". We are not debating the "editorial decisions" part, we are debating the censorship part.

Re: Nobel Peace laureates blast tech giants and warn against rising authoritarianism

#220

Post by birksherty »

yesenadam wrote: post #148
whitepaint wrote: post #6

Aren't governments (especially Germany and Australia for what they are doing at the moment) way more scarier than big tech? I am not scared of Google or Facebook at all. I am, however, scared of governments. Especially seeing how the pandemic was handled and how little resistance the handling got from the citizens.

So uh, why do you put Australia in your two-especially-scary-governments-in-the-world list? That seems extremely odd to me. Sydney here. I've seen oblique mentions like this a couple of times on here recently and asked about it, as I've no idea what would inspire such a comment, but no-one answered until now. Well, for one thing, we don't have nuclear weapons pointed at anyone...

Maybe because of anti encryption laws and surveillance bill.
Post reply on HN