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

Corporate Unpersoning

unz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 49 posts

Re: Corporate Unpersoning

#11

Post by Digory »

humanrebar wrote: post #2

I'm starting to wonder if America needs to add basic but explicit free speech protections in a private context the way that it has anti-discrimination ones. In the digital age, "in public" is often part of a digital forum run by a private entity (twitter, facebook, HN, fark, etc.).

I can see core search becoming regulated like a public utility. You could have other search providers (RedSearch/BlueSearch) that low-rank based on viewpoint, but there needs to be some option to get info without viewpoint weighting -- and offering actual due process to challenge 'disappearing' like this.

Re: Corporate Unpersoning

#12

Post by jasode »

humanrebar wrote: post #2

I'm starting to wonder if America needs to add basic but explicit free speech protections in a private context the way that it has anti-discrimination ones. In the digital age, "in public" is often part of a digital forum run by a private entity (twitter, facebook, HN, fark, etc.).

>wonder if America needs to add basic but explicit free speech protections [...] run by a private entity (twitter, facebook, HN,

This really isn't possible to implement in any practical or consistent way without contradictions in usability. If you made such a law, trolls such as Nazi-proponents would use it as a weapon to infect sites such as HackerNews with their walls of hate speech.

Moderators couldn't flag nor delete the hate speech as "off topic" because the Nazi group would complain of "censorship". Imagine that scenario: it would be against the law to delete hate speech here even though most us on HN would rather talk about programming languages or tech startups.

The way marginal groups have free speech now is at the level of DNS servers by buying a domain name. Instead of trying to get Facebook and HackerNews to host your hate speech by expanding "free speech to private entities", you create a Nazi domain (e.g NaziPartyUSA.com) and put your hate speech at that URL. Same for any ISIS group that wants to infect commercial websites like Facebook/HN with recruitment propoganda to attract followers who are willing to behead infidels.

The reason free speech advocates don't like that option is that they don't get an audience -- such as the millions of eyeballs at Facebook. Well, free speech doesn't guarantee an audience. The quantity of the audience is orthogonal to the free speech and the corporate censorship.

Re: Corporate Unpersoning

#13

Post by smackay »

jasode wrote: post #12
humanrebar wrote: post #2

I'm starting to wonder if America needs to add basic but explicit free speech protections in a private context the way that it has anti-discrimination ones. In the digital age, "in public" is often part of a digital forum run by a private entity (twitter, facebook, HN, fark, etc.).

>wonder if America needs to add basic but explicit free speech protections [...] run by a private entity (twitter, facebook, HN, This really isn't possible to implement in any practical or consistent way without contradictions in usability. If you made such a law, trolls such as Nazi-proponents would use it as a weapon to infect sites such as HackerNews with their walls of hate speech. Moderators couldn't flag nor de…

I agree and as far as I can squint there is no real solution to this. Commercial platforms put their commercial needs ahead of anything and everything else. For that to work effectively they need mainstream content that the majority will be interested in and, if possible, applying guidance to make sure the value from all that mainstream content and mainstream eyeballs is maximised. Interesting and contrarian viewpoints, which might broaden people's opinions, simply need not apply or if they then they will be accorded the marginal position they deserve.

This is a pity. This piece was entertaining and informative as it points to the subtlety of these effects. Nobody necessarily needs to do anything - any algorithm or process that can optimise for any metric and produce this result - humans need not be involved in any way. This problem can only get worse as more automation, i.e. machine learning is applied and where the humans involved in the day to day running of the systems do not have the faintest clue how it works.

Re: Corporate Unpersoning

#14

Post by smackay »

Digory wrote: post #11
humanrebar wrote: post #2

I'm starting to wonder if America needs to add basic but explicit free speech protections in a private context the way that it has anti-discrimination ones. In the digital age, "in public" is often part of a digital forum run by a private entity (twitter, facebook, HN, fark, etc.).

I can see core search becoming regulated like a public utility. You could have other search providers (RedSearch/BlueSearch) that low-rank based on viewpoint, but there needs to be some option to get info without viewpoint weighting -- and offering actual due process to challenge 'disappearing' like this.

Municipal broadband is probably a useful example here. The technology is sufficiently well developed and there are enough technical skills available that communities with the resources can make this happen - assuming the usual political hurdles can be overcome or worked around.

Perhaps there is a solution with large, well-funded libraries or universities where there is a clear mandate for creating an environment that stimulates people's minds. here the value of their brand would be the main attraction. People who we content with mainstream media could still read their personalised content on Google, Facebook, etc. However I think it will be some time before the technology is sufficiently well developed and cheap enough to make this a reality - assuming the usual political hurdles can be overcome or worked around.

Re: Corporate Unpersoning

#15

Post by 1_2__4 »

This website is garbage. Look at their other articles. They’re not supporting free speech, they’re pissed they and their ilk can’t peddle lies as easily anymore.

Re: Corporate Unpersoning

#16

Post by krakensden »

jasode wrote: post #12
humanrebar wrote: post #2

I'm starting to wonder if America needs to add basic but explicit free speech protections in a private context the way that it has anti-discrimination ones. In the digital age, "in public" is often part of a digital forum run by a private entity (twitter, facebook, HN, fark, etc.).

>wonder if America needs to add basic but explicit free speech protections [...] run by a private entity (twitter, facebook, HN, This really isn't possible to implement in any practical or consistent way without contradictions in usability. If you made such a law, trolls such as Nazi-proponents would use it as a weapon to infect sites such as HackerNews with their walls of hate speech. Moderators couldn't flag nor de…

Is it really true that there is no censorship at the dns level? The creeps at the daily stormer seem to have been run off the internet, it seems sort of like the reason dns has been 'safe' in the past is that people didn't lobby the dns providers.

Re: Corporate Unpersoning

#17

Post by jasode »

krakensden wrote: post #16
jasode wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>wonder if America needs to add basic but explicit free speech protections [...] run by a private entity (twitter, facebook, HN, This really isn't possible to implement in any practical or consistent way without contradictions in usability. If you made such a law, trolls such as Nazi-proponents would use it as a weapon to infect sites such as HackerNews with their walls of hate speech. Moderators couldn't flag nor de…

Is it really true that there is no censorship at the dns level? The creeps at the daily stormer seem to have been run off the internet, it seems sort of like the reason dns has been 'safe' in the past is that people didn't lobby the dns providers.

>no censorship at the dns level?

I'm not claiming there is zero censorship at the DNS level. I'm saying a marginal group (whether ISIS or Piratebay or Wikileaks) needs to find a TLD (top level domain) willing to hold them. (That's what The Daily Stormer did -- they tried Albania tld ".al", then Russia ".ru", and now it looks like they're at tld ".ws" (Samoa))

Creating a new domain at a tld is much more realistic to implement than passing a new law requiring Facebook/HN to pay for and host your objectionable content. For marginal groups, that DNS-level option to spread your ideas exists today without any new laws.

Re: Corporate Unpersoning

#19

Post by macdust »

1_2__4 wrote: post #15

This website is garbage. Look at their other articles. They’re not supporting free speech, they’re pissed they and their ilk can’t peddle lies as easily anymore.

Agreed. Read UNZ.com to catch up on the latest thought in antisemitic, eugenicist, racist, and elitist circles. Otherwise, don't get upset when dehumanizers get unpersoned.

Re: Corporate Unpersoning

#20

Post by santoshalper »

humanrebar wrote: post #2

I'm starting to wonder if America needs to add basic but explicit free speech protections in a private context the way that it has anti-discrimination ones. In the digital age, "in public" is often part of a digital forum run by a private entity (twitter, facebook, HN, fark, etc.).

Not without a gross violation of our right to freely associate.
Post reply on HN