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

The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 126 posts

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#111

Post by amanaplanacanal »

baumy wrote: post #77
kweinber wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is anyone seriously more worried about the independent players of big tech than an oligarch who has roused the firepower and hatred of domestic terrorists across the country? The rhetoric is really overblown.... these companies waited years and until the heads of state were fully under attack before they did much of anything. This isn’t even about free speech. People can still say what they want.... they just don’t h…

It is perfectly possible to be worried about both, which is where I'm currently at. The amount of influence a handful of individual companies (run by unaccountable BDFLs) have over our entire social discourse should make everyone uneasy. If I had to pick though, yes I would say I'm more worried about people who think the state of affairs this article is discussing is completely fine, as opposed to idiots acting out a…

Why are you more worried about the influence of Twitter or Facebook than you are of Disney or Fox News? Or any of the other big media corporations?

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#112

Post by Dracophoenix »

throwawayboise wrote: post #58
Grustaf wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, people didn’t use to have a lot of things, it’s still a big problem if you ban certain people from a platform but not others. Those that are allowed gain a huge advantage. It’s especially problematic if these de facto monopolies take sides in elections.

There's a name for a economic structure where corporations are privately owned, but operate in alignment with the governments political agenda and goals. Perhaps out of coercion, or perhaps just trying to avoid scrutiny.

Corporatism?

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#113

Post by Grustaf »

bobmaxup wrote: post #36
Grustaf wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, people didn’t use to have a lot of things, it’s still a big problem if you ban certain people from a platform but not others. Those that are allowed gain a huge advantage. It’s especially problematic if these de facto monopolies take sides in elections.

How is it any different than if I was banned from HN or an IRC channel? These "platforms" are just large message boards.

Few people on HN have 89 million followers.

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#114

Post by mullingitover »

d0100 wrote: post #106
mullingitover wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in such a way that frees platforms from pressures from the government (Section 230) Section 230 does free platforms from pressure from the government. A service provider that is responsible for the content posted by users would have much greater exposure and would be far more likely to censor. People don't understand that 230 is mostly enabling free speech, not stifling it. The anti-230 crowd is like a dog chasing…

The anti-230 sentiment is just a knee-jerk reaction from people that see an unfair situation and just want to punish the perpetrators. It's a guttural response to unfair treatment. I think that what should be sought is another "Section 231" that makes banning users from platforms must go through the justice system, just like if you wanted to ban someone from the town square. This gives platforms a scapegoat, "the gov…

> I think that what should be sought is another "Section 231" that makes banning users from platforms must go through the justice system, just like if you wanted to ban someone from the town square.

These platforms aren't remotely the town square. The comparison has been made to them being the shopping mall, and I think it's apt.

> Unilateral and permanent banning just creates more problems

Creating government red tape when swift action is needed to remove users who violate the rights of others or harm others is not the answer. The latitude service providers are given to remove objectionable content enables the internet to work quite well. From what I've seen, the biggest complaints of censorship are defending the indefensible, and for support of that claim I direct your attention to the evidence Amazon gathered in response to Parler's lawsuit.

> This gives platforms a scapegoat, "the government won't let me", but still allows the platform to do things like not list "bad" people in the "discover" feed and make better mute/ignore features

If a shop that you're forced to allow in your shopping mall is doing money laundering and arms trafficking, I don't think the answer is 'just remove them from your mall's map while you file a lawsuit against them'.

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#115

Post by loceng »

cousin_it wrote: post #75
loceng wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That want to allow inciting of violence on platforms? Serious question. Edit to add: anyone going to answer or just downvote and ignore the question?

I think people who want to talk to each other should be able to do it without my listening or interfering, even if they're planning violence against me. Don't get me wrong, I do want to be defended from violence! But not at all costs. I don't want people to be tortured in the name of defending me, and I don't want every conversation on the internet to be monitored and censored in the name of defending me. That's too…

They could still do that - just not on platforms who don't want to support people rallying violence against others; it's not smart to build a palace on potential "enemy" territory - or on land of those that may not agree with you - although understandable if they do out of ease, when there's technological convenience to do so.

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#116

Post by diggernet »

kiwidrew wrote: post #34
xpe wrote: post #6

In my view, understanding all sides of the following question is central for anyone who wants to understand the implications of modern social technology. > To cut a politician and affiliated organizations off from payment processors, Web-hosting services, and e-mail providers is to halt them at the level of infrastructure. It is a different game than the moderation of user-generated content, and raises different ques…

Yeah, to me this is the key point in the whole debate: to what extent are the private internet "giants" providing infrastructure and/or operating as a public utility? I was concerned when Twitter and Facebook and other social media platforms started the mass deactivation of accounts they no longer wanted to host, but in the end I don't think these actions are wholly unjustified: nobody should be entitled to a megapho…

Undesirable or troublesome to whom?

If you say something on the Internet that angers a mob, you are no more directly harming your ISP than you are directly harming your electric company. Why should one of them be able to cut you off on a whim, and the other cannot? If it is because one of them is more indirectly harmed, such as by the mob attacking them, then why do tolerate such attacks on one but not the other?

Fundamentally, I think that a service provider, of any service, should be expected to provide their service to anyone willing to pay for it, as long as that customer does not actively and directly harm the service provider. Mob actions against the provider are a separate matter, and should be opposed, whether they are calling for all ISPs to disconnect the offender or for all grocers to stop selling them food.

Further, I think that even at the platform level, permabans should not be allowed (unless perhaps with a court judgement after multiple offenses). Temporary suspension for TOS violations? Sure! But there should always be a clear and accessible process for appeal, and for the offender to redeem themselves. Considering what a large and important part of society communication platforms have become, a lifetime ban without trial or recourse is unacceptable and unconscionable.

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#117

Post by masonic »

alasdair_ wrote: post #76
cm2187 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Trump has become radioactive, even within the republican party. They may not want to impeach (and I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office) but I doubt a come back is on anyone’s mind at this stage. But Trump’s electorate will remain however.

>I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office Doing so bans the person from holding federal office forever. In other words he couldn't run again in 2024.

Alcee Hastings was impeached, convicted, and yet became a Congressman quickly after.

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#118

Post by dragonwriter »

alasdair_ wrote: post #76
cm2187 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Trump has become radioactive, even within the republican party. They may not want to impeach (and I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office) but I doubt a come back is on anyone’s mind at this stage. But Trump’s electorate will remain however.

>I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office Doing so bans the person from holding federal office forever. In other words he couldn't run again in 2024.

> Doing so bans the person from holding federal office forever.

Not inherently, but presumably (as it is the only remedy left, and apparently requires only a majority vote after conviction) the Senate would adopt the forward ban allowed by the Constitution if it convicted.

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#119

Post by loceng »

loceng wrote: post #115
cousin_it wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people who want to talk to each other should be able to do it without my listening or interfering, even if they're planning violence against me. Don't get me wrong, I do want to be defended from violence! But not at all costs. I don't want people to be tortured in the name of defending me, and I don't want every conversation on the internet to be monitored and censored in the name of defending me. That's too…

They could still do that - just not on platforms who don't want to support people rallying violence against others; it's not smart to build a palace on potential "enemy" territory - or on land of those that may not agree with you - although understandable if they do out of ease, when there's technological convenience to do so.

To highlight the difference: there is a difference between forcing, compelling people to allow incitement of violence on all platforms vs. the government allowing free speech on private platforms that want to allow it; if I don't want you being racist in my house, you're going to find yourself outside of my house; this is akin to private platforms online - you wouldn't want to be forced to have a racist in your home whenever they want to be there, would you?

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#120

Post by Viliam1234 »

darepublic wrote: post #49
koolk3ychain wrote: post #2

Someone really needs to give the New Yorker some serious credit for publishing what can genuinely be described as a thoughtful, well written, and objective article on social media and big tech. Bravo. I'm honestly convinced that at some point this kind of big tech social media witch burning will eventually lead to private lawsuits aimed at non-combatants like Signal and Wickr. Please leave a comment if you disagree -…

Eventually the browser itself might be held accountable. How dare chrome display child's pornography or allowing users to send http requests filled with hate. Chrome should be able to filter that stuff out

When that day comes, Google will fix this problem in Chrome with artificial intelligence, and logging everything on their servers.

But the free browsers will be gone.

Post reply on HN