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

181–190 of 264 posts

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

#181

Post by nradov »

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.

Do you feel the same animosity towards the bats and/or pangolins which originally produced SARS-CoV-2? Because they're still out there and still incubating new variants as well. Eventually some of those will inevitably jump to humans.

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

#182

Post by varelse »

fighterpilot wrote: post #171
varelse wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

And then they reversed their censorship. It's hard to make perfect decisions in real time. The information got out there, it was bogus, and they faced criticism for doing it in the first place.

So they chose to eliminate its effect on the election based (I would assume) on the bogus stuff about Hillary's email server four years earlier. And if this is the end of October surprises I can only say good riddance, but it probably won't be.

Try walking a mile in their shoes before holding them accountable to infallible behavior is my only suggestion here.

We're going to have to disagree about a first amendment friendly platform. I'm a huge fan of letting the marketplace of ideas work these things out lawsuits and all. I 100% expect a dumpster fire every single time, but then most tech companies end up dumpster fires anyway so why not? There's probably some epsilon incremental revenue pulling this off and capturing the single digit percentage audience that demands these things, no?

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

#183

Post by tstrimple »

theodorejb wrote: post #134
tstrimple wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you saying the vaccine only becomes effective if everyone has it? What good is it then, since we will never reach 100% vaccination? The claim that unvaccinated people are a breeding ground for more effective versions of the virus sounds like a Big Pharma talking point, rather than something with solid science behind it. My understanding is that environmental pressure results in mutated variants becoming widesprea…

Vaccines are most effective when they enable you to reach herd immunity which extends protection to those who cannot be vaccinated because they are immunocompromised to one degree or another. We don’t need 100%. We need something like 85% for Covid. You’re right that it will never happen because conservatives have weaponized stupidity and selfishness.

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

#184

Post by [deleted] »

geofft wrote: post #91
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…

OK, but, we already have social/legal/cultural norms for deciding what thoughts are bad and what thoughts are good. Here are some things I can't do via Mailchimp for either legal or cultural reasons (see also https://mailchimp.com/legal/acceptable_use/ ): - Advertise pornography - Plan attacks against the United States government - Advertise medical cures that the government doesn't approve of - Sell counterfeit prod…

[deleted]

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

#185

Post by Arainach »

hattmall wrote: post #179
tstrimple wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is incorrect. A vaccine is not an antibiotic; the presence of one does not cause virulent strains. Vaccinations trigger the body's immune response to the virus; nothing else. They provide for a more effective response faster, but do not otherwise provide any forcing function.

Mutations and variants occur all the time as the virus reproduces. Variants are not a response to any vaccine; they have appeared primarily (entirely? I haven't been following all of them) in regions where the vaccine is not yet widely available because that is where the virus is able to multiply (and thus mutate) the fastest.

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

#186

Post by tayo42 »

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.

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

#187

Post by geofft »

kmonsen wrote: post #124
geofft wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, but, we already have social/legal/cultural norms for deciding what thoughts are bad and what thoughts are good. Here are some things I can't do via Mailchimp for either legal or cultural reasons (see also https://mailchimp.com/legal/acceptable_use/ ): - Advertise pornography - Plan attacks against the United States government - Advertise medical cures that the government doesn't approve of - Sell counterfeit prod…

They are not thoughts as sibling mentioned. If you think any of these things in your own mind but don't take any action on it that is perfectly ok and carries no legal risk.

But this article isn't complaining about Mailchimp shutting people down for thinking things in their own mind, it's complaining about Mailchimp shutting people down for publishing and advocating those thoughts.

What is the argument that saying "Ivermectin is being suppressed by Big Pharma, anyone who takes it will get cured of covid" is simply a thought whose publication is worthy of both social and legal protection, but saying "Contoso has a groundbreaking product they're going to reveal next week, anyone who buys the stock now is sure to make a profit" is illegal securities fraud? How do you distinguish those cases?

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

#188

Post by mixologic »

hattmall wrote: post #179
tstrimple wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is a leaky vaccine?

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

#189

Post by geofft »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #125
geofft wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, but, we already have social/legal/cultural norms for deciding what thoughts are bad and what thoughts are good. Here are some things I can't do via Mailchimp for either legal or cultural reasons (see also https://mailchimp.com/legal/acceptable_use/ ): - Advertise pornography - Plan attacks against the United States government - Advertise medical cures that the government doesn't approve of - Sell counterfeit prod…

Other than advertising (legal) pornography, all of those are actual violations of the law , at least in the United States. Clearly MailChimp (or any other service) can't knowingly allow their platform to be used to violate the law, or they would be held accountable.

The comment I'm replying to is asking where, if at all, society should be structured to prevent people from spreading bad thoughts, and it's clearly leaning towards the angle that nothing should prevent people from spreading bad thoughts, and listeners should be free to make up their own minds.

If certain types of bad thoughts are illegal to spread, the argument, I would think, is they should stop being illegal.

(On a more practical note, Mailchimp's legal department is not a court of law. If freedom of speech / of thought-spreading is important enough to your society that you want to place legal obligations on private companies' platforms not to interfere with it, as TFA advocates, I think a natural consequence is that private companies should not decide what crosses the line and what doesn't, and probably that private companies should not be liable for what's said on their platform. In fact, that's more or less what Section 230 gives us! In a world with strong free-speech protections, it seems to me that Mailchimp should say that you can send whatever you want through their service, and should be encouraged by the government to take that approach, and that if you send something illegal, that liability is on you alone, after due process of law.)

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

#190

Post by bena »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #151
bena wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the guy you responded to is not the author of that piece, he's connected to the site in some way. I do not believe his question is in good faith, but is an attempt to deflect any criticism by instead forcing his critic to defend and explain in detail any such criticism before he even attempts to defend his half-baked ideas.

Yeah, there's definitely someone mass-downvoting anyone who criticizes the piece in any way. Dunno if it's that guy or not. But it doesn't hurt to have clear, concise answers to deflecting questions in the comments for skim-readers to see.

Eh. Maybe not. As of late, in the past year or so, I forget the actual timeline, I've noticed a certain direction the overall tone of the comments and voting have taken.

It's been a little frustrating (I guess that's the word closest to what I'm feeling) as I've typically viewed HN as a place that went more for technology and science rather than... other things.

Post reply on HN