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

The Silicon Oligarchy

themargins.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 96 posts

Re: The Silicon Oligarchy

#21

Post by leereeves »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #13
leereeves wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In much the same way that even laws do not apply to anything said in Congress, because the power to control political debate is the power to control government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause

Except wasn't that clause to stop the Executive Branch (and anyone else) from using the machinery of the state to interfere with Congress? Not really about freedom of speech, rather keeping Congress independent from outside control. A lot of former British colonies have the same principle, dating from 1688/1689: https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-...

> keeping Congress independent from outside control.

Exactly what's at stake here. Keeping the government independent from outside control by those who happen to control the means of communication.

Re: The Silicon Oligarchy

#22

Post by leereeves »

aspenmayer wrote: post #20
leereeves wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A private company isn’t obligated to transmit anyone’s speech. The phone company was.[1] TV networks were.[2] And while there is still some debate about this, net neutrality would apply that obligation to ISPs. Why not Facebook and Twitter? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

That’s for common carriers. Twitter isn’t a common carrier.

All Twitter does is transmit messages between people. Why do you consider them different from other services that do so?

Re: The Silicon Oligarchy

#25

Post by foobar_ »

Bully's once they grow up have to adopt a veneer facade of goodness to hide that plain fact that they are still the same. In such cases it's usually the actions that speak the truth because the words are always meant to hide greed and sadism.

Re: The Silicon Oligarchy

#26

Post by eeZah7Ux »

js8 wrote: post #8
zpeti wrote: post #4

I love this new narrative that allowing the president of the USA to communicate on the largest platform in the world is siding with him or being in alliance with him. At least be honest and say that you want Zuckerberg to censor and police trump. That’s the truth. But don’t pretend that somehow it’s immoral to allow the US President to post on your platform. He’s the president, whether you like it or not.

I think it depends how you understand the president. One view is authoritarian, a person with lots of power who can do whatever he wants. The other view is democratic, a person employed by citizens to be a representative and have some managerial role. In the second view, he should have (unless it's required by his job) exactly the same permissions as any other citizen.

If anything, public figures should have LESS permissions than other citizens.

The main different between acting as a public figure VS a private citizen is that you represent (and influence) other people.

Re: The Silicon Oligarchy

#27

Post by aspenmayer »

leereeves wrote: post #22
aspenmayer wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s for common carriers. Twitter isn’t a common carrier.

All Twitter does is transmit messages between people. Why do you consider them different from other services that do so?

My opinion isn’t binding and I haven’t developed a position; more to the point, if they were a common carrier, I don’t see how their terms of service and code of conduct would not be applicable all the same. Common carriers can still refuse service to specific offending individuals if not the government as collective entity, for no reason, or for cause, such as violations of company policy or terms of service.

Re: The Silicon Oligarchy

#28

Post by bsanr2 »

>One of my new grand theories is that America lags 5-7 years behind emerging markets when it comes to the impact of American companies on society. And now, whatever heaven and hell tech companies have wrought upon the emerging markets is now on our doorstep.

This dovetails quite nicely with my conviction that whatever fortune or misfortune that's allowed to visit American blacks will eventually hit the rest of the country. Widespread housing insecurity? Check. Drug epidemic? Check. Voting rights crisis? See you in November.

Re: The Silicon Oligarchy

#29

Post by 082349872349872 »

abellerose wrote: post #15

I assume the US has always been an oligarchy and never truly a democracy at the federal level. The American people just get to vote from either the two parties that desire whoever to be elected and where hundreds of millions are spent with a lot of nonsense that's off-topic. Understandably tech is arguably in infancy but nothing like the decades before today. So the tech monopolies of today weren't a thing before but…

The pre-internet saying was "freedom of the press is for those who own one." (journalists like to think of themselves as professionals, but publishers are not journalists. These days I guess we have to mention that random people with a truck and vlog are "journalists" in the same sense that random people with headphones and an open incognito tab are "scientists")

For your amusement, WASP self-parody: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTU2He2BIc0 "haters like to ???? ?? our ivy league education / but they're just jealous 'cause our families run the nation"

(as far as I can tell, this commerical was only aired in New England. That's OK, the P-word is their word, they can use it. "Sloane Ranger" for our brit friends, I suppose. It's "Goldküstenmilieu" here. What is the term in your countries?)

Re: The Silicon Oligarchy

#30

Post by torgian »

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #26
js8 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it depends how you understand the president. One view is authoritarian, a person with lots of power who can do whatever he wants. The other view is democratic, a person employed by citizens to be a representative and have some managerial role. In the second view, he should have (unless it's required by his job) exactly the same permissions as any other citizen.

If anything, public figures should have LESS permissions than other citizens. The main different between acting as a public figure VS a private citizen is that you represent (and influence) other people.

It boggles my mind that as a member of the military , I was more restricted in what I could do and say than our public figures are.... at least it seemed like that.
Post reply on HN