Live data from Hacker News

Former officials say big tech monopoly power is vital to national security

greenwald.substack.com

21–30 of 235 posts

Re: Former officials say big tech monopoly power is vital to national security

#21

It's such a financially convenient line of thinking. It's absolute nonsense. Both at face value and once you dig into it. Mainstream media is feeding us constant lies which work against our interests, destroy our ability to trust institutions and the government. Big Tech is clearly the biggest threat to our democracy. Before Big Tech, we did not have such problems. This new narrative is pure self-serving propaganda,…

What interest have they lied about and how has that impacted you?

I'm not trying to be snarky, I have a genuine interest in your perspective.

Re: Former officials say big tech monopoly power is vital to national security

#23

What is this talk about “the algorithm,” as in Musk saying “they should open source the algorithm.” Is this the traffic boosting and suppression mechanism?

>What is this talk about “the algorithm,” as in Musk saying “they should open source the algorithm.” Is this the traffic boosting and suppression mechanism? If for example you make a post that says "Vaccines cause autism". They dont have enough humans to moderate this. They write an algorithm that generally sees that and you get shadowbanned or equivalent. What are all the subjects in which you may not talk about on…

It's not biased to moderate something like "vaccines cause autism".

It's been legally and scientifically established as outright misinformation. The genesis of that theory was a disgraced researcher who pushed fraudulent claims with misrepresented data. The paper was retracted for "scientific misconduct".

And yet now moderating false claims that have a detrimental effect on public health outcomes is seen as a "leftist government conspiracy".

Re: Former officials say big tech monopoly power is vital to national security

#25

What is this talk about “the algorithm,” as in Musk saying “they should open source the algorithm.” Is this the traffic boosting and suppression mechanism?

People speak of "the algorithm" as if it were an animal spirit or American god to appease and to implore. I suppose this is our zeitgeist.

It basically is at this point. Every time one of these companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter...etc get caught doing something dodgy they just say it was the algorithm's fault and call it a day. Like when Facebook was selling ads to anti-semites or Google just banning people from their services for undisclosed reasons.

Re: Former officials say big tech monopoly power is vital to national security

#26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We used to fund distributed disruptive technologies to subvert Soviet censorship. Chinese censorship was seen as proof of our superior freedom 20 years ago. Now it is viewed with envy by those in power. What moral high ground do we hold now?

> What moral high ground do we hold now? Vast amounts of ground, fortunately. How about the fact that we can have these conversations fully uncensored? That little thing known as freedom of speech, which is still overwhelmingly alive and well. I enjoy its use, aggressively, on a daily basis without persecution and have for decades uninterrupted.

The article is about the benefits that the US intelligence agencies get from the censorship power of a centralized monopoly of tech companies.

For example, if your main form of communication online is through companies owned by Meta, it’s very easy to effectively censor a point of view or group of people through deplatforming, but if there are dozens of platforms that becomes more difficult.

While more authoritarian countries rely on direct censorship, the US instead promotes the viewpoints they want people to subscribe to: positive reinforcement. You can see this with the government’s involvement with the entertainment industry, or with the military paying sports leagues to promote patriotic displays.

Tech companies being private entities means that they can censor or at least stop the viral effects of social media on ideas that don’t fit the mold.

There’s a lot you can do to shape public opinion without violating the first amendment.

It’s kind of similar to the way local news stations will run “stories” that amount to advertisements for various products or local businesses. Or you might see a funny meme on Reddit where the joke mostly has to do with a company.

Not to say that there aren’t valid reasons to do stuff like this…there’s plenty of harmful speech out there that makes the world a worse place. Hateful, violent, or misleading speech is a legitimate problem. For example, there’s a report that claims most anti-vaccination online content comes from just 12 sources. [1]

It seems a little bit alarming that such a small group can amplify speech in a way that has cost perhaps thousands of lives.

[1] [PDF] https://f4d9b9d3-3d32-4f3a-afa6-49f8bf05279a.usrfiles.com/ug...

Re: Former officials say big tech monopoly power is vital to national security

#28
post #10

Times are tough after your golden goose dies.

> Times are tough after your golden goose dies.

Which golden goose has died or is going to? Tech profits are through the roof and have never been better, while growth continues unabated. The only thing big tech is facing are speeding fines and regional constraints on growth, which it can trivially afford (it has been a decade of the same talk while big tech has gotten massively bigger).

Operating income: Apple $117 billion, Microsoft $78b, Google $78b, Facebook $46b, Amazon $25b, Intel $22b, Cisco $14b, Oracle $11b, Qualcomm $11b, Nvidia $10b, Micron $10b, Broadcom $10b, Texas Instruments $9b, Applied Materials $8b, Adobe $6b, Netflix $6b

For reference ASML is at $7b and SAP is at $5b.

The US tech golden goose is going to get bigger and richer yet. It should only take you a few moments to estimate reasonably where eg Microsoft is going this decade (~$140+ billion in operating income, probably the size of all of Europe's tech companies op income combined in one company).

Re: Former officials say big tech monopoly power is vital to national security

#29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We used to fund distributed disruptive technologies to subvert Soviet censorship. Chinese censorship was seen as proof of our superior freedom 20 years ago. Now it is viewed with envy by those in power. What moral high ground do we hold now?

>We used to fund distributed disruptive technologies to subvert Soviet censorship. Chinese censorship was seen as proof of our superior freedom 20 years ago. Now it is viewed with envy by those in power. What moral high ground do we hold now? The bigger point to discuss. If twitter is under control of the US government. I have no idea if it is or not, it just seems to be the case. You dont get to make the comment 'tw…

>You dont get to make the comment 'twitter is private, free speech only applies to government' because twitter == government.

it's true, twitter == government but not twitter === government. Meaning that the conversion happens in the underlying JIT engine where government hacks twitter to do what it wants.

So the idea is that you could make a first amendment complaint against the government for hacking twitter if it infringed your free speech with that hack, but you could not say twitter cannot just turn off my account because while twitter == government it does not === government.

Re: Former officials say big tech monopoly power is vital to national security

#30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What is this talk about “the algorithm,” as in Musk saying “they should open source the algorithm.” Is this the traffic boosting and suppression mechanism? If for example you make a post that says "Vaccines cause autism". They dont have enough humans to moderate this. They write an algorithm that generally sees that and you get shadowbanned or equivalent. What are all the subjects in which you may not talk about on…

It's not biased to moderate something like "vaccines cause autism". It's been legally and scientifically established as outright misinformation. The genesis of that theory was a disgraced researcher who pushed fraudulent claims with misrepresented data. The paper was retracted for "scientific misconduct". And yet now moderating false claims that have a detrimental effect on public health outcomes is seen as a "leftis…

> It's not biased to moderate something like "vaccines cause autism".

It is biased. As is any and all moderation, inherently.

Biased toward science. A bias toward the rational is a positive, healthy bias.

Rather than cowering about bias, Twitter should very openly and very aggressively stake out a clear and biased position; ie, this is our ground: we're pro science, pro vaccines, and we're going to hold that ground, period (whether anyone else likes it or not, and our algorithms will bias this way accordingly).

Post reply on HN