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

211–220 of 264 posts

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

#211

Post by emodendroket »

WalterBright wrote: post #180
bumby wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some societies have limits on these votes as a means to prevent the tyranny of the majority. In the U.S. the Bill of Rights outlines specific rights that cannot be infringed, including the freedom of speech. Now, this amendment could technically be repealed but that is a very high bar since it’s considered a fundamental right by which the others are derived. Edit: downvotes are fine but at least add to the discussion…

I've come to conclude that the right to free speech is the most important right in the Constitution. The reason is straightforward - without free speech, nobody would know if/when the government is abusing any of your other rights.

In Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky and Hermann argue that the American system of propaganda is more effective than the Soviet one, precisely because there is no commissar explicitly telling you what you can and can't say or any other kind of overt and explicit censorship, making people blind to the possibility that they could possibly be being manipulated.

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

#212

Post by emodendroket »

kfprt wrote: post #209
WalterBright wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've come to conclude that the right to free speech is the most important right in the Constitution. The reason is straightforward - without free speech, nobody would know if/when the government is abusing any of your other rights.

Freedom of speech is a natural right that just so happens to be enshrined in the constitution. It's very disturbing to see how modern discourse ignores the existence of natural rights. I don't see how the 1st amendment is a tenable position anymore when the government is now actively censoring by proxy. https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/563547-hypocritical-...

Well, probably the first time these were flagrantly violated was with the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.

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

#213

Post by adventured »

ordinaryradical wrote: post #128
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.

This is exactly why I disagree with everyone who argues it’s an issue of personal freedom. You may have the personal freedom to get drunk—that doesn’t give you the freedom to drive around while under the influence and you endanger everyone else on the road. The choice to be vaccinated or not is not a choice that affects merely the individual; its consequences affect communities. Regardless of whether it is valid or n…

Getting vaccinated doesn't stop you from spreading the virus to other people. If it did, your point would have far greater validity.

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

#214

Post by [deleted] »

bumby wrote: post #167
secondaryacct wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree: we live in societies and can vote. In my country we decided that trading, joking, lauding, repeating anything nazi can be prosecuted: so we do prosecute it, a judge decides, according to past judgment and his opinion of the law, and done. No need to give everyone the job to be clever - we can actually blacklist any opinion we dont want to see circulated and vote on it.

Some societies have limits on these votes as a means to prevent the tyranny of the majority. In the U.S. the Bill of Rights outlines specific rights that cannot be infringed, including the freedom of speech. Now, this amendment could technically be repealed but that is a very high bar since it’s considered a fundamental right by which the others are derived. Edit: downvotes are fine but at least add to the discussion…

[deleted]

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

#216

Post by shadowgovt »

> You’re using their mailservers, and in their mind that’s what gives them the right and the moral authority to monitor the content of your communications to your own audience.

Yes, how strange that somebody would believe they should have a say in how you use their services.

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

#217

Post by michaelmrose »

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…

Every chance to breed is a chance to mutate. This isn't a binary factor its a continuum. 1% of the population is likely insufficient breeding ground and the virus population would collapse exponentially. 70% vaccinated large in contiguous regions may be sufficient to keep the pandemic going continuously if they successive variants emerge that are sufficiently effective at evading existing immunity.

1 person has no meaningful effect but collectively their actions are capable of doing great harm to the rest of us even if we all collectively act in our own best interests by getting vaccinated and participating in other public health measures.

If your freedom to act irrationally allows you to cause my untimely death I don't understand how my inability to go on living wouldn't represent a net decrease in freedom vs forcing you to vaccinate.

If you look at the break down of anti vaxxer sentiment only 9% are dead set against vaccination under any circumstances. These people's perception of their freedom isn't worth hurting everyone.

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

#218

Post by kfprt »

echelon wrote: post #6

It'd be nice if the plumbing worked together. I'd like to be able to export data easily, run my own programs easily, write software that doesn't get taxed or asked to be resubmitted (since when did Microsoft charge for Windows app development?) Every company purports to be for you , but it's a big toothy grinned lie. Some of them sell you, others sell you out. It also sucks that these companies surface the worst of h…

This is underrated. It should absolutely be a right to leave the walled garden and take your data with you.

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

#219

Post by whatever1999 »

emodendroket wrote: post #208

Says who? We're seeing some negative side effects to certain kinds of content flowing through social networks, and perhaps more importantly, from the tech company's perspective, politicians do not actually want them to sit back and not touch this content. If they did that, they'd likely end up getting regulated. Also, a truly unmoderated social network would quickly become a clearing house for garbage content nobody…

The power of blocking content should give to state government, because they are supervised by the people. Big tech are not, and they probably use this power as a bargaining chip deal with politicians under table.

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

#220

Post by kktkti9 »

emodendroket wrote: post #208

Says who? We're seeing some negative side effects to certain kinds of content flowing through social networks, and perhaps more importantly, from the tech company's perspective, politicians do not actually want them to sit back and not touch this content. If they did that, they'd likely end up getting regulated. Also, a truly unmoderated social network would quickly become a clearing house for garbage content nobody…

Maybe that says a lot about the real value of digital social networks as we know them now.

Perhaps we should just have dumb pipes, and let people network over them without a MITM running psychology and behavioral economics experiments on people who merely want to connect with friends and family

Post reply on HN