Corporate Unpersoning • Hacker News Board

Re: Corporate Unpersoning

#31

Post by humanrebar » Sat, Nov 04, 2017, 4:03 PM UTC

notl4wy3r wrote: post #8

humanrebar wrote: post #2

I'm starting to wonder if America needs to add basic but explicit free speech protections in a private context the way that it has anti-discrimination ones. In the digital age, "in public" is often part of a digital forum run by a private entity (twitter, facebook, HN, fark, etc.).

There are plenty of options in the modern era to promulgate your views without the support of any company. You can host them on ipfs, print them out and paste them as flyers, etc. Companies do not owe it to you to let you promote your views using their infrastructure. Maybe it is in their best interest, or the best interest of their users, or maybe not. But historically, we have valued companies' (and, transitively,…

> There are plenty of options in the modern era to promulgate your views without the support of any company.

Who said anything about support? Do DNSs "support" every website they host? Why would forums be supporting all the speech they host then?

> Companies do not owe it to you to let you promote your views using their infrastructure.

I don't think of it in terms of obligations. I do think supporting free speech and earnest dialogue is a social responsibility. That's why the first amendment was written to start with. The same negatives seen when government curtails speech also apply when corporations do the same thing.

Re: Corporate Unpersoning

#32

Post by drtillberg » Sat, Nov 04, 2017, 4:14 PM UTC

jimnotgym wrote: post #10

nerdponx wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps? Or just stop using Google. Stop using Gmail, stop using Google Search, stop using Google Docs. It's not that hard.

DuckDuckGo, Protonmail and ...too many to list. I use Google very rarely, and mostly if I am looking how things appear the the rest of the world. DuckDuckGo is a drop in replacement for search

But they all may nudge search results in this direction or that. Google is injecting partisanship in search, like newspapers always have been-- NYT vs WSJ, people just expect different content. Factionalizing search inherently means there cannot be a single dominant player. Google is stronger as a business when people perceive it as nonpartisan like the phone book.

Re: Corporate Unpersoning

#33

Post by indubitable » Sat, Nov 04, 2017, 4:21 PM UTC

ci5er wrote: post #28

humanrebar wrote: post #2

I'm starting to wonder if America needs to add basic but explicit free speech protections in a private context the way that it has anti-discrimination ones. In the digital age, "in public" is often part of a digital forum run by a private entity (twitter, facebook, HN, fark, etc.).

OK. So ... I startup in my garage. And, somehow, I build a platform that people congregate together to use to talk to each other. Then... you think that the government should compel me to allow any and all voices to use my private property as a megaphone? I guess that is no different from making Christian bakers attend in support of a gay wedding or forcing Catholic nuns to fund birth-control - so ... crack on.

Do you think it might just slightly disingenuous to compare your garage to for profit services with users reaching into the billions, far surpassing an influence and degree of control over a group of people far larger than any individual country? The scope and scale of an issue dramatically changes its societal impact which in turn shapes the necessity of managing it should that societal impact turn negative.

Imagine Facebook and Google together decided to go completely partisan and support one candidate or another so much as they possibly could. They could present a huge chunk of the world's population with an entirely false reality. That power is something that should be very disconcerting in a democracy. If this were able to be put into effect, and prove workable, companies like Facebook and Google could effectively silently overthrow any democratic government - replacing them with the puppets of their choosing.

Re: Corporate Unpersoning

#34

Post by ci5er » Sat, Nov 04, 2017, 4:28 PM UTC

indubitable wrote: post #33

ci5er wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK. So ... I startup in my garage. And, somehow, I build a platform that people congregate together to use to talk to each other. Then... you think that the government should compel me to allow any and all voices to use my private property as a megaphone? I guess that is no different from making Christian bakers attend in support of a gay wedding or forcing Catholic nuns to fund birth-control - so ... crack on.

Do you think it might just slightly disingenuous to compare your garage to for profit services with users reaching into the billions, far surpassing an influence and degree of control over a group of people far larger than any individual country? The scope and scale of an issue dramatically changes its societal impact which in turn shapes the necessity of managing it should that societal impact turn negative. Imagine…

I grant you that this is new territory.

But I hesitate to grant any particular national government to do what I will with my property.

I must think on this. Thank you.

Re: Corporate Unpersoning

#35

Post by indubitable » Sat, Nov 04, 2017, 4:32 PM UTC

nerdponx wrote: post #4

humanrebar wrote: post #2

I'm starting to wonder if America needs to add basic but explicit free speech protections in a private context the way that it has anti-discrimination ones. In the digital age, "in public" is often part of a digital forum run by a private entity (twitter, facebook, HN, fark, etc.).

Perhaps? Or just stop using Google. Stop using Gmail, stop using Google Search, stop using Google Docs. It's not that hard.

Consider that the majority of the internet still does not use adblock software. Disable your adblock and go browse for a while. And then imagine that the vast majority of people still browse this way -- 70% according to the first result I found.

While I think people are genuinely quite smart on average, I also think most are not particularly well informed. Adblocking is something that directly and immediately provides a vastly better experience. But the majority of people still do not use them and are, for the most part, likely more or less ignorant of their existence or their effect. Now somehow getting people to engage in behavior for an abstract high level change that would, in the short run, result in some negative consequences for themselves (for instance Google search is certainly still the best search engine by shrinking but still wide margin) -- that's something that is going to be very challenging to make happen.

[1] - http://www.businessinsider.com/pagefair-2017-ad-blocking-rep...

Re: Corporate Unpersoning

#36

Post by humanrebar » Sat, Nov 04, 2017, 4:40 PM UTC

ci5er wrote: post #28

humanrebar wrote: post #2

I'm starting to wonder if America needs to add basic but explicit free speech protections in a private context the way that it has anti-discrimination ones. In the digital age, "in public" is often part of a digital forum run by a private entity (twitter, facebook, HN, fark, etc.).

OK. So ... I startup in my garage. And, somehow, I build a platform that people congregate together to use to talk to each other. Then... you think that the government should compel me to allow any and all voices to use my private property as a megaphone? I guess that is no different from making Christian bakers attend in support of a gay wedding or forcing Catholic nuns to fund birth-control - so ... crack on.

There are a few places where this doesn't analogize that way.

Significantly and uniquely, Facebook, Google, etc. are selling forums and mediums for expression. They are common carriers of speech; they are not partnering in creating speech.

Re: Corporate Unpersoning

#37

Post by humanrebar » Sat, Nov 04, 2017, 4:44 PM UTC

Boothroid wrote: post #24

empath75 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think we want to be in the business of forcing companies and people to publish or promote speech that they disagree with for whatever reason.

We already force companies and people to take actions that may not be compatible with their beliefs - for example here in the UK it's illegal to refuse to rent to a homosexual couple on the basis of their sexuality a room in a bed and breakfast, despite the fact that some proprietors feel this infringes on their religious beliefs.

A better example would be forcing photographers or event planners to sell to homosexual weddings since in those examples, the vendors are selling their partnership in expression.

Re: Corporate Unpersoning

#38

Post by humanrebar » Sat, Nov 04, 2017, 4:45 PM UTC

nerdponx wrote: post #9

Retr0spectrum wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not that hard. For one person maybe, but try getting all of society to do the same. Edit: You do realise we are both using a "digital forum run by a private entity" right now?

Yes, and if it turned out that hacker news was doing anything unscrupulous I would have no problem dropping it. I don't care what the rest of society does, start with you and yourself.

If you want to make a public statement or have an open discussion, you need to be where the public is.

Re: Corporate Unpersoning

#39

Post by humanrebar » Sat, Nov 04, 2017, 5:03 PM UTC

jasode wrote: post #30

humanrebar wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason free speech advocates don't like that option is that they don't get an audience I don't like it because "public areas" are owned and governed by private entities. It's nonsense to say you're in public if there's no public listening. That's not free speech, it's free speech zones . As in, "Say whatever you want, just say it to yourself in that shed over there." > Nazi-proponents would use it as a weapon t…

>If trolls show up on message boards, the solution is curation, moderation And those editorial mechanisms mean you no longer have "freedom of speech" -- which breaks the very law you're proposing. That's what I meant by "contradictions" in my previous message. A new law that extends "freedom of speech to private entities" is not possible for society to implement in a consistent manner. >Right now, people are worried…

I understand that, but companies are trying to have it two ways.

They're either curators and editors and somehow responsible for the speech on their sites, it their carriers and just providing a forum.

If Reddit isn't responsible when people post libel or legally actionable threats, then they shouldn't be taking responsibility for policing their content for ideological alignment, much less politeness and courtesy.

I'm saying it's time to explore whether we need common carriers of speech like we have for raw data.

Re: Corporate Unpersoning

#40

Post by ci5er » Sat, Nov 04, 2017, 5:26 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #36

ci5er wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK. So ... I startup in my garage. And, somehow, I build a platform that people congregate together to use to talk to each other. Then... you think that the government should compel me to allow any and all voices to use my private property as a megaphone? I guess that is no different from making Christian bakers attend in support of a gay wedding or forcing Catholic nuns to fund birth-control - so ... crack on.

There are a few places where this doesn't analogize that way. Significantly and uniquely, Facebook, Google, etc. are selling forums and mediums for expression. They are common carriers of speech; they are not partnering in creating speech.

Do you believe then, that Facebook (founded 2004) and Google(founded 1998) have an obligation to carrier any and all speech? Why? Because they were successful?

If I were Facebook (I am not) ... wouldn't I - shouldn't I - be able to say: "Get off my lawn"?