Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content • Hacker News Board

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#301

Post by seanp2k2 » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 5:05 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #174

root_axis wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is being hunted, that's pretty hyperbolic. If YouTube were silencing protests I wouldn't like that, but I don't rely on YouTube to understand what's going on in the world and I would encourage anyone concerned about YouTube's content policy to consider visiting other websites on the internet in addition to YouTube.

> If YouTube were silencing protests I wouldn't like that, but I don't rely on YouTube to understand what's going on in the world A lot of people do. You can't really find out what's going on in the world from the mainstream media in any real resolution or detail, and "other websites on the internet" don't generally have thousands and thousands of people livestreaming actual live video of what's happening . Perhaps t…

This. Some media outlets have decent live reporting, but going through the available apps on a PlayStation, which is what we use to watch video on a big screen via a projector (we also have a Shield and a Mac mini connected to it, but those get used less), we ended up watching both large media cos and smaller channels live-streaming the events of Jan 6 on YouTube. If one looks at the available apps and platforms on smart TVs, there aren’t actually that many options. This could change, but there are high barriers to entry e.g. having enough of a platform that it makes sense to build an app for Samsung TVs, another for LG TVs, another for Sony TVs, then get those all certified and keep them available.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#302

Post by shrimpx » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 5:45 PM UTC

Khaine wrote: post #272

shrimpx wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should clarify that "free speech" is unrelated to what Twitter and Facebook are doing. Free speech is a constitutional concept, protecting people from draconian government laws that suppress their speech, or discriminate them based on their speech. What Facebook and Twitter are doing is providing a product that amplifies and places speech in front of particular eyeballs and ears. There are many, many issues with w…

Free speech is not a "constitutional concept" whatever you mean by that. Free speech is a philosophical concept that has been embedded in the US Constitution as the 1st Amendment. The US Founders thought that people must have the ability to speak their mind, to discuss and challenge each others ideas. They thought this ability was so important they enshrined it in law.

“Free speech” is about limiting government retaliation based on speech. So Uncle Sam can’t legally put you in prison because you spoke against Uncle Sam.

Free speech doesn’t mean you’re protected to speak whatever you want in any setting. Speech is subject to private property and common sense. If you are profane on my property I’ll kick you out and ban you. That is NOT a violation of your free speech.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#303

Post by shrimpx » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 5:59 PM UTC

cudgy wrote: post #271

shrimpx wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a tough issue, and I don't see how it would be more humanist to support something like "all speech, in any situation, must be allowed and protected". Clearly some of that speech will be destructive, and harm people. I don't think you want to advocate that those people who are being harmed should be unable to protect themselves from speech they see as harmful and destructive. Neither side of this coin is a str…

No. It’s quite clear. People should have the right to pursue dangerous, stupid, crazy, ugly, offensive, illogical activities as well as safe, brilliant, sane, beautiful, flattering, and logical activities. Your approach results in a star chamber of elites that make value judgments on what people can SAY, which directly impacts what they can DO. Society is limited to their judgment and belief system. There are countri…

If you’re loud and profane in a bar and disturbing the tenants, the bouncer will muzzle you. You seem to be arguing that the bouncer should not be allowed to do that.

You seem to be mixing up “free speech” in the constitution and the normal to and fro negotiations and tensions between people. In private life people need to be allowed to act against speech that they find harmful.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#304

Post by jonathankoren » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 6:02 PM UTC

seanp2k2 wrote: post #295

jonathankoren wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The market provides though. There are are tons of sites for alternative and niche content, and new sites come up all the time. Complaining that you don’t have a ready made audience is pretty weak. You need to hustle for this stuff. People used to xerox and give away zines for an audience. As the Pirate Bay founder said recently[0], it’s embarrassing how easily people are giving up. It’s almost as if they don’t want t…

This. I believe that the problem has more to do with most users relying on platforms that are fundamentally advertising companies, and content that doesn’t go well next to an ad gets removed because it becomes a direct threat to revenue. Video sites exist which show very graphic violence, among other things not allowed on YouTube. They’ve been around for years. The issue, I guess, is that they tend to run ads for ske…

Well, that’s the thing with being ostracized. Reputable people don’t want anything to do with you, and so you’re left with only the disreputable ones.

It’s like there’s a whole generation of engineers that don’t realize that you can actually buy a computer instead of just rent someone else’s.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#305

Post by seanp2k2 » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 6:03 PM UTC

colllectorof wrote: post #126

tribby wrote: post #50

independent media would probably do well to look at independent infrastructure. owncast[1] is an interesting project (no affiliation), I’d be curious if there are more like it. 1. https://github.com/owncast/owncast

The fact that an "independent infrastructure" project gets referenced by linking to GitHub should tell you everything you need to know about the state of "independent infrastructure" in 2021.

It’s not that it’s so hard to set up Redmine, just again that GitHub has strong network effects and a lot of convenience. I can go star stuff and come back later. Bookmarking a random open source project that self-hosts and hoping it’s still there when I need it is less convenient.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#306

Post by shrimpx » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 6:05 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #286

shrimpx wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is not that "all speech should be suppressed", but that, generally speaking, the suppression of speech should not be disallowed. Users and employees should be allowed to pressure companies to suppress hate speech; a bar owner should be allowed to kick into the street a racist and profane customer; a school should be able to fire a teacher who is getting a lot of complaints for teaching racist ideas…

> in any situation and on any public or private property, is far more destructive in my opinion. I think this is perhaps a straw man. Nobody is asking to protect unrestricted speech in all private venues. Would it be so bad to make it illegal for large services that have private DMs to snoop/censor those, such as we do presently for large services that have private telephone calls? The dichotomy isn't public/private.…

I completely agree with you, and we should work to limit these companies to our liking, with legislation.

Your stance is super reasonable. But look around, many people in this conversation are effectively arguing in favor of totally, globally unrestricted speech, which I find extreme and untenable.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#307

Post by seanp2k2 » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 6:09 PM UTC

ngngngng wrote: post #110

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a de facto monopoly, it’s certainly the only one that matters right now. But if, say, the porn tubes wanted to wall off a non-NSFW side, they could become a serious competitor overnight. Or if Netflix or Amazon started allowing end-user content, for that matter.

I have no idea why porn sites wouldn't attempt to compete, their technology is solid, sometimes industry leading. Diversify.

I would also just like to remind everyone that there are many video sites out there that aren’t explicitly porn sites (but do generally allow some level of porn) that are not YouTube. They also tend to have NSFW / scammy ads as those are the only advertisers willing to pay to advertise next to content that wouldn’t be acceptable on YT.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#308

Post by LocalH » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 6:37 PM UTC

bawolff wrote: post #72

emptyparadise wrote: post #46

My question to everyone supporting restrictions on speech and supporting privacy violations, even for good reasons, is this: are you prepared to have these tools fall into the wrong hands? The same methods used to quickly shut down a dangerous website or to track down a terrorist by their online posts can be used to silence protests and to hunt down political opposition.

What tools are these actually - the delete button? When it comes down to it - i like moderated spaces on the internet. I dont want to wade through spam, not to mention violent and abusive content. I don't like seeing shock images. So yes, i support having moderation. The question to me is not: yes/no moderation, its where you draw the line; what are your policies and how are they enforced. Fundamentally i think the s…

The current climate is one of not allowing people to "start a new website". Sure, one can quite technically run their own platform, but the minute it becomes significant there seems to be a risk of shutdown via external pressure. Deplatforming is a very dangerous tool, the likes of which I think should only be reserved for the most heinous crimes. I have zero qualms about deplatforming a child molester, for example. But there was just a story on here about how someone lost their job simply for having accounts on Gab and Parler. Not for any content they posted, but for the mere existence of the accounts.

Even as recently as the 80s and 90s, liberals were much more likely to be anti-censorship. Now people who claim that label are all for shutting down "bad" things, without understanding that "good" and "bad" are largely human constructs, and the things that are considered "good" and "bad" can and will change over time. What about in the far future when bigotry inevitably becomes commonplace and systemic in a much worse way than humanity has already seen? Do we really want to just hand these tools of suppression and control to people like that on a silver platter? The entire point of freedom of speech is supposed to transcend that sort of control.

To go on a slight tangent, it's quite similar to how many traditional Christians in America would wish for their religion to have special privileges in law, when they don't realize that it would open the door for any other religion to do the same, should their population grow to the numbers they'd need to influence policy. The very same people who would wish to make Christianity privileged would bemoan Islam one day becoming the majority religion and instituting Islamic law via those same legal mechanisms. Nobody I've talked to face to face in my area has any kind of answer to that one.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#309

Post by cudgy » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 6:41 PM UTC

seanp2k2 wrote: post #297

cudgy wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Imagine if the telecoms could play ads before, after, and during your conversations on your phone(s)? Why do we accept it from big tech social media?

Strong network effects + capitalism. They found a good way to make lots of money, which allowed them to pay lots of skilled people to spend their time getting more people into the system and looking at ads. The problem, IMO, is that most users don’t understand how social media works from a business perspective. Advertising companies put a lot of effort into not being known as advertising companies. Another fun though…

“ Advertising companies put a lot of effort into not being known as advertising companies.”

That says a great deal doesn’t it? They are too ashamed and know it is an immoral business.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#310

Post by stale2002 » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 6:54 PM UTC

Traster wrote: post #265

stale2002 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where would your law end? I’m curious how you’d write it... There is an easy answer to this. We could just model this stuff after other similar laws, that apply to other networks. Those similar laws, are called common carrier laws, and they could be expanded to apply to more things.

Common carrier laws are woefully inadequate for this. Social media doesn't function by me going to your webpage and seeing what you've written. Twitter, TikTok, Facebook, Youtube, every single one are primarily driven by algorithmic discovery. You go to youtube, youtube says "Hey! Here's our curated list of what we think our usres want to see". Making youtube a common carrier would be fine- they would be forced to ho…

> are primarily driven by algorithmic discovery.

The news feed is certainly driven by algorithmic discovery.

But the standard user page, or user account, for any of these, is usually not.

So, for example, a reasonable compromise would to apply common carrier laws to the places where it is possible. IE, allow people to have the user page.

> It would be functionallly undiscoverable

Disagree. There is still value in having that youtube user page for someone with existing audiences, even if they do not have youtube discovery.

Furthermore, even if youtube refuses to do discovery for these pages, it would still be possible for 3rd parties to do discovery. Imagine if you could subscribe to a different discovery website that just takes information from youtube pages.

That would be interesting to drive competition in discovery algorithms and give people choice over that.