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

EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 350 posts

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#341

Post by bdangubic »

krapp wrote: post #305
bdangubic wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One has to assume most of the "people" with whom one interacts on the internet are bots or AIs now, anyway. That's just the nature of our post-truth reality, it doesn't matter. but “people” do not have right to free speech, PEOPLE do. if as you said most interactions on the internet are bots they are not covered by the bill of rights :) identity-proofing would take care of that…

It wouldn't take care of anything, it would just expose people who need anonymity to unnecessary danger.

if you trust social media companies (barf!) you can prove identity and request to stay anonymous. these are not mutually exclusive (of course IF at the beginning of this post is a big IF :) )

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#342

Post by willis936 »

mmooss wrote: post #329
willis936 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm not sure what "any positive value is greater than zero" means It means that traditional media is a one way information valve and social media is not. Built into the information medium is the inability to know what people think. It's at most a reflection of what a small number of people think. >Part of the cause is you Incorrect. I do not participate in the creation of traditional media or social media. I cannot…

> I do not participate in the creation of traditional media or social media. I cannot be part of the problem of trust being eroded away. That responsibility rests solely on the shoulders of those guiding discourse. We are part of society. The outcomes are our responsibility and within our power - why do you think so many spend so much to manipulate public opinion? Even just posting here will spread narratives and inf…

You're giving an awfully generous pass at those actually guilty of narrative control.

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#343

Post by mmooss »

willis936 wrote: post #342
mmooss wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do not participate in the creation of traditional media or social media. I cannot be part of the problem of trust being eroded away. That responsibility rests solely on the shoulders of those guiding discourse. We are part of society. The outcomes are our responsibility and within our power - why do you think so many spend so much to manipulate public opinion? Even just posting here will spread narratives and inf…

You're giving an awfully generous pass at those actually guilty of narrative control.

I don't meant to give them a pass - you are, by not doing anything about it. They love to hear that you won't do anything, that you'll just complain. So what?

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#344

Post by phito »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #138
phito wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, since when is TikTok decentralised?

The information is decentralized (a hundred million different sources...), just not the infrastructure.

The consumer doesn't choose what gets fed to them. Neither does the producer. Tiktok chooses who gets to see what. It's absolutely centralised, with crowd sourced content.

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#345

Post by swed420 »

Nasrudith wrote: post #325
swed420 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a matter of incentives. The profit motive is fundamentally opposed to a low-intervention platform for democratic communication. Exactly. It seems the only way to sidestep this growing problem is to create a profit free platform, and view it almost as a utility but is openly owned and controlled by "the people." The vTaiwan and g0v ("gov zero") projects are relevant starter examples for a newer type of distribu…

That reminds me of the surprising and perverse effects witnessed during the Roman Empire's downward spiral. One of the reforms was going from citizen soldiers who must provide their own gear to government provided weaponry and armor. Despite on its face being more egalitarian this resulted instead in consolidation of personal power and lead to more stratification. Quartermasters became kingmakers, just like how coups…

> There must always be an owner and don't trust "the people" to be anything more than a populist's device to assign legitimacy to their supporters and other dissenters.

That's a false dichotomy, especially in the example of vTaiwan, since it was a creation that operated in parallel with an already existing government.

Basically, the platform itself didn't have any direct political power because at the end of the day it was "just an app" or series of apps.

However, even without official power, its low barrier to public consensus building (that you call populism) enabled an efficient and highly organized form of government critique and accountability. This created a near realtime public awareness of the real world intricacies of problem X, Y, or Z that did not exist previously, and put pressure on the politicians in power to take these conclusions/demands somewhat seriously. It also literally helped them do their jobs better, and was far more responsive and precise than traditional electoral implementations.

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#346

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

Freedom2 wrote: post #297
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These platforms are fundamentally anti-democratic in their very nature The US Gov has a mandate to preserve and uphold democracy. Shuttering communication is prior restraint - an anti-democratic action. Platforms have no mandate to preserve and uphold democracy.

Absurd. To use just one example, if the US Gov has that mandate, why is extreme gerrymandering allowed? Seems like it's common for Americans to just repeat what they've been told without actually thinking about it.

> Absurd. To use just one example, if the US Gov has that mandate, why is extreme gerrymandering allowed?

Because worthwhile barriers to gerrymandering are difficult and complex to construct. Effective barriers would need to be overseen and updated by capable, uncompromised people.

Instead, it is easier for Gov to yield to its political handlers. There are lots of reasons for this; I think those reasons can be grouped together under one human failing:

    No One Anywhere Wants To Clean Their Own House

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#347

Post by eastbound »

franga2000 wrote: post #219
eastbound wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

So let me get this straight - you want to go from a system where: - the government hands out money to the media - the law says that they need to give it to everyone without political discrimination - if they try to withold funding, you can sue them and probably win To a system where: - if you have a ton of money, you can be a media outlet - if you don't have a ton of money, get fucked I'm struggling to see how the la…

In theory your argument could be good, in practice the state is governed by the same horrible people that run corporations, and at least with corporations they topple over every 25 years.

So yes I’d prefer not to let leeches take my money by force to give it to media, worst of all to tell the things they said against whites during the last 4 years. I mean, the proof that they’re bad is exactly what you paid them to say recently.

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#348

Post by ClayShentrup »

unethical_ban wrote: post #77
dralley wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The voting algorithm needs to change so that destructive (negative) campaigning is not so effective. No algorithm is going to fix this, it's human nature. Negative campaigning has been a constant of elections since elections were invented. At best you can tamp down on the aggressive engagement feedback loops. We should probably do that, but it's good to stay realistic about outcomes.

error_logic was referring to the "Voting system" meaning the way we elect politicians: plurality voting vs. ranked choice/approval voting. Not an algorithm in the social media feed sense. Other voting systems do promote less negativity, among many other benefits such as giving us real choice and a true multiparty system.

we call that a voting _method_ not system.

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#349

Post by Ferret7446 »

isodev wrote: post #58

It’s funny how they’re shutting down TikTok because it’s “manipulative and anti-democratic” while that’s a core trait of every algorithmic/engagement social media. Twitter and Threads should be banned as well then.

> It’s funny how they’re shutting down TikTok because it’s “manipulative and anti-democratic”

But it's not though? They are requiring divestiture from an adversary nation, not because TikTok is somehow inherently “manipulative and anti-democratic”

Nothing about TikTok has to change except who owns the company (unless of course the owners are manipulating the company's operation, in which case divestiture would indeed by quite disruptive).

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#350

Post by [deleted] »

mmooss wrote: post #272
ab5tract wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few scattered examples of this does nothing to counterbalance the neoliberalism and outright cronyism of NYT. They are probably a big reason why you might even (wrongly) associate neoliberalism with leftist ideology. Back in 2004 they withheld publishing the fact that the NSA had spliced themselves into every internet backbone. (RIP Qwest). Back in 2002/2003, they drummed for war like all the good sycophants. A few…

Your comment and others are great examples of how the NYT, as good journalism does, angers everyone. They've taken positions all over the spectrum. Look at their editorial page (though that does omit Trumpism, possibly because that is often based on falsehoods). > If the NYT were even moderately leftist, they would have endorsed Bernie Sanders. Only progressives think Sanders is 'moderately leftist'.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN