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

Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 1001 posts

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#531

Post by rllearneratwork »

tayo42 wrote: post #506
rllearneratwork wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Misinformation and hate speech are clearly important issues. But loosing free speech would be a colossal mistake. I used to live in a country with no free speech, trust me the USA in its current state is hundred million times better and more just. Free speech is just super fundamental. So, in my opinion, nothing restricting free speech is acceptable - the downsides of that are just too enormous. We need to learn to l…

No one in america is restricting your free speech. Go buy server space and write what ever you want.

There are then questions of monopolies and utilities. Cloud providers won't allow you to host certain content and if you buy your own server your internet provided can and will restrict the kind of content you can host.

Also there are de-facto monopolies on communications and social networks.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#532

Post by doktrin »

theklub wrote: post #336
prudhvis wrote: post #223

I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.

"Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me" Was the phrase I grew up on. Seems like the opposite today where we allow looting and riots but saying the wrong thing gets you in trouble.

Arm one man with a stick and the other with a verified twitter account, and I know who I'd bet on.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#533

Post by SECProto »

mattchew wrote: post #516
prudhvis wrote: post #223

I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.

A little older than you, but same basic experience. I also don't understand how the tide turned so swiftly against freedom of speech, and in favor of authorities deciding what people should be allowed to hear or read. But it did turn, and I don't see the trend reversing. While I don't like the prospect of an increasingly censored society, it will be interesting to watch the struggle between the big platform censors a…

> I also don't understand how the tide turned so swiftly against freedom of speech, and in favor of authorities deciding what people should be allowed to hear or read.

Freedom of speech meant freedom from /government/ control of speech. It has never meant freedom from the any impact. This article (facebook et al blocking/removing/deplatforming) is functionally no different than a newspaper choosing what to publish in their editorials page, a property owner having a bulletin board whose postings they control, or a shopping mall not allowing someone to stand up on a soap box and proselytize.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#534

Post by octoberfranklin »

read_if_gay_ wrote: post #439
nothingistrue wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is like thinking because everyone is against what you are doing you must be doing the right thing. it could be what you are selling is just bullshit and everyone knows it is bullshit.

> this is like thinking because everyone is against what you are doing you must be doing the right thing It's not, because silencing something is very different from being against something.

Indeed. If everybody ignores you then you're probably selling bullshit.

If they try to silence you, you're probably on to something.

There are far, far, far too many bullshit-peddlers to even attempt to silence them all.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#535

Post by beezle »

sailingparrot wrote: post #343
hartator wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe free amplification is terrible It's exactly what they were saying at the invention of the printing press. Amplification becoming too cheap. Maybe being on the side of censorship is always being on the wrong side of history no matter the issue. Can you remember one time in history where we now like "thanks god they censor these thoughts!"?

How exactly is press free amplification? How do I get my random opinion broadcasted to a newspaper audience? I would probably have to write an opinion column and send it to the journal, then they would read it, and decide whether or not they want to publish it. If it's the NYT for example, you can be sure that no matter how well written your piece is, they will never publish something that pushes the theory that COVI…

The "press" has historically not been neutral; political sheets/tabloids heavily aligned with specific parties or individuals were very common in American history until the 20th century. There was little, if any, notion of "journalistic integrity" - they were simply a way to get out what specific persons wanted heard.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#536

Post by 6nf »

Simulacra wrote: post #35

I just don’t get it, what is Twitter so afraid of? It’s already a cesspool of flame wars and misinformation, I’m growing deeply concerned about their need to interject themselves into news stories like this.

The Biden campaign have hired a Twitter exec and a Facebook exec recently. There’s a reason for this. This gives the Biden campaign access to people inside those companies.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#537

Post by rbanffy »

rayiner wrote: post #429
sailingparrot wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New technologies brought new challenges. There was no social network in the 2000s and before. No retweet button, no "curated" timeline that showed you what you "like". YouTube did not try to push more videos like the ones you watched previously until the mid 2010s. Free speech does not have the same meaning as before. Before it just meant that you could say whatever you wanted. Now people use it implicitly to mean th…

You’re mischaracterizing how free speech was viewed in the recent past. “Free speech” (as a cultural value, I’m not talking about the first amendment) was about the marketplace of ideas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketplace_of_ideas . It meant a free market in ideas, where the dominant ideas arise from competition. What you call “amplification” is just something that makes the marketplace more efficient—it allow…

> What you call “amplification” is just something that makes the marketplace more efficient

Most efficient in generating engagement for selling banners, not in lifting up the most correct or useful ideas. Was it is, it's pure marketplace manipulation.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#539

Post by hooande »

notadev wrote: post #309
sailingparrot wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New technologies brought new challenges. There was no social network in the 2000s and before. No retweet button, no "curated" timeline that showed you what you "like". YouTube did not try to push more videos like the ones you watched previously until the mid 2010s. Free speech does not have the same meaning as before. Before it just meant that you could say whatever you wanted. Now people use it implicitly to mean th…

Wouldn't the obvious choice be to let everyone have the same access to free amplification? No one is being forced to listen, and I'd rather have the ability to ignore what I don't want to see/hear instead of a bunch of 20 somethings Engineers deciding for me.

make this service. "tune your own algorithm" social network. not sure how broad the appeal of that will be, but you can do an MVP to find out

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#540

Post by chmod600 »

sailingparrot wrote: post #264
prudhvis wrote: post #223

I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.

New technologies brought new challenges. There was no social network in the 2000s and before. No retweet button, no "curated" timeline that showed you what you "like". YouTube did not try to push more videos like the ones you watched previously until the mid 2010s. Free speech does not have the same meaning as before. Before it just meant that you could say whatever you wanted. Now people use it implicitly to mean th…

But Twitter blocked direct messages, too.

Your argument somewhat makes sense for FB, depending on the details. But Twitter outright censored this content.

Post reply on HN