581–590 of 872 posts
I’ll take the downvotes or whatever argumentation incoming but this is obviously (to me) Google being bad at technology and intentionally opaque about it, and just as mealy mouthed about the subject matter as always because they don’t give a fuck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s true that YouTube is a private entity and should be able to do whatever is in its profit maximizing interest. But, the issue that people are starting to react to is - are some platforms a natural monopoly? Is it useful to have all user-generated public video clips be aggregated by one central provider? The answer seems like it’s yes. If there’s only gonna be one platform, or it’s socially optimal to have one pla…
> But, the issue that people are starting to react to is - are some platforms a natural monopoly? No. > Is it useful to have all user-generated public video clips be aggregated by one central provider? The answer seems like it’s yes. The answer is no. Vimeo exists. Facebook and Twitter both feature user-generated video content. I hear TikTok is a thing. In addition to these platforms basically anyone can self-host in…
Given the state of cloud computing in 2022, there has never been a time that it has been easier to host your own video streaming, so it's not a natural monopoly either.
Fine. You can’t force people or businesses to listen to you or broadcast your speech. That’s American liberty. That’s freedom. You can’t claim that a business is “the public square” and then force them. If you do want a digital public square look for something run by the government with a mandate to publish everything. I’m pretty sure people wouldn’t be too happy with that either… too many libtards, too many nazis, t…
Why not? We place some pretty serious obligations on a few industries - one example is electricity providers of last resort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This fellow was completely and utterly wrong about Putin, saying that he'd never invade. How can someone be proven so wrong about their life's work and still be called "one of your best thinkers in international politics."?
He predicted this crisis in 2014, and I think he has been quite consistent on saying Putin will act, just that Putin will not occupy Ukraine. Now there is the possibility of Russia taking the eastern part, but his main thesis is still valid: the west should leave Ukraine as a buffer state. https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-t...
The article you linked was written after Russia had already invaded and annexed part of Ukraine, so it's not a very impressive prediction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree, if you don’t like it you can move to another platform. No one is forcing you to use it. For that matter “The Hill” can create their own. Always silly, the entitlement to someone else platform based on some misunderstanding of censorship and the 1st amendment.
The only silly argument I hear is when people think any discussion of censorship must involve the first amendment, or that complaining about censorship implies being forced to use a product. If I go to a restaurant and eat some food and complain that food tasted awful, I am not saying that the restaurant should be forced by the government to make good food nor am I saying that everyone is forced to eat at that restau…
It is much more like 14th Amendment rights and the 1964 CRA enhancement of that. There are prohibitions on private organizations denying equal service based upon certain characteristics.
As Twitter, Youtube, Facebook are not actually broadcasters in any sense (what are they broadcasting?), their refusal to conduct business with others can't be cloaked in 1st amendment grounds. No one is forcing anyone to watch anything on any of these platforms.
The crux of this issue is political affiliation is not a protected class, and therefore it can be discriminated against. (And we do have non-immutable, changeable characteristics as protected classes.)
Any of 1) section 230 clarifications or changes, 2) expansions of protected classes under the 14th, or 3) monopoly regulatory power will make these prohibitions invalid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is reasonable to say that Donald Trump caused the January 6 insurrection. The bigger issue for platform owners is that the insurrection represents catastrophic risk to them, and it is within their power to prevent it. The social media platforms can't prevent if Russia goes to war with NATO. Censoring the russian official won't do anything.
How did the 'insurrection' cause catastrophic risk to Twitter?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's being subjected to a federal criminal investigation. There is a bit more there than "simply being on a board". It is a big story and deserves public investigation to find out what was going on. The world is currently teetering on the edge of a Russia-Ukraine * war spiralling in to a US-Russia war. It is materially interesting what business connections the US president has with (famous for being corrupt I might a…
> He's being subjected to a federal criminal investigation. There is a bit more there than "simply being on a board". It is a big story and deserves public investigation to find out what was going on. It came out in December that his taxes were being investigated and it was widely reported. Easy to see from the wikipedia article where there are multiple citations from major news outlets. > It is materially interestin…
Which lends some rather solid credence to all the people back around the election who were saying this looks like fairly obvious corruption. I mean, the facts haven't really changed much, the only change is that the political establishment is OK with it being reported on in December. Anyone reading the initial story could have told you there was going to be an investigation.
Whether they'll find anything is an open question since the person who controls the executive is currently president - but it looks as shady as anything in US politics. There is little question that the big tech giants were making a political move when they took the story down on its first arrival, it would have swung votes and they didn't want that.
Not finding overwhelming evidence of money laundering can't be the story unless the original - silenced - accusations of corruption were also a story.
The extent of the "censorship" is getting ridiculous. It is an overreach of the platforms.
The extent of the "censorship" is getting ridiculous. It is an overreach of the platforms.
The incredibly dangerous outcome of all this is precisely what foolish commentators are suggesting: alternatives will be built, that themselves will become echo chambers. If you disagree with certain ideas, you have to fight it in the open. That's how we get a big tent with general consensus across key issues, and avoid parallel universes of polar opposite information. The end result of all this is just going to be a…
What if the dangerous outcome is what's happening right here in this thread, and the thousands of others like it here on HN and elsewhere? Right in front of our eyes every day but we cannot see it, because it is normal.