61–70 of 126 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, people didn’t use to have a lot of things, it’s still a big problem if you ban certain people from a platform but not others. Those that are allowed gain a huge advantage. It’s especially problematic if these de facto monopolies take sides in elections.
How is it any different than if I was banned from HN or an IRC channel? These "platforms" are just large message boards.
While there are consequences and secondary effects to banning Trump off of all the things... There was a moment when the body count started adding up and anyone with common sense can see it is his fault. It was Trump that caused this, he in effect killed those people at the capital. Had it gone worse someone would have been killed or hung on live TV. All of that is on him. Maybe all the platforms did all call each ot…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best sources of news seem to be the ones I pay for: New Yorker, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post
Do these newspapers provide thought provoking articles, or just fuel confirmation bias for their readers? I was a subscriber of NYT for a few years, and the one time there was a dissenting opinion - that of Tom Cotton - it led to editors being fired. WSJ seems better, maybe because business reporting tends to be somewhat less opinionated.
If that was the “one time there was a dissenting opinion” in the NY Times, what do you call Ross Douthat’s and Brett Stephen’s columns about that incident that the NY Times also ran?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do these newspapers provide thought provoking articles, or just fuel confirmation bias for their readers? I was a subscriber of NYT for a few years, and the one time there was a dissenting opinion - that of Tom Cotton - it led to editors being fired. WSJ seems better, maybe because business reporting tends to be somewhat less opinionated.
> thought provoking articles, or just fuel confirmation bias for their readers? I'd argue that NYT has fallen into the latter, with dissenting voices stifled internally, example Bari Weiss: https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2020/breaking-down-the-c... https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2020/07/14/bari-weiss-r...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That want to allow inciting of violence on platforms? Serious question. Edit to add: anyone going to answer or just downvote and ignore the question?
Let's sweep all the dirt under the rug and then act surprised when we find it's so much grosser than the rest of the floor.
Someone really needs to give the New Yorker some serious credit for publishing what can genuinely be described as a thoughtful, well written, and objective article on social media and big tech. Bravo. I'm honestly convinced that at some point this kind of big tech social media witch burning will eventually lead to private lawsuits aimed at non-combatants like Signal and Wickr. Please leave a comment if you disagree -…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Though the article doesn’t mention the coordinated and active censoring of the NY Post story, even in private conversations, which was already a heavy stroke of interference in the elections. You packed a lot into this one sentence. Please share your evidence.
Straight from the source itself: https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/facebook-twitter-block-the-pos...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One can simultaneously roll their eyes about slippery slopes, argue that this is simply banning obvious illegal activities, etc.--and be at least a little bit discomfited that a bunch of private companies can basically disappear someone from public discourse if they want to. Mind you. Historically most people didn't have access to a platform anyway. And the record from at least some players like AWS is that their ban…
Most people didn't use to have a platform like Twitter where you could instantaneously reach the whole world, no. But the argument was always "If you don't like it just build your own thing". So, sure, maybe the NYTimes didn't have to publish you, but you could go buy a mimeograph or a printing press and put out your own newsletter, even if you had to stand on the street corner and hand it out yourself. But now the c…
I'm more then happy for us to decide that some parts of the internet should be public spaces, paid for out of general revenue and provided for the common good by the government. Internet access should be a basic human right.
But frankly, once you have IP-packet routing functionality, that's as much as I think you should be offered. No one else has any obligation to associate with you.
> We may see the emergence of new business structures for communications and media platforms, or an increase in collective actions taken by tech workers. In all likelihood, this past weekend was a turning point not only for Trump and Trumpism, but for the American technology industry. I'd like to hear about some testable predictions from the HN community. What do you think will happen and with what odds? And, to put…