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

641–650 of 1001 posts

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

#641

Post by yowlingcat »

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…

> My preference would be that no one is, and we go back to uncurated things and to an internet where you have to look for the things you want to read/watch, versus getting content pushed onto you.

What a well written response, my friend. Hats off. Perhaps EdgeRank truly was a pandora's box we should have left well enough alone. Who knew how much havoc a simple matrix determinant could cause?

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

#642

Post by lawnchair_larry »

montagg wrote: post #621
nemo44x wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speech is considered violence by some people. It has been this way since the late 80's but it was confined to certain subcultures that weren't taken too seriously. But they have taken over certain institutions, like the university (and increasingly big-tech), and own that platform and teach this as esteemed fact rather than an opinion. And it's dangerous because when you equate speech with violence then how far are w…

There is absolutely speech that is violence, and it is typically not protected by free speech. Harassment, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, calling for literal violence against others, these are allowed to be regulated (in the US) and understood broadly to be dangerous.

No, speech is not violence, full stop. It never has been, and it’s a mistake to even tolerate this new definition.

Think about it. How can calling for violence be violence? The violence is the violence, the calling for it is incitement.

Redefining terms like this is nothing more than subverting the truth to control a narrative.

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

#643

Post by devwastaken »

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.

The information in question was obtained very clearly illigally, where linking and consuming the source information is illigal. Twitter has a legal obligation to not allow people on their platform to use their service to do this.

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

#644

Post by lawnchair_larry »

joe_the_user wrote: post #505
nemo44x wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speech is considered violence by some people. It has been this way since the late 80's but it was confined to certain subcultures that weren't taken too seriously. But they have taken over certain institutions, like the university (and increasingly big-tech), and own that platform and teach this as esteemed fact rather than an opinion. And it's dangerous because when you equate speech with violence then how far are w…

Speech is considered violence by some people. Some people consider a lot of speech violence but nearly everyone considers a small amount of speech violence or some equivalent. Telling someone to grab a electrified wire is violence by nearly everyone's standard. A mafioso directing a hit man to kill is nearly everyone's standard. The famous "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is mostly violence etc. So you can't say…

Telling someone to grab an electric fence is not violence by anyone’s standard. Nor is shouting fire. As a society, we have never considered those utterances to be violent crime.

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

#645

Post by nemo44x »

stolen_biscuit wrote: post #629
nemo44x wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speech is considered violence by some people. It has been this way since the late 80's but it was confined to certain subcultures that weren't taken too seriously. But they have taken over certain institutions, like the university (and increasingly big-tech), and own that platform and teach this as esteemed fact rather than an opinion. And it's dangerous because when you equate speech with violence then how far are w…

> Speech is considered violence by some people. It has been this way since the late 80's but it was confined to certain subcultures that weren't taken too seriously. But they have taken over certain institutions, like the university (and increasingly big-tech), and own that platform and teach this as esteemed fact rather than an opinion. Who is they ?

Fair question.

The radical left as some name them. But more specifically the activist culture motivated by “critical theory” to dismantle scientific-liberalism and enlightenment principals/philosophy.

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

#646

Post by lurchpop »

RIMR wrote: post #575
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.

I think the fundamental issue with what you're saying here is that it assumes that privately owned social networks are places where free speech matters. These are curated spaces, and they are not run democratically, they are run capitalistically. Twitter isn't even in the business of providing a forum for speech. They're in the business of serving ads. Your free speech cannot be infringed by a corporation, as the cor…

It becomes an issue when people do try to start their own networks, those networks get smeared and service providers (credit cards, hosting, dns) start cutting them off.

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

#647

Post by ip26 »

lukejduncan wrote: post #628
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…

The challenge with this framing is that you're equating social media to newspapers which provide editorialization. IIRC, one of the core distinctions that allow many tech companies to avoid liability for consumer generated content is not having an editorial role. If they embrace being media companies and editors I believe different regulations will apply to tech companies than currently do.

Isn't that why they are cracking down now? As social media platforms were increasingly used to spread outright lies, propaganda, and radicalization, the public started to demand social media apply editorial functions- and here we are today.

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

#648

Post by ggm »

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.

Its not a black and white world. Its a shades-of-gray world. Hill to die on is a figure of speech. The problem is, some people have taken its metaphorical strength to very odd places: Pizzagate, is turning it into a hill to kill from.

I love free speech. I hate the outcome. I wanted a more literate connected world to empower truth, and did not realise the compelling power of falsity. It spreads faster.

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

#649

Post by lurchpop »

notadev wrote: post #358
senthil_rajasek wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn't happen overnight. 2016 U.S elections changed things a lot. Spreading misinformation is not free speech.

Misinformation is such an Orwellian term, considering most "facts" and "fact checking" are subjective unless it's hard numbers, but even using numbers and stats isn't enough anymore because even they must be interpreted within the context of contradictory concepts like a persons lived experience.

Or there’s cases like WMDs or “Assad gassed his own people” which are outright frauds coming from the establishment who determines what is factual.

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

#650

Post by crusso »

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.

We're in a power transition where the Left is now in control of major societal levers: Academia, Hollywood, sports entertainment, the mainstream news media, large government bureaucracies, and big tech.

Once the loudest champions of free speech because they were trying to break down the old power structures, the Left is now consolidating its power and sees no need to allow upstarts to criticize the new order.

Post reply on HN