Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship? • Hacker News Board

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#81

Post by II2II » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 10:46 PM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #2

Is there a law? Or are the platforms in question voluntarily using guidelines as guidance? Are platforms punished in the courts for failing to follow guidelines or implement moderation? As far as I know, the answers to the above are a resounding "no," and it follows that this isn't state censorship. It's the freedom of association, and freedom of speech, exercised by corporation-persons.

If I'm interpreting what the author said correctly, it is an incredibly resounding no. It sounds like these platforms are using the CDC as a credible source for information and the platforms are creating their own guidelines for what can and cannot be said.

Being concerned about treating the government as a reliable source of information is one thing, but conflating it with guidance on acceptable speech is quite another.

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#82

Post by Natsu » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 11:30 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #48

ndndksksl wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public social media is really fundamentally different from traditional media because it functions as the public square in a way that traditional media never did. As such, it needs to be evaluated and regulated as the novel thing that it is. It's not a newspaper and it's not a telephone company, and it's time to stop trying to apply old regulatory arguments and mindsets to the new situation. So far, attempts to regula…

Social media also has tremendous potebtial for manipulation. If Fox News or New York Times prints false allegations, they and their brand are on the hook. But Facebook can just boost someome who holds that opinion, you would have the inpression that millions of independant people are thinking that, and would never know who is pulling the strings.

Social media been doing that since nearly the start, though mostly for advertising purposes via "influencers." Read more about some of the early growth hacks (which have included lots of faked engagement) for most media companies to get a sense of this.

It's clear to people who were online since the early days how much things have been changed both artificially and naturally (Eternal September).

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#83

Post by smileypete » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 11:38 PM UTC

api wrote: post #73

uniqueid wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I picture a future with hordes of millions of gullible fools who can be commanded like armies by social media demagogues. I watched a stream of a London anti-lockdown protest the other day, and that's more or less what occurred to me. https://youtu.be/hy7bmdDGKZ8 The stream is six hours long, but it's packed with moments such as: 35m — Crowd listens to some conspiracy theorist blame all the world's ills on 'Kabalah'…

It’s depressing as hell. My political DNA is libertarian but I am starting to wonder if there isn’t a subset of humanity that simply can’t handle this level of unfiltered access to information. Even worse I am having a tough time putting my finger on what the shortcoming of these people is. It’s not IQ as I’ve seen and met quite a few gullible sheep of this sort who would undoubtedly score high. I don’t see a strong…

>Even worse I am having a tough time putting my finger on what the shortcoming of these people is.

Polarization is the mRNA of disinformation.

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#84

Post by zepto » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 11:39 PM UTC

plerpin wrote: post #14

The thing that really bothers me about Weinstein's approach is that, while he and his wife are scientists, they're exceedingly quick to assert their hunches as scientific fact. They wear their scientist labels on their sleeves but their thinking is far more ideological. In a recent podcast about fluoridation in tap water, they were talking about how they avoid iodized salt, because iodine is a reactive chemical and y…

> they're exceedingly quick to assert their hunches as scientific fact

I have literally never heard them do this - they are exceedingly careful not to in general.

> they were talking about how they avoid iodized salt, because iodine is a reactive chemical and you don't want to OD on it

What fact did they state was scientific about this?

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#85

Post by throwawayboise » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 11:49 PM UTC

roywiggins wrote: post #31

fighterpilot wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't iodine deficiency a common thing?

it was more of a thing before they started adding it to salt, yeah

You need to check, though, because it's not added to all salt. Yes if you buy traditional "table salt" such as sold by Morton, it is iodized. Kosher salt, sea salt, salt crystals for use in a grinder, and other "natural" salts are generally not.

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#86

Post by geofft » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 11:55 PM UTC

Covzire wrote: post #11

Facebook's censoring of #Revolution via their claims of moral superiority should frighten the shit out of every free person on earth. While we still have it reasonably good in America, their willingness to suppress speech in good times doesn't bode well for people who will be oppressed during bad times. The first amendment made it clear that not even the government had the authority to use their vast moral authority,…

The day I depend on an $800B corporation whose customers are other corporations and for whom my personal data is just an asset, in order to be able to speak and organize, is the day I am no longer free.

No law (Facebook's revenue in 2020 was more than twice the entire US Department of Justice's budget) nor good intention on the part of anyone currently in a leadership role at Facebook can in any meaningful way prevent them from abusing their position, if they want to. Certainly, convincing people in Facebook's leadership to do the right thing right now is not a meaningful solution.

I agree with you that the problem is market forces. If you tell people that they are free to make as much money as they want in any way they want, the natural, profitable result is the conglomeration of power. The invisible hand will scoop up everything into one big corporation. Even conventional antitrust law - the thing that prevents Big Tech from becoming a single overarching entity - is an admission that "market forces" are not actually good for society.

I'm a fan of proposals like this to address not only the serious danger of Big Tech but the ongoing danger that the market will create further monstrosities in the future: https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big...

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#87

Post by MomoXenosaga » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 11:56 PM UTC

Always amuses me when it slowly dawns on people just how much power a government can exert if it wants to. Facebook, and most importantly it's advertisers, simply cannot afford to piss off countries. It is a battle that is not in their financial interest. Corporations will not stand up for your rights. You want to fight the power you'll have to become tank man yourself.

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#88

Post by geofft » Sun, Jul 04, 2021, 12:08 AM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #66

Covzire wrote: post #11

Facebook's censoring of #Revolution via their claims of moral superiority should frighten the shit out of every free person on earth. While we still have it reasonably good in America, their willingness to suppress speech in good times doesn't bode well for people who will be oppressed during bad times. The first amendment made it clear that not even the government had the authority to use their vast moral authority,…

If #revolution getting censored by facebook is enough to stop the movement, then it was slacktivism to begin with. Or as Gil Scott Heron said, the revolution will not be televised. One cannot expect mainstream businesses to support a movement that will fundamentally destabilize their revenue streams. Libertarians are at a loggerhead here. On one hand, businesses are meant to be free to make money however they please,…

It occurs to me that the libertarian dilemma you mention, that the unregulated market rewards businesses that restrict liberty in practice, is fairly similar to the dilemma Peter Thiel mentions in https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio... , that expanding the franchise brought in voters who do not vote for libertarian ideals. He calls "capitalist democracy" is an oxymoron, and implies that the libertarian must choose one or the other.

In that essay Thiel advocates for capitalism over democracy, and suggests literally escaping to the internet, outer space, or the seas to be free from democracy and find a refuge for capitalism. But I think the better argument for the liberty-minded is to remain within our jurisdictions and choose democracy over capitalism. The rights to vote as you will, and to speak as you will without censorship, and to assemble as you will without restriction, are protected in our Constitution and moreover are widely seen as civic virtues too. The right to run a business as large as you will and acquire whichever other market participants you will is not protected, and we should stop seeing it as a virtue. Who can say, honestly, that the existence of Facebook as it is today is a victory for liberty?

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#89

Post by srtjstjsj » Sun, Jul 04, 2021, 12:10 AM UTC

chroem- wrote: post #19

klyrs wrote: post #2

Is there a law? Or are the platforms in question voluntarily using guidelines as guidance? Are platforms punished in the courts for failing to follow guidelines or implement moderation? As far as I know, the answers to the above are a resounding "no," and it follows that this isn't state censorship. It's the freedom of association, and freedom of speech, exercised by corporation-persons.

Corporations don't have freedom of speech and it is misleading to suggest that they do. In fact, there is an enormous amount of legal precedent for mandated corporate speech. If you don't believe me, look at your nearest "nutrition facts" label.

Nutrition Facts rules apply the same to humans and corporations.

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#90

Post by AnimalMuppet » Sun, Jul 04, 2021, 12:19 AM UTC

kyrra wrote: post #78

Covzire wrote: post #11

Facebook's censoring of #Revolution via their claims of moral superiority should frighten the shit out of every free person on earth. While we still have it reasonably good in America, their willingness to suppress speech in good times doesn't bode well for people who will be oppressed during bad times. The first amendment made it clear that not even the government had the authority to use their vast moral authority,…

A possibile solution is changes to section 230. I saw a good approach last year that you can read about here: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/washington-can-put-a-... The key bit was a recommendation from the Trump DOJ, which said: > The Justice Department, which last month announced recommended amendments to the statute, has suggested that Congress replace “otherwise objectionable” with “unlawful” and “promot…

Make that change, and watch the definition of "terrorism" expand out of all recognition.