5 ms·

This U.S. election has been an important inflection point in displaying the bias and application of bias by "apparently" disinterested entities like Twitter, re

by Clanan 10y ago

This U.S. election has been an important inflection point in displaying the bias and application of bias by "apparently" disinterested entities like Twitter, reddit and the like - places that claim to advocate diversity and openness, yet struggle to do so in the face of conflict. I hope this spawns a renewed push for education into why things like freedom of speech and tolerance are so important. It all goes back to people being people. For us humans it's too easy to break the rules because we think we know what's best, etc. As the saying goes, history too easily repeats itself. Castro's passing is perhaps ironic in the timing.

jaredklewis 10y ago
You seem to be reading a lot into a simple business decision. Most advertisers probably don't want their brand advertised alongside (and thus associated with) highly controversial content, including racist content. Thus most ad networks have general policies against hate speech and the like. Same reason you can't monetize videos about war on youtube. It's not a conspiracy by google to stop people from making videos about war (which you are still free to do), advertisers just don't want their valuable brands becoming mentally associated with horrifying footage of human slaughter.
exabrial 10y ago
My thoughts exactly.
bonaldi 10y ago
Unfortunately reality has a well-known liberal bias. Let's not mistake disinterest and impartiality for unquestioning support of "all sides".
- Clanan 10y ago
  Not sure what your first comment means. My point is simply that many entities pass themselves off as these open platforms for diverse opinions, when in reality they will target and/or censor those they disagree with. Is this a good thing sometimes? Obviously, e.g. with illegal things. But it can also be a dangerous habit. This isn't about pointing fingers at specific people or companies, but about recognizing that this is human and no one is above the temptation.
  - bonaldi 10y ago
    The first comment is a reference to http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2014/04/18/on-the-liberal-bias-of-facts/ http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2014/04/18/on-the-li... which suggests that yes, one "side" is more tempted and prone to this than the other. The intent was to say that there is more to this than "platforms for diverse opinions ... censoring those they disagree with". Regardless of their agreement, if they just censor those that are false they will appear to have a liberal bias. This is reportedly what scared Facebook away from dealing with fake, mostly right-wing, propaganda on their platform.
  - AnOscelot 10y ago
    Reddit has infamously tried to be a free speech platform. They've allowed misogynists, nazis, rabid Trump devotees, and fat-haters a place to spew. The result of that spewing has been an enormous amount of trolling and harassment which ends up silencing people and making Reddit less diverse. At some point you have to choose whose free speech you value more. Reddit has made some small attempts to stop the harassment, which in turn has made Reddit somewhat more diverse. Because misogyny has become a little less prevalent, I'm seeing more women on the site. Free speech, as far as internet forums go, is not a black and white issue.
danharaj 10y ago
Are we going to pretend that the white nationalist alt-right has been a good citizen on platforms like Twitter and Reddit? Hacker News itself is heavily moderated: spaces for expression are a commons, and people who abuse those spaces make them less useful for others, until they have infected the entire space making it only amenable to their sort of expression. There's no such abstract ideal of free speech that transcends its legal definition. Speech is not neutral. If speech were neutral, it would not be so important. Since speech has effects, like harassing speech forcing people off platforms for expression, everyone has a shared interest in the expressive platforms they use. If an ideal of free speech precluded the moderation of conflicts arising from speech, what does it actually mean? That the most aggressive, vicious speakers get to monopolize the spaces they force others out of? Re: Tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- potatosoup 10y ago
  Have to be careful with definitions. There are some fringe groups of white supremacists and their ilk which pretty much everyone (including Trump) wants to crawl back to their cave. There is also a diverse group of people of all backgrounds who want political change and are tired of both dems and reps. The latter group is magnitudes larger, and yet the former group seems to get all the attention. Why?
  - gaur 10y ago
    > Have to be careful with definitions. OK, so let's spell it out explicitly. The term "alt-right" was created by Richard Spencer, who is often described as a white supremacist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer > Spencer advocates for a white homeland for a "dispossessed white race" and calls for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" to halt the "deconstruction" of European culture.[16][22][23]
    - potatosoup 10y ago
      Think we can all agree that the people you are describing are trash. My point is that they are a fortunately very small non-statistically significant group and their beliefs do not represent the beliefs of most Americans (yes, including Trump voters.)
potatosoup 10y ago
As an immigrant from the (once) Soviet Union, the current inability among my Silicon Valley/tech friends to say anything but pro-left views scares me. Even hinting that I may want something other than NYT-like viewpoints seems to cause people to bring out the pitchforks.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- e40 10y ago
  Are you suggesting that Breitbart is the mirror image of NYT on the right? Because that's what you seem to be implying here, and it is ridiculous. Breitbart is a cesspool. Perhaps you are claiming the NYT is, too?
  - maccard 10y ago
    No, he's suggesting that any time he suggests that the NYT might be anything other than the gospel truth, he's attacked (like this)
    - potatosoup 10y ago
      Correct.
  - vixen99 10y ago
    No one should care about your opinion unless you support your contention.
- programmarchy 10y ago
  There are probably more conservatives/libertarians in tech than you think, but don't speak their views for fear of being outcast (e.g. not getting hired, invited, funded, etc.). In fact, they probably even publicly agree with pro-left opinions just to keep from being "outed", even though they may disagree in private. What's ironic is that the left prides themselves on being diverse, inclusive, and open-minded. It'd be quite funny if didn't lead down such a dangerous path. I'm beginning to understand why early enlightenment thinkers formed secret societies to discuss their ideas. Because if the normies found out what they actually believed, then they'd probably be outcast from their societies, or worse. Maybe there needs to be a secret handshake or something.

by Clanan 10y ago

jaredklewis 10y ago

You seem to be reading a lot into a simple business decision. Most advertisers probably don't want their brand advertised alongside (and thus associated with) highly controversial content, including racist content. Thus most ad networks have general policies against hate speech and the like. Same reason you can't monetize videos about war on youtube. It's not a conspiracy by google to stop people from making videos about war (which you are still free to do), advertisers just don't want their valuable brands becoming mentally associated with horrifying footage of human slaughter.

exabrial 10y ago

My thoughts exactly.

bonaldi 10y ago

Unfortunately reality has a well-known liberal bias. Let's not mistake disinterest and impartiality for unquestioning support of "all sides".

Clanan 10y ago
Not sure what your first comment means. My point is simply that many entities pass themselves off as these open platforms for diverse opinions, when in reality they will target and/or censor those they disagree with. Is this a good thing sometimes? Obviously, e.g. with illegal things. But it can also be a dangerous habit. This isn't about pointing fingers at specific people or companies, but about recognizing that this is human and no one is above the temptation.
- bonaldi 10y ago
  The first comment is a reference to http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2014/04/18/on-the-liberal-bias-of-facts/ http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2014/04/18/on-the-li... which suggests that yes, one "side" is more tempted and prone to this than the other. The intent was to say that there is more to this than "platforms for diverse opinions ... censoring those they disagree with". Regardless of their agreement, if they just censor those that are false they will appear to have a liberal bias. This is reportedly what scared Facebook away from dealing with fake, mostly right-wing, propaganda on their platform.
- AnOscelot 10y ago
  Reddit has infamously tried to be a free speech platform. They've allowed misogynists, nazis, rabid Trump devotees, and fat-haters a place to spew. The result of that spewing has been an enormous amount of trolling and harassment which ends up silencing people and making Reddit less diverse. At some point you have to choose whose free speech you value more. Reddit has made some small attempts to stop the harassment, which in turn has made Reddit somewhat more diverse. Because misogyny has become a little less prevalent, I'm seeing more women on the site. Free speech, as far as internet forums go, is not a black and white issue.

danharaj 10y ago

Are we going to pretend that the white nationalist alt-right has been a good citizen on platforms like Twitter and Reddit? Hacker News itself is heavily moderated: spaces for expression are a commons, and people who abuse those spaces make them less useful for others, until they have infected the entire space making it only amenable to their sort of expression. There's no such abstract ideal of free speech that transcends its legal definition. Speech is not neutral. If speech were neutral, it would not be so important. Since speech has effects, like harassing speech forcing people off platforms for expression, everyone has a shared interest in the expressive platforms they use. If an ideal of free speech precluded the moderation of conflicts arising from speech, what does it actually mean? That the most aggressive, vicious speakers get to monopolize the spaces they force others out of? Re: Tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

potatosoup 10y ago
Have to be careful with definitions. There are some fringe groups of white supremacists and their ilk which pretty much everyone (including Trump) wants to crawl back to their cave. There is also a diverse group of people of all backgrounds who want political change and are tired of both dems and reps. The latter group is magnitudes larger, and yet the former group seems to get all the attention. Why?
- gaur 10y ago
  > Have to be careful with definitions. OK, so let's spell it out explicitly. The term "alt-right" was created by Richard Spencer, who is often described as a white supremacist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer > Spencer advocates for a white homeland for a "dispossessed white race" and calls for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" to halt the "deconstruction" of European culture.[16][22][23]
  - potatosoup 10y ago
    Think we can all agree that the people you are describing are trash. My point is that they are a fortunately very small non-statistically significant group and their beliefs do not represent the beliefs of most Americans (yes, including Trump voters.)

potatosoup 10y ago

As an immigrant from the (once) Soviet Union, the current inability among my Silicon Valley/tech friends to say anything but pro-left views scares me. Even hinting that I may want something other than NYT-like viewpoints seems to cause people to bring out the pitchforks.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
e40 10y ago
Are you suggesting that Breitbart is the mirror image of NYT on the right? Because that's what you seem to be implying here, and it is ridiculous. Breitbart is a cesspool. Perhaps you are claiming the NYT is, too?
- maccard 10y ago
  No, he's suggesting that any time he suggests that the NYT might be anything other than the gospel truth, he's attacked (like this)
  - potatosoup 10y ago
    Correct.
- vixen99 10y ago
  No one should care about your opinion unless you support your contention.
programmarchy 10y ago
There are probably more conservatives/libertarians in tech than you think, but don't speak their views for fear of being outcast (e.g. not getting hired, invited, funded, etc.). In fact, they probably even publicly agree with pro-left opinions just to keep from being "outed", even though they may disagree in private. What's ironic is that the left prides themselves on being diverse, inclusive, and open-minded. It'd be quite funny if didn't lead down such a dangerous path. I'm beginning to understand why early enlightenment thinkers formed secret societies to discuss their ideas. Because if the normies found out what they actually believed, then they'd probably be outcast from their societies, or worse. Maybe there needs to be a secret handshake or something.