5 ms·

The social atomization trend in the west began long before facebooks and googles even existed, before the Internet was available to the general public. They, an

by blfr 9y ago

The social atomization trend in the west began long before facebooks and googles even existed, before the Internet was available to the general public. They, and Facebook in particular, probably aren't helping but they didn't cause it either. What bothers me the most about these tech giants is the complete about face on free speech. Companies that couldn't exist without it, that couldn't have been founded without the open web (Google) and belief in freedom of communication (Twitter), as bastions of free speech (Reddit) are now busy coming up with new ways to censor their users. This is part of their progressive culture mentioned in the OP but a very specific one. I don't know how many people still care but this is how they lost all my goodwill towards them.

smsm42 9y ago
> They, and Facebook in particular, probably aren't helping but they didn't cause it either. Facebook is doing the reverse, if anything. I keep in touch (of various degrees) on FB with people whom I would never keep in touch or even know anything about them without it. Yeah, of course, I could write letters. But who actually does it? Nobody would do it.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  There are other means. People wrote letters in the past. Called you on the phone. Sent SMS. Sent email. Communicated on forums. Used chat programs and video conferencing. Facebook has no monopoly on social networking, fortunately. Heck, HN is a social site and I see no ads. Server costs are super low. The only problem is search engines ran by advertisers having major sway. While Google etc. are investing quite a bit into networking, that is boot strictly necessary even for sites of this magnitude. Nor very expensive, which is why they are profiting a lot.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    HN is not the kind of social site Facebook is. You don't post you dogs pics and your kids and the funny mushroom you found on yesterday's hike on HN (and yeah, people do that all the time and they want to do it).
otalp 9y ago
Google has started censoring any anti-war, progressive, independent outlets in an effort to combat "fake news" and "russian propaganda". Here are some extracts from the findings of the WSWS: "....estimating the decline of traffic generated by Google searches for 13 sites with substantial readerships. The results are as follows: * wsws.org fell by 67 percent * alternet.org fell by 63 percent * globalresearch.ca fell by 62 percent * consortiumnews.com fell by 47 percent * socialistworker.org fell by 47 percent * mediamatters.org fell by 42 percent * commondreams.org fell by 37 percent * internationalviewpoint.org fell by 36 percent * democracynow.org fell by 36 percent * wikileaks.org fell by 30 percent * truth-out.org fell by 25 percent * counterpunch.org fell by 21 percent * theintercept.com fell by 19 percent In the twelve months preceding the implementation of the new Google protocols, the WSWS had experienced a substantial increase in readership. A significant component of this increase was the product of Google search results. The rapid rise in search traffic reflected the well-documented growth in popular interest in socialist politics during 2016. The rate of growth accelerated following the November election, which led to large protests against the election of Trump. Search traffic to the WSWS peaked in April 2017, precisely at the point when Google began the implementation of its censorship protocols. Another site affected by Google’s action has provided information that confirms the findings of the WSWS: “In late May, changes to Google’s algorithm negatively impacted the volume of traffic to the Common Dreams website from organic Google searches,” said Aaron Kaufman, director of development at progressive news outlet Common Dreams. “Since May, traffic from Google Search as a percentage of total traffic to the Common Dreams website has decreased nearly 50 percent.” The extent and impact of Google’s actions prove that a combination of techniques is being employed to block access to targeted sites. These involve the direct flagging and blackballing of the WSWS and the other 12 sites listed above by Google evaluators. These sites are assigned a highly negative rating that assures that their articles will be either demoted or entirely bypassed. In addition, new programming technology teaches the computers to think like the evaluators, that is, to emulate their preferences and prejudices. Finally, the precision of this operation strongly suggests that there is an additional range of exclusion techniques involving the selection of terms, words, phrases and topics that are associated with socialist and left-wing websites."
- cvsh 9y ago
  Good, as long as right-populist sites are losing new readers as fast as left-populist sites are. If Google is indeed making an active effort to use its influence to stall our societal descent into Weimar Republic politics, it should be applauded.
Singletoned 9y ago
I think we are starting to see that free-speech has a tendancy to destroy itself, in the same way that free-markets do. True free speech will end up in a system being exploited by those who can make the most noise the most often. True free markets tend to end up as a series of oligopolies. Small amounts of regulation can help both systems do better, but we need to find a way to reliably regulate regulation (as regulation also has a tendancy to destroy itself).
- thanatropism 9y ago
  Yeah, but we have 100 years of theory (backed with evidence) on market failures, so we know what to regulate.
- nol13 9y ago
  See: Hacker News vs. Slashdot Free speech is great, but a bit of regulation on the obvious trolls goes a long way in making this a good place for the non-deranged to discuss things.
eighthnate 9y ago
> What bothers me the most about these tech giants is the complete about face on free speech. Do they have a choice in the matter. The elites have the government and old school media attacking and pressuring them every day now. I don't think any company or industry can withstand such intense pressure. Everyday, we get a story from the nytimes, wapo or hundred of other media outlets attacking tech companies as being evil or russian stooges.

by blfr 9y ago

smsm42 9y ago

> They, and Facebook in particular, probably aren't helping but they didn't cause it either. Facebook is doing the reverse, if anything. I keep in touch (of various degrees) on FB with people whom I would never keep in touch or even know anything about them without it. Yeah, of course, I could write letters. But who actually does it? Nobody would do it.

AstralStorm 9y ago
There are other means. People wrote letters in the past. Called you on the phone. Sent SMS. Sent email. Communicated on forums. Used chat programs and video conferencing. Facebook has no monopoly on social networking, fortunately. Heck, HN is a social site and I see no ads. Server costs are super low. The only problem is search engines ran by advertisers having major sway. While Google etc. are investing quite a bit into networking, that is boot strictly necessary even for sites of this magnitude. Nor very expensive, which is why they are profiting a lot.
- smsm42 9y ago
  HN is not the kind of social site Facebook is. You don't post you dogs pics and your kids and the funny mushroom you found on yesterday's hike on HN (and yeah, people do that all the time and they want to do it).

otalp 9y ago

Google has started censoring any anti-war, progressive, independent outlets in an effort to combat "fake news" and "russian propaganda". Here are some extracts from the findings of the WSWS: "....estimating the decline of traffic generated by Google searches for 13 sites with substantial readerships. The results are as follows: * wsws.org fell by 67 percent * alternet.org fell by 63 percent * globalresearch.ca fell by 62 percent * consortiumnews.com fell by 47 percent * socialistworker.org fell by 47 percent * mediamatters.org fell by 42 percent * commondreams.org fell by 37 percent * internationalviewpoint.org fell by 36 percent * democracynow.org fell by 36 percent * wikileaks.org fell by 30 percent * truth-out.org fell by 25 percent * counterpunch.org fell by 21 percent * theintercept.com fell by 19 percent In the twelve months preceding the implementation of the new Google protocols, the WSWS had experienced a substantial increase in readership. A significant component of this increase was the product of Google search results. The rapid rise in search traffic reflected the well-documented growth in popular interest in socialist politics during 2016. The rate of growth accelerated following the November election, which led to large protests against the election of Trump. Search traffic to the WSWS peaked in April 2017, precisely at the point when Google began the implementation of its censorship protocols. Another site affected by Google’s action has provided information that confirms the findings of the WSWS: “In late May, changes to Google’s algorithm negatively impacted the volume of traffic to the Common Dreams website from organic Google searches,” said Aaron Kaufman, director of development at progressive news outlet Common Dreams. “Since May, traffic from Google Search as a percentage of total traffic to the Common Dreams website has decreased nearly 50 percent.” The extent and impact of Google’s actions prove that a combination of techniques is being employed to block access to targeted sites. These involve the direct flagging and blackballing of the WSWS and the other 12 sites listed above by Google evaluators. These sites are assigned a highly negative rating that assures that their articles will be either demoted or entirely bypassed. In addition, new programming technology teaches the computers to think like the evaluators, that is, to emulate their preferences and prejudices. Finally, the precision of this operation strongly suggests that there is an additional range of exclusion techniques involving the selection of terms, words, phrases and topics that are associated with socialist and left-wing websites."

cvsh 9y ago
Good, as long as right-populist sites are losing new readers as fast as left-populist sites are. If Google is indeed making an active effort to use its influence to stall our societal descent into Weimar Republic politics, it should be applauded.

Singletoned 9y ago

I think we are starting to see that free-speech has a tendancy to destroy itself, in the same way that free-markets do. True free speech will end up in a system being exploited by those who can make the most noise the most often. True free markets tend to end up as a series of oligopolies. Small amounts of regulation can help both systems do better, but we need to find a way to reliably regulate regulation (as regulation also has a tendancy to destroy itself).

thanatropism 9y ago
Yeah, but we have 100 years of theory (backed with evidence) on market failures, so we know what to regulate.
nol13 9y ago
See: Hacker News vs. Slashdot Free speech is great, but a bit of regulation on the obvious trolls goes a long way in making this a good place for the non-deranged to discuss things.

eighthnate 9y ago

> What bothers me the most about these tech giants is the complete about face on free speech. Do they have a choice in the matter. The elites have the government and old school media attacking and pressuring them every day now. I don't think any company or industry can withstand such intense pressure. Everyday, we get a story from the nytimes, wapo or hundred of other media outlets attacking tech companies as being evil or russian stooges.