20 ms·

The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

319 points by yostrovs 9y ago

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
https://outline.com/gCJe5t https://outline.com/gCJe5t
kelukelugames 9y ago
It's funny how competing groups rally around terms that sound the same. Terms that carry positive connotations and share common words. "Pro choice" vs "pro life". And now we have "diversity and inclusion" vs "diversity of thought." update: haha, there's a wikipedia section on this called political framing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pro-choice_movement#Terminology_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pro-choice_movem...
- backpropaganda 9y ago
  Another one: Feminism and Postfeminism. I think it's basically because you can respond to a question about A with B with some melodic alliteration, the kind which draws cheers from the crowd. This idea seems to have been ported from the "yes, and ..." idea of improvisational comedy. That is, for maximum offense in a debate, agree with all the accusations of your opponent, and then hit them back with a small "but". Are you pro-choice? I'm pro-life! Do you care about diversity? Yes, of thoughts. Are you a feminist? I'm postfeminist!
  - abiox 9y ago
    i guess i'm missing some context, because this seems kinda nonsequitur.
- wmil 9y ago
  It's sad that we no longer get names like "antidisestablishmentarianism".
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
The solution really is a revitalization of antitrust policy. The reason markets work is because participants in them are bound to a 'race to the bottom' with many other participants doing the same thing. When companies aren't forced to race to the bottom against each other, the conditions of authoritarianism rise. Authoritarian structures don't have to necessarily come from government - monopolies, oligopolies and implicit cartels are some of the authoritarians of today. The question is have we reached a point where technology and globalization provide such enormous returns to the economies of scale that we can't go back or is all this corporate concentration just due to a lack of government enforcement?
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > The question is have we reached a point where technology and globalization provide such enormous returns to the economies of scale that we can't go back or is all this corporate concentration just due to a lack of government enforcement? At some point, America decided that only horizontal monopolies counted, not vertical ones. Many of our concerns about antitrust would be assuaged if regulators started keeping separate markets separate. Like banning content distributors from buying content creators. Or requiring platforms to provide third-party-friendly APIs. Microsoft got in trouble for trying to vertically integrate its browser into its operating system. But Facebook isn't likewise called to task for treating Facebook live streams differently than others.
  - euyyn 9y ago
    Microsoft got in trouble for a good deal of illegal things they did to protect the Windows monopoly from Java :) Integrating IE into the OS was fine in itself, but part of the bigger strategy for which they were sentenced.
    - wdn 9y ago
      Microsoft biggest crime was they didn’t spend any money lobbying. Apple doing the same thing Microsoft did and worst, you cannot even change the default, yet no anti-trust on Apple. Different is Apple one of the biggest spender on lobbying.
reefoctopus 9y ago
Rupert Murdoch’s propaganda threatens the foundation of American democracy.
- mizzack 9y ago
  Am I correctly reading from your tone that you are of the opinion that the remainder of the consolidated media powerhouses somehow don't?
Spivak 9y ago
Apparently having a large market share in advertising also means that you somehow own communication. Yes, a lot of people use Facebook and Google but that doesn't mean that there aren't 50 bajillion means of communication. Network effects are strong but ultimately they don't prevent you from communicating with anybody. The person on the other end of the line who has a strong preference for their chosen form of communication does. There's also basically no barrier to switch, I mean I've got 12 different messaging apps on my phone right now and it's not even close to a burden. And that doesn't even include email and IRC. And when it comes to broadcast communication which this article seems to be focusing on Facebook and Google are by far not the only sources of broadcast. Hell you should be looking at the consolidation of print and broadcast television if you want to see a true cartel on information distribution.
- kelukelugames 9y ago
  > I've got 12 different messaging apps on my phone right now and it's not even close to a burden. This might be a generational issue. I have older relatives who can't use more than one app. If at that. Maybe the people who complain about these things are just bad at discovering other apps and platforms.
  - freeflight 9y ago
    > Maybe the people who complain about these things are just bad at discovering other apps and platforms. Or maybe some people just want to keep their life as simple as possible, attention economy and all? With my mid-30's I don't consider myself "that old", but just the idea of having to manage through a dozen different messenger apps is driving me super anxious just in the same way I like to have all my email accounts in one client/app and not spread across a dozen different clients/apps. There's also something to be said about efficiency; Keeping up with a dozen apps (not just in content but also software version) is a whole lot more effort than doing it with just one app. Maybe I'm actually that old? I just think simpler is usually better and to me, there's nothing "simple" about doing the same thing trough 12 different apps, to me that feels counter-intuitive and in the context of Internet communication, very archaic.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
narrator 9y ago
Which makes me ask the question: do you, gentle Hacker News reader, really want diversity of opinion and why? Do you have unpopular opinions and if so, would you get fired or ostracized for sharing them? Are you practicing crimethink? After all, the only people actually working on alternatives to Google and Facebook are the alt-right who have been de-platformed. Gab.ai is so de-platformed that google doesn't even let them put their app in the play store! Unlike the Pirate Bay and scihub, gab.ai is actually not violating the law. You aren't one of those filthy alt-righters who voted for Trump are you? Are you a person who raises uncomfortable questions that cause mental pain by triggering or creating cognitive dissonance in ideologically defenseless individuals you wish to torture with your arguments? Anyway.... I don't think most of you want the Internet Facebook and Google insulate you all from. Why the heck are you complaining?
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago
  Stop being snide. I know exactly where to find 8chan. I just don't go there because I don't like it.
- danaliv 9y ago
  I dunno about "diversity of opinion" but I'd certainly appreciate the wholesale destruction of tribalism. (I know; not holding my breath.)
- AKrumbach 9y ago
  > Which makes me ask the question: do you, gentle Hacker News reader, really want diversity of opinion and why? I speak only for myself, but the answer is an absolute, complete and emphatic YES. The reason is quite simple: in all of human history, there have been only three "families", broadly speaking, of epistemological methods[1]: * Mysticism: you have been told what is true by an unquestionable (and often distant) authority. Think Moses descending from the mountain--only he can safely speak to God. While God is ultimately the original [claimed] source of the knowledge, it must be funneled through Moses first. * Socratic debate: two humans can talk about the topic, trying to apply abstract reason to determine the "best" answer. Note that in a "pure" Socratic debate, only logic and not any evidence is used. * Scientific study: humans can attempt direct inquiry of an answer from the physical universe. Note that logic need not apply to scientific answers: the results of many particle physics experiments such as the delayed choice quantum eraser are not "logical" in that they violate what "common sense" tells us the universe should allow. Now, there no reason I had to use a religious example for the first family, but they do not exist for the other two: literally, both debate and science cannot work correctly if you do not admit the possibility of contrarian or "heretical" ideas. Since I wish to live in a society jointly directed by reason and science, I must allow (and to some small extent, seek) contrarian and heretical ideas. 1: I'm speaking of epistemology not in the definition taught in philosophical classes (e.g., "How do we know what is real or what is knowledge?"), but a far more direct, literal, and practical application of how knowledge is generated and transmitted between societies/individuals.
davebryand 9y ago
Stop using Facebook. Stop using Google. Problem solved.
debt 9y ago
Journalism is dead. We can't, in near real time, detangle the complexities of the plans of large entities such as governments/corporations and the effects of their policies. That's typically what journalists were really good at. That's the real problem. Colorful thought and artful diversity is the spice of life, but priority number one is consumer safety. We just need to know what's going on! It's been on the downward trend towards the grave for a very, very long time. Facebook/Google are simply nails on the coffin.
trendia 9y ago
The Justice Dept has a very strict definition of monopoly [0] -- it requires both 1) the ability to raise prices profitably above that in a competitive market, and 2) anticompetitive conduct. That means that Google receiving 90% of all searches wouldn't automatically imply market power or anti-competitive conduct, and I can't see how Google or Facebook can raise their prices higher than a "competitive market" if they don't charge anything for their product. How would a competitive market in search and social networking even look? [0] https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-1#cia https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...
- dominotw 9y ago
  How is comcast not a monopoly? That was my only choice when I lived chicago.
  - dmoy 9y ago
    Yea actually I am curious here, I don't know the difference. Not sure why you are downvoted, I for one would appreciate someone who knows more to explain.
  - leereeves 9y ago
    Did you reply to the wrong comment, or did parent remove a reference to Comcast?
    - dominotw 9y ago
      My comment was me wondering if there is more to monopoly than this > 1) the ability to raise prices profitably above that in a competitive market, and 2) anticompetitive conduct. Since that clearly applied to comcast and nothing has been done about it.
  - brixon 9y ago
    That would be a different kind of "monopoly". The government (usually local) granted rights to a single provider in an agreement that they install connections to a minimum user base or geographical area. What would happen otherwise is the providers would only install access in areas that are profitable and not extend further out into the more rural area. What needs to happen is these granted rights should be re-evaluated from time to time.
humanrebar 9y ago
This is the first I heard of the Prager U parental filtering and demonetization. The videos are certainly conservative, both culturally and economically, but the ones I've seen aren't objectionable in any way. In many ways, they are less objectionable than a lot that goes out over the AM radio bands in the U.S. Ars Technica on the story: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/prageru-sues-youtube-says-it-censors-conservative-videos/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/prageru-sues-you... Best I can find of a response from Google: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/heres-googles-response-lawsuit-accusing-youtube-censoring-conservatives-1052745 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/heres-googles-resp...
- lr4444lr 9y ago
  What do you think about the fact that this WSJ article though is "the first you've heard of it"? Could the story itself perhaps have been suppressed in some deliberate manner by Google?
  - nickik 9y ago
    That literally the line they use every time they are talking about the 'evil internet'. They really don't like that people don't just follow them anymore, now they need to grab attention like all those internet blogs they so hate.
  - creaghpatr 9y ago
    Exactly
  - coolgeek 9y ago
    Actually, it's not an article, it's an Op-Ed. You'll see that if you click through.
- tscs37 9y ago
  Some of the PragerU videos are rather disturbing but I'd rather have them public because picking them apart with friends is quite an interesting activity. They are an amazing conversation starter on a variety of topics. I'd hate it if Google started removing them completely, despite me not even closely aligning to their ideology.
guelo 9y ago
Right wing propaganda is so strong and coordinated these days that they can develop a new goal and drive a single message repeatedly across multiple platforms for months or years. This attack on Google is a new right wing message developed this year but they just keep hammering at it across all their channels tailoring their argument to the different audiences and continuously building mind share and momentum.
- colordrops 9y ago
  Both right and left wing propaganda is strong and coordinated these days. I can't say anything that doesn't toe the line with either side and not have them look at me like I'm an asshole. I've been called both a socialist welfare state supporter and a reactionary corporate feudalist. Which is it folks. The division is worse than it ever was in my lifetime.
  - sremani 9y ago
    When you refuse to choose between stalin and hitler, you will have the unique opportunity to be called a nazi and communist at the same time... strange times!
    - MaysonL 9y ago
      In Peter Drucker's memoir, Adventures of a Bystander he relates the story of a contemporary, and onetime colleague of his, who rose fairly high in the Nazi regime, who mentioned, when Drucker was preparing to leave Germany in the early '30s, that he had low-numbered membership cards in both the Nazi and Communist parties.
  - rhizome 9y ago
    You being called names or whatever does not compare at all with a political message discipline executed over multiple mass-media channels.
    - noobiemcfoob 9y ago
TYPE_FASTER 9y ago
> In a November speech, Ajit Pai, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, argued that “edge providers” like social-media websites and search engines “routinely block or discriminate against content they don’t like.” ... > He also pointed to Twitter’s suspension of a pro-life campaign ad from Rep. Marsha Blackburn, an action that would have been illegal if done by a TV or radio station. Which is interesting, considering this FCC decision in 2014: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sue-wilson/fcc-no-more-equal-time-re_b_5332812.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sue-wilson/fcc-no-more-equal-... It's also worth noting that FCC statute 315 (https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/statutes-and-rules-candidate-appearances-advertising https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/statutes-and-rules-candidat...) applies to licensees. Is the FCC going to begin licensing social media sites? Does the FCC consider internet traffic to be a broadcast mechanism? When newspaper publishers are not required to follow the same laws/statutes as radio and TV when it comes to political advertising?
- issue9mm 9y ago
  Without getting into the ideological minutiae, is it not possible for the government to know that there's something wrong in the marketplace, and not be obligated to address it? It should be possible for both the FCC to acknowledge that censorship by large, private, commercial entities is bad for free expression, while acknowledging that it is their platform to do with as they please, IMO.
- TYPE_FASTER 9y ago
  In addition, in 2009 Mike Pence sponsored the "Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009" (https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/226 https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/226). This bill "amends the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), notwithstanding any other provision of any Act, from having the authority to require broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance."
losteverything 9y ago
Am i the only guy who thinks been there, done that. With networks' news & major papers. Of course it will influence and change things. But we created it therefore it is ok. Just scary now
enitihas 9y ago
Food for thought: What if Google+(or any othe google social initiative) had succeeded and this duopoly were to become a monopoly. How worse the world would be?
fjabre 9y ago
I don't think this is necessarily true. If proper regulations are in place Google and Facebook can certainly be out competed in some of their core services. Verizon and ATT threaten diversity much more than does Google or Facebook. That should be painfully obvious to anyone who's done their research. Also WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch which should also raise some flags on this article.
jacksmith21006 9y ago
Not sure ther issue with Google. I use Google Alerts and get a mixture of content and definitely not slanted one way or another. I am pretty liberal but I am someone that can deal with reading the otherside and do not have to put my head in the sand. I will even watch Fox from time to time just to see how they are talking about things. Google would know my slant so putting Breitbart articles in my alerts and on the Google Assistant suggests they are not filtering. Heck I get negative Google stories and clearly if Google was going to filter be the first thing to filter out. I really do not use FB so can not comment about it.
- atomi 9y ago
  Here's something: ask your Google Assistant how old the Earth is. Now ask how old the Moon is. Do you think it's just an innocent oversight that Google Assistant doesn't reply with the age of the Earth? Perhaps it is.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Given that it gives the wrong answer for the moon (even though it's source has the right answer!) and given its spotty coverage of other similar information pairs where there is no credible ideological motive (e.g., sunrise times vs. moonrise times), yes, I think “Knowledge Graph is spotty, incomplete, often inaccurate, and has insufficient human attention” is the Occam’s Razor-compatible answer, despite how fun conspiracy theories can be.
    - atomi 9y ago
      Or it could also be that the source knowledge graph has inconsistent information because of religious mis-information - there's that Occam’s Razor-compatible answer for you.
padseeker 9y ago
It's very concerning that there is so much influence concentrated within such few hands. However I have to ask - would the WSJ would be so concerned if Google or Facebook were conservative leaning outlets? Normally the WSJ defends this kind of duopoly kind of thing - if either Google or Facebook had some sort of right side leaning the WSJ would be preaching to us about the genius of capitalism and the wisdom of the markets.
- hi-im-mi-ih 9y ago
  Can you provide an example of WSJ defending duopolies, or this sort of thing?
  - padseeker 9y ago
    I'd actually love to but the WSJ has a paywall. Generally speaking the WSJ editorial page always defends unfettered markets, less regulation, and anything that would be considered pro business. The WSJ calling for some sort of intervention to deal with the duopoly of Google/Facebook is very out of character. Any principled conservative would admit to that.
    - kyrra 9y ago
      News Corp, WSJ's parent company, is one of the US business that hasn't been the happiest with Google. https://www.recode.net/2017/6/26/15878518/yelp-oracle-news-corp-letter-supporting-eu-action-against-google-antitrust https://www.recode.net/2017/6/26/15878518/yelp-oracle-news-c...
    - hi-im-mi-ih 9y ago
      I see, thanks for the reply padseeker.
  - elefanten 9y ago
    They're pretty warm overall to the telecom industry and tend to side with Ajit Pai.
christmasity 9y ago
The wsj worrying about "diversity of thought"? Is this the same company that spread "fake news" about pewdiepie in order to shut him down? How about we worry about diversity of thought in the news in an ever consolidating and controlled propaganda industry? Or is that a non-starter since wsj sold itself to news corp 10 years ago?
gumby 9y ago
I love that this article begins by quoting an absurdist parody novel, confirming the aphorism "many a true word is spoken in jest"
TomMckenny 9y ago
Says a property of the Murdock-Sinclair duopoly(for much of the country). I seem to be able to access a vastly greater spread of ideas via google.com and facebook.com than wsj.com or foxnews.com
jaaron 9y ago
Ok, I can't read the WSJ article because it's behind a paywall, but I did read an ArsTechnica story about the issue [1]. With _only_ that information (which isn't admittedly much) it appears to be a run-of-the-mill story of YouTube's content policies running amok. Some see nefarious purposes in YouTube's incompetence, but that cynical view doesn't hold up when one considers how consistently YouTube disappoints everyone. Seriously, just search for "YouTube demonetization" and you'll find dozens of similar stories that have _nothing_ to do with politics. YouTube's content filtering and management is a mess and it's always been a mess. Whether it's take down notices, tagging copyrighted content inappropriately, issues with demonetization and advertising, YouTube has consistently struggled with striking a balance between creators, consumers and advertisers. To take that mess and turn it into some sort of commentary about politics, censorship or a general threat to diversity of thought is cynicism and pandering that's worse than YouTube's alleged sins. I expect better out (or used to) out of my Hacker News commentary, but alas, few bothered to even look up the basics of this particular story. [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/prageru-sues-youtube-says-it-censors-conservative-videos/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/prageru-sues-you...
111_1_111 9y ago
Google is the farthest thing from a monopoly. Yahoo, Bing, Ask, AOL, duckduckgo, etc. Google has plenty of competitors. Simply being better than the competition does not make a company a monopoly. If you're trying to claim that Google has monopolized advertising, you're even more wrong. TV, print, radio, billboards and a dozen more advertising mediums all compete with Google/Facebook.
Sam_Harris 9y ago
Hey WSJ - Google and Facebook don't have paywalls.
killjoywashere 9y ago
is there a non-paywall link?
fzeroracer 9y ago
It's really amazing how quickly the topic shifts after the repeal of Net Neutrality. Places were pushing this topic constantly in attempt to shift debate on why insuring ISPs don't do any silly things with user traffic. It very quickly became 'Google and Facebook are monopolies and are controlling all of your content / censoring everything'. This isn't to say that I don't agree that Google and Facebook are exceedingly large companies with far-reaching tendrils controlling a lot of what we see and do. But rather it's blatantly obvious that it's setting up a new target to avoid backlash against giving ISPs effectively more power, especially over said companies. I mean it would be less obvious if he literally didn't come out and say that thing, plus various far-right websites repeating the topic but that's the world we live in right now. I have a feeling the topic won't stick at all beyond being a convenient whataboutism.
camdenlock 9y ago
This has been troubling me for a while. We mainstream liberals seem to be calling for more diversity, but the most vocal amongst us seem to want only superficial diversity (i.e. a variety of physical appearances) instead of diversity of thought/ideas. Take, for instance, the firing of Denise Young Smith from Apple. She correctly argued in favor of ideological diversity being a worthwhile goal for an organization, saying: “There can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blonde men in a room, and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience.” She was crucified by (ostensibly?) mainstream liberals, who apparently felt that such a comment didn’t reflect the true goal of diversity: having a variety of phenotypes in a room. This is only one concrete example, but it’s representative of what I’ve noticed is a growing trend. Not sure if anyone else here has seen it as well, but I suspect some of you have. I hope we all wise up and recognize that what we truly want is a mixture of experience and viewpoints, not just mere phenotypic variety.
gimmeminusnow3 9y ago
Both very bad for humanity and privacy of people. I wonder when people would understand to avoid these services.
paulie_a 9y ago
I cant dispute the conclusion of the article on diversity of thought because the article is blocked by a paywall.
ggggtez 9y ago
Meh, I'm not convinced "diversity of thought" is worth anything. If I say 2+2, and you say 6, well, maybe your thoughts deserve no platform.
cafard 9y ago
Remind me who owns The Wall Street Journal...

319 points by yostrovs 9y ago

https://outline.com/gCJe5t https://outline.com/gCJe5t

It's funny how competing groups rally around terms that sound the same. Terms that carry positive connotations and share common words. "Pro choice" vs "pro life". And now we have "diversity and inclusion" vs "diversity of thought." update: haha, there's a wikipedia section on this called political framing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pro-choice_movement#Terminology_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pro-choice_movem...

backpropaganda 9y ago
Another one: Feminism and Postfeminism. I think it's basically because you can respond to a question about A with B with some melodic alliteration, the kind which draws cheers from the crowd. This idea seems to have been ported from the "yes, and ..." idea of improvisational comedy. That is, for maximum offense in a debate, agree with all the accusations of your opponent, and then hit them back with a small "but". Are you pro-choice? I'm pro-life! Do you care about diversity? Yes, of thoughts. Are you a feminist? I'm postfeminist!
- abiox 9y ago
  i guess i'm missing some context, because this seems kinda nonsequitur.
wmil 9y ago
It's sad that we no longer get names like "antidisestablishmentarianism".

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

The solution really is a revitalization of antitrust policy. The reason markets work is because participants in them are bound to a 'race to the bottom' with many other participants doing the same thing. When companies aren't forced to race to the bottom against each other, the conditions of authoritarianism rise. Authoritarian structures don't have to necessarily come from government - monopolies, oligopolies and implicit cartels are some of the authoritarians of today. The question is have we reached a point where technology and globalization provide such enormous returns to the economies of scale that we can't go back or is all this corporate concentration just due to a lack of government enforcement?

humanrebar 9y ago
> The question is have we reached a point where technology and globalization provide such enormous returns to the economies of scale that we can't go back or is all this corporate concentration just due to a lack of government enforcement? At some point, America decided that only horizontal monopolies counted, not vertical ones. Many of our concerns about antitrust would be assuaged if regulators started keeping separate markets separate. Like banning content distributors from buying content creators. Or requiring platforms to provide third-party-friendly APIs. Microsoft got in trouble for trying to vertically integrate its browser into its operating system. But Facebook isn't likewise called to task for treating Facebook live streams differently than others.
- euyyn 9y ago
  Microsoft got in trouble for a good deal of illegal things they did to protect the Windows monopoly from Java :) Integrating IE into the OS was fine in itself, but part of the bigger strategy for which they were sentenced.
  - wdn 9y ago
    Microsoft biggest crime was they didn’t spend any money lobbying. Apple doing the same thing Microsoft did and worst, you cannot even change the default, yet no anti-trust on Apple. Different is Apple one of the biggest spender on lobbying.

reefoctopus 9y ago

Rupert Murdoch’s propaganda threatens the foundation of American democracy.

mizzack 9y ago
Am I correctly reading from your tone that you are of the opinion that the remainder of the consolidated media powerhouses somehow don't?

Spivak 9y ago

Apparently having a large market share in advertising also means that you somehow own communication. Yes, a lot of people use Facebook and Google but that doesn't mean that there aren't 50 bajillion means of communication. Network effects are strong but ultimately they don't prevent you from communicating with anybody. The person on the other end of the line who has a strong preference for their chosen form of communication does. There's also basically no barrier to switch, I mean I've got 12 different messaging apps on my phone right now and it's not even close to a burden. And that doesn't even include email and IRC. And when it comes to broadcast communication which this article seems to be focusing on Facebook and Google are by far not the only sources of broadcast. Hell you should be looking at the consolidation of print and broadcast television if you want to see a true cartel on information distribution.

kelukelugames 9y ago
> I've got 12 different messaging apps on my phone right now and it's not even close to a burden. This might be a generational issue. I have older relatives who can't use more than one app. If at that. Maybe the people who complain about these things are just bad at discovering other apps and platforms.
- freeflight 9y ago
  > Maybe the people who complain about these things are just bad at discovering other apps and platforms. Or maybe some people just want to keep their life as simple as possible, attention economy and all? With my mid-30's I don't consider myself "that old", but just the idea of having to manage through a dozen different messenger apps is driving me super anxious just in the same way I like to have all my email accounts in one client/app and not spread across a dozen different clients/apps. There's also something to be said about efficiency; Keeping up with a dozen apps (not just in content but also software version) is a whole lot more effort than doing it with just one app. Maybe I'm actually that old? I just think simpler is usually better and to me, there's nothing "simple" about doing the same thing trough 12 different apps, to me that feels counter-intuitive and in the context of Internet communication, very archaic.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

narrator 9y ago

Which makes me ask the question: do you, gentle Hacker News reader, really want diversity of opinion and why? Do you have unpopular opinions and if so, would you get fired or ostracized for sharing them? Are you practicing crimethink? After all, the only people actually working on alternatives to Google and Facebook are the alt-right who have been de-platformed. Gab.ai is so de-platformed that google doesn't even let them put their app in the play store! Unlike the Pirate Bay and scihub, gab.ai is actually not violating the law. You aren't one of those filthy alt-righters who voted for Trump are you? Are you a person who raises uncomfortable questions that cause mental pain by triggering or creating cognitive dissonance in ideologically defenseless individuals you wish to torture with your arguments? Anyway.... I don't think most of you want the Internet Facebook and Google insulate you all from. Why the heck are you complaining?

eli_gottlieb 9y ago
Stop being snide. I know exactly where to find 8chan. I just don't go there because I don't like it.
danaliv 9y ago
I dunno about "diversity of opinion" but I'd certainly appreciate the wholesale destruction of tribalism. (I know; not holding my breath.)
AKrumbach 9y ago
> Which makes me ask the question: do you, gentle Hacker News reader, really want diversity of opinion and why? I speak only for myself, but the answer is an absolute, complete and emphatic YES. The reason is quite simple: in all of human history, there have been only three "families", broadly speaking, of epistemological methods[1]: * Mysticism: you have been told what is true by an unquestionable (and often distant) authority. Think Moses descending from the mountain--only he can safely speak to God. While God is ultimately the original [claimed] source of the knowledge, it must be funneled through Moses first. * Socratic debate: two humans can talk about the topic, trying to apply abstract reason to determine the "best" answer. Note that in a "pure" Socratic debate, only logic and not any evidence is used. * Scientific study: humans can attempt direct inquiry of an answer from the physical universe. Note that logic need not apply to scientific answers: the results of many particle physics experiments such as the delayed choice quantum eraser are not "logical" in that they violate what "common sense" tells us the universe should allow. Now, there no reason I had to use a religious example for the first family, but they do not exist for the other two: literally, both debate and science cannot work correctly if you do not admit the possibility of contrarian or "heretical" ideas. Since I wish to live in a society jointly directed by reason and science, I must allow (and to some small extent, seek) contrarian and heretical ideas. 1: I'm speaking of epistemology not in the definition taught in philosophical classes (e.g., "How do we know what is real or what is knowledge?"), but a far more direct, literal, and practical application of how knowledge is generated and transmitted between societies/individuals.

davebryand 9y ago

Stop using Facebook. Stop using Google. Problem solved.

debt 9y ago

Journalism is dead. We can't, in near real time, detangle the complexities of the plans of large entities such as governments/corporations and the effects of their policies. That's typically what journalists were really good at. That's the real problem. Colorful thought and artful diversity is the spice of life, but priority number one is consumer safety. We just need to know what's going on! It's been on the downward trend towards the grave for a very, very long time. Facebook/Google are simply nails on the coffin.

trendia 9y ago

The Justice Dept has a very strict definition of monopoly [0] -- it requires both 1) the ability to raise prices profitably above that in a competitive market, and 2) anticompetitive conduct. That means that Google receiving 90% of all searches wouldn't automatically imply market power or anti-competitive conduct, and I can't see how Google or Facebook can raise their prices higher than a "competitive market" if they don't charge anything for their product. How would a competitive market in search and social networking even look? [0] https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-1#cia https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...

dominotw 9y ago
How is comcast not a monopoly? That was my only choice when I lived chicago.
- dmoy 9y ago
  Yea actually I am curious here, I don't know the difference. Not sure why you are downvoted, I for one would appreciate someone who knows more to explain.
- leereeves 9y ago
  Did you reply to the wrong comment, or did parent remove a reference to Comcast?
  - dominotw 9y ago
    My comment was me wondering if there is more to monopoly than this > 1) the ability to raise prices profitably above that in a competitive market, and 2) anticompetitive conduct. Since that clearly applied to comcast and nothing has been done about it.
- brixon 9y ago
  That would be a different kind of "monopoly". The government (usually local) granted rights to a single provider in an agreement that they install connections to a minimum user base or geographical area. What would happen otherwise is the providers would only install access in areas that are profitable and not extend further out into the more rural area. What needs to happen is these granted rights should be re-evaluated from time to time.

humanrebar 9y ago

This is the first I heard of the Prager U parental filtering and demonetization. The videos are certainly conservative, both culturally and economically, but the ones I've seen aren't objectionable in any way. In many ways, they are less objectionable than a lot that goes out over the AM radio bands in the U.S. Ars Technica on the story: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/prageru-sues-youtube-says-it-censors-conservative-videos/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/prageru-sues-you... Best I can find of a response from Google: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/heres-googles-response-lawsuit-accusing-youtube-censoring-conservatives-1052745 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/heres-googles-resp...

lr4444lr 9y ago
What do you think about the fact that this WSJ article though is "the first you've heard of it"? Could the story itself perhaps have been suppressed in some deliberate manner by Google?
- nickik 9y ago
  That literally the line they use every time they are talking about the 'evil internet'. They really don't like that people don't just follow them anymore, now they need to grab attention like all those internet blogs they so hate.
- creaghpatr 9y ago
  Exactly
- coolgeek 9y ago
  Actually, it's not an article, it's an Op-Ed. You'll see that if you click through.
tscs37 9y ago
Some of the PragerU videos are rather disturbing but I'd rather have them public because picking them apart with friends is quite an interesting activity. They are an amazing conversation starter on a variety of topics. I'd hate it if Google started removing them completely, despite me not even closely aligning to their ideology.

guelo 9y ago

Right wing propaganda is so strong and coordinated these days that they can develop a new goal and drive a single message repeatedly across multiple platforms for months or years. This attack on Google is a new right wing message developed this year but they just keep hammering at it across all their channels tailoring their argument to the different audiences and continuously building mind share and momentum.

colordrops 9y ago
Both right and left wing propaganda is strong and coordinated these days. I can't say anything that doesn't toe the line with either side and not have them look at me like I'm an asshole. I've been called both a socialist welfare state supporter and a reactionary corporate feudalist. Which is it folks. The division is worse than it ever was in my lifetime.
- sremani 9y ago
  When you refuse to choose between stalin and hitler, you will have the unique opportunity to be called a nazi and communist at the same time... strange times!
  - MaysonL 9y ago
    In Peter Drucker's memoir, Adventures of a Bystander he relates the story of a contemporary, and onetime colleague of his, who rose fairly high in the Nazi regime, who mentioned, when Drucker was preparing to leave Germany in the early '30s, that he had low-numbered membership cards in both the Nazi and Communist parties.
- rhizome 9y ago
  You being called names or whatever does not compare at all with a political message discipline executed over multiple mass-media channels.
  - noobiemcfoob 9y ago

TYPE_FASTER 9y ago

> In a November speech, Ajit Pai, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, argued that “edge providers” like social-media websites and search engines “routinely block or discriminate against content they don’t like.” ... > He also pointed to Twitter’s suspension of a pro-life campaign ad from Rep. Marsha Blackburn, an action that would have been illegal if done by a TV or radio station. Which is interesting, considering this FCC decision in 2014: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sue-wilson/fcc-no-more-equal-time-re_b_5332812.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sue-wilson/fcc-no-more-equal-... It's also worth noting that FCC statute 315 (https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/statutes-and-rules-candidate-appearances-advertising https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/statutes-and-rules-candidat...) applies to licensees. Is the FCC going to begin licensing social media sites? Does the FCC consider internet traffic to be a broadcast mechanism? When newspaper publishers are not required to follow the same laws/statutes as radio and TV when it comes to political advertising?

issue9mm 9y ago
Without getting into the ideological minutiae, is it not possible for the government to know that there's something wrong in the marketplace, and not be obligated to address it? It should be possible for both the FCC to acknowledge that censorship by large, private, commercial entities is bad for free expression, while acknowledging that it is their platform to do with as they please, IMO.
TYPE_FASTER 9y ago
In addition, in 2009 Mike Pence sponsored the "Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009" (https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/226 https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/226). This bill "amends the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), notwithstanding any other provision of any Act, from having the authority to require broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance."

losteverything 9y ago

Am i the only guy who thinks been there, done that. With networks' news & major papers. Of course it will influence and change things. But we created it therefore it is ok. Just scary now

enitihas 9y ago

Food for thought: What if Google+(or any othe google social initiative) had succeeded and this duopoly were to become a monopoly. How worse the world would be?

fjabre 9y ago

I don't think this is necessarily true. If proper regulations are in place Google and Facebook can certainly be out competed in some of their core services. Verizon and ATT threaten diversity much more than does Google or Facebook. That should be painfully obvious to anyone who's done their research. Also WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch which should also raise some flags on this article.

jacksmith21006 9y ago

Not sure ther issue with Google. I use Google Alerts and get a mixture of content and definitely not slanted one way or another. I am pretty liberal but I am someone that can deal with reading the otherside and do not have to put my head in the sand. I will even watch Fox from time to time just to see how they are talking about things. Google would know my slant so putting Breitbart articles in my alerts and on the Google Assistant suggests they are not filtering. Heck I get negative Google stories and clearly if Google was going to filter be the first thing to filter out. I really do not use FB so can not comment about it.

atomi 9y ago
Here's something: ask your Google Assistant how old the Earth is. Now ask how old the Moon is. Do you think it's just an innocent oversight that Google Assistant doesn't reply with the age of the Earth? Perhaps it is.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Given that it gives the wrong answer for the moon (even though it's source has the right answer!) and given its spotty coverage of other similar information pairs where there is no credible ideological motive (e.g., sunrise times vs. moonrise times), yes, I think “Knowledge Graph is spotty, incomplete, often inaccurate, and has insufficient human attention” is the Occam’s Razor-compatible answer, despite how fun conspiracy theories can be.
  - atomi 9y ago
    Or it could also be that the source knowledge graph has inconsistent information because of religious mis-information - there's that Occam’s Razor-compatible answer for you.

padseeker 9y ago

It's very concerning that there is so much influence concentrated within such few hands. However I have to ask - would the WSJ would be so concerned if Google or Facebook were conservative leaning outlets? Normally the WSJ defends this kind of duopoly kind of thing - if either Google or Facebook had some sort of right side leaning the WSJ would be preaching to us about the genius of capitalism and the wisdom of the markets.

hi-im-mi-ih 9y ago
Can you provide an example of WSJ defending duopolies, or this sort of thing?
- padseeker 9y ago
  I'd actually love to but the WSJ has a paywall. Generally speaking the WSJ editorial page always defends unfettered markets, less regulation, and anything that would be considered pro business. The WSJ calling for some sort of intervention to deal with the duopoly of Google/Facebook is very out of character. Any principled conservative would admit to that.
  - kyrra 9y ago
    News Corp, WSJ's parent company, is one of the US business that hasn't been the happiest with Google. https://www.recode.net/2017/6/26/15878518/yelp-oracle-news-corp-letter-supporting-eu-action-against-google-antitrust https://www.recode.net/2017/6/26/15878518/yelp-oracle-news-c...
  - hi-im-mi-ih 9y ago
    I see, thanks for the reply padseeker.
- elefanten 9y ago
  They're pretty warm overall to the telecom industry and tend to side with Ajit Pai.

christmasity 9y ago

The wsj worrying about "diversity of thought"? Is this the same company that spread "fake news" about pewdiepie in order to shut him down? How about we worry about diversity of thought in the news in an ever consolidating and controlled propaganda industry? Or is that a non-starter since wsj sold itself to news corp 10 years ago?

gumby 9y ago

I love that this article begins by quoting an absurdist parody novel, confirming the aphorism "many a true word is spoken in jest"

TomMckenny 9y ago

Says a property of the Murdock-Sinclair duopoly(for much of the country). I seem to be able to access a vastly greater spread of ideas via google.com and facebook.com than wsj.com or foxnews.com

jaaron 9y ago

Ok, I can't read the WSJ article because it's behind a paywall, but I did read an ArsTechnica story about the issue [1]. With _only_ that information (which isn't admittedly much) it appears to be a run-of-the-mill story of YouTube's content policies running amok. Some see nefarious purposes in YouTube's incompetence, but that cynical view doesn't hold up when one considers how consistently YouTube disappoints everyone. Seriously, just search for "YouTube demonetization" and you'll find dozens of similar stories that have _nothing_ to do with politics. YouTube's content filtering and management is a mess and it's always been a mess. Whether it's take down notices, tagging copyrighted content inappropriately, issues with demonetization and advertising, YouTube has consistently struggled with striking a balance between creators, consumers and advertisers. To take that mess and turn it into some sort of commentary about politics, censorship or a general threat to diversity of thought is cynicism and pandering that's worse than YouTube's alleged sins. I expect better out (or used to) out of my Hacker News commentary, but alas, few bothered to even look up the basics of this particular story. [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/prageru-sues-youtube-says-it-censors-conservative-videos/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/prageru-sues-you...

111_1_111 9y ago

Google is the farthest thing from a monopoly. Yahoo, Bing, Ask, AOL, duckduckgo, etc. Google has plenty of competitors. Simply being better than the competition does not make a company a monopoly. If you're trying to claim that Google has monopolized advertising, you're even more wrong. TV, print, radio, billboards and a dozen more advertising mediums all compete with Google/Facebook.

Sam_Harris 9y ago

Hey WSJ - Google and Facebook don't have paywalls.

killjoywashere 9y ago

is there a non-paywall link?

fzeroracer 9y ago

It's really amazing how quickly the topic shifts after the repeal of Net Neutrality. Places were pushing this topic constantly in attempt to shift debate on why insuring ISPs don't do any silly things with user traffic. It very quickly became 'Google and Facebook are monopolies and are controlling all of your content / censoring everything'. This isn't to say that I don't agree that Google and Facebook are exceedingly large companies with far-reaching tendrils controlling a lot of what we see and do. But rather it's blatantly obvious that it's setting up a new target to avoid backlash against giving ISPs effectively more power, especially over said companies. I mean it would be less obvious if he literally didn't come out and say that thing, plus various far-right websites repeating the topic but that's the world we live in right now. I have a feeling the topic won't stick at all beyond being a convenient whataboutism.

camdenlock 9y ago

This has been troubling me for a while. We mainstream liberals seem to be calling for more diversity, but the most vocal amongst us seem to want only superficial diversity (i.e. a variety of physical appearances) instead of diversity of thought/ideas. Take, for instance, the firing of Denise Young Smith from Apple. She correctly argued in favor of ideological diversity being a worthwhile goal for an organization, saying: “There can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blonde men in a room, and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience.” She was crucified by (ostensibly?) mainstream liberals, who apparently felt that such a comment didn’t reflect the true goal of diversity: having a variety of phenotypes in a room. This is only one concrete example, but it’s representative of what I’ve noticed is a growing trend. Not sure if anyone else here has seen it as well, but I suspect some of you have. I hope we all wise up and recognize that what we truly want is a mixture of experience and viewpoints, not just mere phenotypic variety.

gimmeminusnow3 9y ago

Both very bad for humanity and privacy of people. I wonder when people would understand to avoid these services.

paulie_a 9y ago

I cant dispute the conclusion of the article on diversity of thought because the article is blocked by a paywall.

ggggtez 9y ago

Meh, I'm not convinced "diversity of thought" is worth anything. If I say 2+2, and you say 6, well, maybe your thoughts deserve no platform.

cafard 9y ago

Remind me who owns The Wall Street Journal...