11 ms·

Why are we going as far as China? Facebook, Google, Apple, Twitter, among others need to come clean about their censorship of conservative voices right here in

by aviv 8y ago

Why are we going as far as China? Facebook, Google, Apple, Twitter, among others need to come clean about their censorship of conservative voices right here in their back yard. All the folks who rallied for net neutrality are now cheering for the coordinated Big Tech assault on free speech. This needs to be talked about. Agree or disagree with the voices they are silencing (ie. Alex Jones), what is happening these days is a dangerous precedent.

scarface74 8y ago
It's no "assault on free speech". The right of free speech doesn't mean that private corporations have to be a platform for it. The right embraced private corporations having "religious and moral rights" with the cake shop and Hobby Lobby cases. This is the other side of the coin.
- aviv 8y ago
  Exactly. And look at the uproar that the bakery caused with the constant mainstream news coverage back then. But now? Silence, and if not silence, total justification and questioning why Big Tech didn't do it sooner.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    When did the mainstream right start openly embracing racist as thier people outside of the South? I could never see any former Republican President or leadership in the modern era support someone like Alex Jones. Alex Jones podcast was not "banned" from Apple's platform. Apple never hosted either the media or the RSS metadata. Anyone who wants to listen to the podcast can go on Google do a search find the feed subscription and add to the podcast app. Edit: Changed "was banned" to "wasn't banned".
    - aviv 8y ago
      That's not my point. I don't like or listen to the guy, but your reaction shows precisely why they chose him. Who is next? If they can take down someone as vocal as Alex Jones, they can take down anyone.
      - darpa_escapee 8y ago
        Let this be a lesson to us all. If you blatantly violate terms of service, there's no amount of harassing families of school shooting victims that will get your platform back.
        threatofrain 8y ago
        Banning people like Alex Jones won't unharass those parents either. People around the country still think that those parents lied about the death of their children in order to score financial or political gain. And what exactly is Alex Jones' brand of conservatism? Does it involve a narrative of white extinction and false black victimhood? Climate change as a conspiracy? Obama is a Muslim who isn't even a US citizen? What makes Alex Jones conservative?
        darpa_escapee 8y ago
        You should ask someone who bemoans his removal as censorship against conservatives. > People around the country still think that those parents lied about the death of their children in order to score financial or political gain. Who made money originally selling them this lie and then perpetuating it?
        scarface74 8y ago
        No it won't "unharass people" just like it won't stop people from seeing porn just because Apple doesn't sell "Debbie Does Dallas". Every private company has a brand that it wants to project.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        Conservatives are always embracing the free market. If there were a market for his ideas, he should have no trouble finding funding, advertising, etc. If his ideas really are that popular, he should be able to create the conservative versions of Twitter, Facebook, etc. All of the FAANG companies started out competing against entrenched incumbents by offering a service they didn't. Why can't he do the same?
  - threatofrain 8y ago
    Exactly? Scarface is saying that the refusal to promote a message is also part of free speech, and an easier case than the refusal to serve gay customers. At best your response is to ask those who have sympathy towards gay people, "Why don't you get angry at laws which suggest that businesses have to serve gay people, even if their religious beliefs tell them that homosexuality is a sin?" I also wouldn't be surprised if the thinking behind so many Fortune 500 companies is at least due to a calculation of brand posture going into the future. A lot of the companies being discussed at the moment are social media companies, and youth are the ones who can drive a MySpace event. I also must ask for elaboration as to the Alex Jones brand of conservatism -- does it involve a narrative of white extinction and undeserving blacks? False flag stories about the Sandy Hook shooting? Does he represent American conservatism?
    - Dagwoodie 8y ago
      The baker comparison doesn't work. You don't see one guy or even three companies in Colorado controlling 99% of the messages going on cakes, globally, like you do with social media speech on Google/Facebook/Twitter platforms in California. Whether you like it or not, they are monopolies who are coordinating attacks on conservatives by stifling speech that is by and large perfectly legal in the US. Very concerning.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        If you are completely dependent on exposure through Google, Facebook, and Twitter, you're doing it wrong. I read about plenty of bloggers who lost half thier traffic the day Google Reader shut down for instance. Wasn't their a clickbait company that went out of business due to an algorithm change on Google? Even if you aren't controversial, you are just one of millions of people trying to get your ideas out. You're going to languish in obscurity unless you have an alternate means of promoting yourself. No one "stifled" Alex Jones' speech. His podcast is still being published on his own site like it always was and you can still add it to your podcast app of choice.
    - aviv 8y ago
      He represents free speech. He is just one of several conservative leaning voices silenced by Big Tech in recent months. One of the most troubling aspects of the Alex Jones ban is the obvious coordination among Apple, Facebook, YouTube and others to completely take him off their platforms at the exact same time. How this doesn't bother HN is crazy. It's truly crazy how YouTube takes down Alex Jones easily but ElsaGate pedo like predatory channels are still thriving on their platform, with millions of views and comment threads full of cryptic information exchange of the worst kind one can imagine. And it's still up. Insanity prevails.
- vixen99 8y ago
  Fine as long as we recognize that taking to oneself (Google for instance) the task of policing content will increasingly become a minefield - a rod for their own back. Irrespective of the rights of a private company to do what they wish (of course they can), the message is: 'we'll decide what you can see and say because you're not to be trusted to make a judgement. We're your moral custodians'. It might take time but someone should see the massive opportunity here.
- humanrebar 8y ago
  > The right of free speech doesn't mean that private corporations have to be a platform for it. Free Speech is a principle that the First Amendment applies when restricting government. Private corporations that decide to be a platform for public speech (I think publicly accessible social media posts count) have to consider how they promote free speech. If, on the other hand, the private corporations want to exercise their freedom of association and take clear editorial positions, that's fine too. But, philosophically, they can't have it both ways. Also note that Google, Facebook, and Apple seemed to have coordinated the ban. Both in size and in style, this is a different beast than Masterpiece. Finally, Masterpiece was about being compelled to make specific cakes. Customers weren't banned from all cakes or anything. In that way it resembles demonetizing specific YouTube videos more than banning entire channels. * I think it's fine to boot Alex Jones on the merits, for the record. Though the level of coordination among the BigCos here is concerning.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    Finally, Masterpiece was about being compelled to make specific cakes. Customers weren't banned from all cakes or anything. In that way it resembles demonetizing specific YoyTube videos more than banning entire channels. YouTube hosts videos. Apple doesn’t host podcast. Apple didn’t feel “compelled” to scrape Alex Jones podcast.
    - humanrebar 8y ago
      Well, the analogy to Masterpiece is that Apple is not compelled to list any given podcast. And, applying the Masterpiece ruling narrowly, Apple just needs to be careful that a pattern of discrimination against a protected group isn't established in its decisions. But that's all legal reasoning. The original point is that people should be allowed to speak and the best response is better speech, not censorship, even if the censorship is private. And Apple is the least interesting of the bunch since they're not really a microblog platform or social network. The coordination with the other platforms is probably the only concern there.
      - darpa_escapee 8y ago
darpa_escapee 8y ago
Facebook, Google, Apple and Twitter can't do business in America unless they engage in state-enforced censorship against conservatives, like they would in China against its political opponents, or are you drawing false equivalencies?
- aviv 8y ago
  Not drawing anything, just adding color in case people still pretend or truly believe these companies don't engage in censorship in the US.
  - darpa_escapee 8y ago
    You're not only acknowledging the false equivalencies, you're embracing them? Were you upset when they spent years silently purging religious extremist content? That's been going on since at least 2011.

by aviv 8y ago

scarface74 8y ago

It's no "assault on free speech". The right of free speech doesn't mean that private corporations have to be a platform for it. The right embraced private corporations having "religious and moral rights" with the cake shop and Hobby Lobby cases. This is the other side of the coin.

aviv 8y ago
Exactly. And look at the uproar that the bakery caused with the constant mainstream news coverage back then. But now? Silence, and if not silence, total justification and questioning why Big Tech didn't do it sooner.
- scarface74 8y ago
  When did the mainstream right start openly embracing racist as thier people outside of the South? I could never see any former Republican President or leadership in the modern era support someone like Alex Jones. Alex Jones podcast was not "banned" from Apple's platform. Apple never hosted either the media or the RSS metadata. Anyone who wants to listen to the podcast can go on Google do a search find the feed subscription and add to the podcast app. Edit: Changed "was banned" to "wasn't banned".
  - aviv 8y ago
    That's not my point. I don't like or listen to the guy, but your reaction shows precisely why they chose him. Who is next? If they can take down someone as vocal as Alex Jones, they can take down anyone.
    - darpa_escapee 8y ago
      Let this be a lesson to us all. If you blatantly violate terms of service, there's no amount of harassing families of school shooting victims that will get your platform back.
      - threatofrain 8y ago
        Banning people like Alex Jones won't unharass those parents either. People around the country still think that those parents lied about the death of their children in order to score financial or political gain. And what exactly is Alex Jones' brand of conservatism? Does it involve a narrative of white extinction and false black victimhood? Climate change as a conspiracy? Obama is a Muslim who isn't even a US citizen? What makes Alex Jones conservative?
        darpa_escapee 8y ago
        You should ask someone who bemoans his removal as censorship against conservatives. > People around the country still think that those parents lied about the death of their children in order to score financial or political gain. Who made money originally selling them this lie and then perpetuating it?
        scarface74 8y ago
        No it won't "unharass people" just like it won't stop people from seeing porn just because Apple doesn't sell "Debbie Does Dallas". Every private company has a brand that it wants to project.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      Conservatives are always embracing the free market. If there were a market for his ideas, he should have no trouble finding funding, advertising, etc. If his ideas really are that popular, he should be able to create the conservative versions of Twitter, Facebook, etc. All of the FAANG companies started out competing against entrenched incumbents by offering a service they didn't. Why can't he do the same?
- threatofrain 8y ago
  Exactly? Scarface is saying that the refusal to promote a message is also part of free speech, and an easier case than the refusal to serve gay customers. At best your response is to ask those who have sympathy towards gay people, "Why don't you get angry at laws which suggest that businesses have to serve gay people, even if their religious beliefs tell them that homosexuality is a sin?" I also wouldn't be surprised if the thinking behind so many Fortune 500 companies is at least due to a calculation of brand posture going into the future. A lot of the companies being discussed at the moment are social media companies, and youth are the ones who can drive a MySpace event. I also must ask for elaboration as to the Alex Jones brand of conservatism -- does it involve a narrative of white extinction and undeserving blacks? False flag stories about the Sandy Hook shooting? Does he represent American conservatism?
  - Dagwoodie 8y ago
    The baker comparison doesn't work. You don't see one guy or even three companies in Colorado controlling 99% of the messages going on cakes, globally, like you do with social media speech on Google/Facebook/Twitter platforms in California. Whether you like it or not, they are monopolies who are coordinating attacks on conservatives by stifling speech that is by and large perfectly legal in the US. Very concerning.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      If you are completely dependent on exposure through Google, Facebook, and Twitter, you're doing it wrong. I read about plenty of bloggers who lost half thier traffic the day Google Reader shut down for instance. Wasn't their a clickbait company that went out of business due to an algorithm change on Google? Even if you aren't controversial, you are just one of millions of people trying to get your ideas out. You're going to languish in obscurity unless you have an alternate means of promoting yourself. No one "stifled" Alex Jones' speech. His podcast is still being published on his own site like it always was and you can still add it to your podcast app of choice.
  - aviv 8y ago
    He represents free speech. He is just one of several conservative leaning voices silenced by Big Tech in recent months. One of the most troubling aspects of the Alex Jones ban is the obvious coordination among Apple, Facebook, YouTube and others to completely take him off their platforms at the exact same time. How this doesn't bother HN is crazy. It's truly crazy how YouTube takes down Alex Jones easily but ElsaGate pedo like predatory channels are still thriving on their platform, with millions of views and comment threads full of cryptic information exchange of the worst kind one can imagine. And it's still up. Insanity prevails.
vixen99 8y ago
Fine as long as we recognize that taking to oneself (Google for instance) the task of policing content will increasingly become a minefield - a rod for their own back. Irrespective of the rights of a private company to do what they wish (of course they can), the message is: 'we'll decide what you can see and say because you're not to be trusted to make a judgement. We're your moral custodians'. It might take time but someone should see the massive opportunity here.
humanrebar 8y ago
> The right of free speech doesn't mean that private corporations have to be a platform for it. Free Speech is a principle that the First Amendment applies when restricting government. Private corporations that decide to be a platform for public speech (I think publicly accessible social media posts count) have to consider how they promote free speech. If, on the other hand, the private corporations want to exercise their freedom of association and take clear editorial positions, that's fine too. But, philosophically, they can't have it both ways. Also note that Google, Facebook, and Apple seemed to have coordinated the ban. Both in size and in style, this is a different beast than Masterpiece. Finally, Masterpiece was about being compelled to make specific cakes. Customers weren't banned from all cakes or anything. In that way it resembles demonetizing specific YouTube videos more than banning entire channels. * I think it's fine to boot Alex Jones on the merits, for the record. Though the level of coordination among the BigCos here is concerning.
- scarface74 8y ago
  Finally, Masterpiece was about being compelled to make specific cakes. Customers weren't banned from all cakes or anything. In that way it resembles demonetizing specific YoyTube videos more than banning entire channels. YouTube hosts videos. Apple doesn’t host podcast. Apple didn’t feel “compelled” to scrape Alex Jones podcast.
  - humanrebar 8y ago
    Well, the analogy to Masterpiece is that Apple is not compelled to list any given podcast. And, applying the Masterpiece ruling narrowly, Apple just needs to be careful that a pattern of discrimination against a protected group isn't established in its decisions. But that's all legal reasoning. The original point is that people should be allowed to speak and the best response is better speech, not censorship, even if the censorship is private. And Apple is the least interesting of the bunch since they're not really a microblog platform or social network. The coordination with the other platforms is probably the only concern there.
    - darpa_escapee 8y ago

darpa_escapee 8y ago

Facebook, Google, Apple and Twitter can't do business in America unless they engage in state-enforced censorship against conservatives, like they would in China against its political opponents, or are you drawing false equivalencies?

aviv 8y ago
Not drawing anything, just adding color in case people still pretend or truly believe these companies don't engage in censorship in the US.
- darpa_escapee 8y ago
  You're not only acknowledging the false equivalencies, you're embracing them? Were you upset when they spent years silently purging religious extremist content? That's been going on since at least 2011.