3 ms·

Honest question: Google working on project Dragonfly, a service that-according to the article: 'would blacklist phrases like “human rights,” “student protest,

Honest question: Google working on project Dragonfly, a service that-according to the article: 'would blacklist phrases like “human rights,” “student protest,” and “Nobel Prize.”' People are (rightly) bothered by this. Facebook and Twitter tell Alex Jones to pound sand. People argue "Private corporations don't have to give anyone a platform". I'm not here to promote the idea that the members of the first group are automatically members of the second, some overlap could probably be found...probably. Why does the first get so much coverage and ultimately ending up in The Intercept with an inferred tone of apoplectic disappointment-and in some cases-anger towards Google, but coverage of the latter seems to be glee, jubilation and almost schadenfreude? Note that I'm not making any sort of value judgments about Alex Jones' politics or statements, suggesting that I agree with his views, or that even that he may be right about gay frogs (this really shouldn't have to be said, it should be painfully obvious but I'm covering my ass out of trained habit: unless one explicitly says "I am not supporting this person", someone will come out of the woodwork and make the association because it's easier to debate). I'm pointing to actions of corporations and our responses to them: between the two things here, I'm hard pressed to find a difference beyond a matter of scale between what Google is doing and what Facebook and Twitter have already done.

dumbfoundded 8y ago
The difference is intolerance. I don't think the problem with Alex Jone's is the subject matter or beliefs but the advocation of violence and spread of intolerance, hate, and misinformation. Freedom of speech is not without reasonable restriction. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater without punishment. Silencing Jones on these platforms in my opinion amounts to good housekeeping allowing others to actually express their opinions without manipulation. Part of an intellectually open and honest society is banishing those who seek to manipulate it.
- adventured 8y ago
  You're conflating two entirely different things. Yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't an issue of speech, that's an act of violence. You're attempting harm upon people. Once you step into the realm of acts of initiating violence, you've crossed out of matters of free speech, they're two different things and must be addressed differently. If I take out a bullhorn and blast it into someone's ear, harming their eardrum, that's also not a matter of speech, it's an act of violence against that person. Holding someone down and painting a swastika on their chest is also not a matter of speech, that too is an act of violence, for the exact same conceptual reason as the bullhorn and yelling fire are. Disgusting speech should be protected. The absolute worst thing you can do, is try to bury that type of speech under laws. The US culture defeated the KKK - which was once large and influential at its peak - precisely because the realm of debate and ideas was firmly held open. Their speech and ideology was not outlawed, their ideas overwhelmingly lost in the public cultural debate. Extremely liberal free speech protections are why the KKK couldn't win then, and haven't managed to resuscitate themselves in the last 30 or 40 years.
  - dumbfoundded 8y ago
    There's a difference between disgusting speech and hate speech. I like that you use the KKK as an example. In your world view, do you tolerance a bunch of people marching through the streets screaming: "Kill 'em all"? It's obviously a gray area but you should read up on the paradox of tolerance. The only logical solution for a tolerant society is to be intolerant of tolerance.
    - dandellion 8y ago
      I am all for that, as long as it's the other intolerants that are not tolerating, right? I've since come to the conclusion that it's mostly pointless to talk about "tolerance" and that it's the individual acts of intolerance that should be addressed on a case by case basis.
- gerbilly 8y ago
  > You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater without punishment. Fortunately, you can still yell "Theatre!" in a crowded fire though.
- repolfx 8y ago
  But the Chinese government is famously intolerant, and spreads misinformation and hate all the time (hate towards various groups, some of them ethnic some of them ideological). They consider silencing of various people to be good housekeeping as well. iamdave is correctly pointing out the hypocrisy here. Well, hypocrisy of some. Not everyone celebrated Alex Jones getting kicked off SV platforms.
adventured 8y ago
Facebook is a legitimate issue as it pertains to the Alex Jones style censorship, because they have a massive, entrenched monopoly over a very important communication / expression corner of US society and many parts of the globe. It's an important question as to whether Facebook should ever be allowed to ban a person from their platform, or whether it's a public square that should be forced open to all. Note, that's not the same as saying Facebook shouldn't be allowed to censor certain narrow types of content that violate the law. Those posts should be deleted, the rest should be left alone. If it's questionably offensive speech, it'd be easy enough to restrict it to adults, or require an acknowledgement to view it; some form of one to one privatization restriction of the exchange, rather than mass distribution, for that type of content. If someone like Jones wants to be an idiot that pushes conspiracies about gay frogs, or Obama being an alien, they should be allowed to - if society deems Facebook something akin to a utility that everyone should have access to. Alternatively, break Facebook up into pieces and end the monopoly. Twitter is not so much an issue. They're a modest player when it comes to market share in social. Maybe 3% to 5% the size of Facebook in regards to true reach and influence (not just supposed daily or monthly actives). If Twitter wants to be biased against conservatives, it's not nearly as big of a deal as people being banned for life from Facebook. Wikipedia recently stripped all Breitbart stories from their site (re sources/references), with a target of doing the same to Fox News next. Is that a big deal? Not so much, it's similar to Twitter's left bias when it comes to allowing hate speech and racism from the left, and banning or locking accounts on the right for trivial things. It's just not that important, Wikipedia is influential but has no monopoly on knowledge. The solution to Twitter's bias, is the DOJ should sue them and make them enforce their terms of service for all parties equally (rather than allowing one side to freely issue death threats, racism, hate speech, etc. without having accounts get suspended or banned), which they're refusing to do right now. Levy increasing fines against them until they enforce their terms of service for all users equally. Problem solved.
- iamdave 8y ago
  The solution to Twitter's bias, is the DOJ should sue them and make them enforce their terms of service for all parties equally (rather than allowing one side to freely issue death threats, racism, hate speech, etc. without having accounts get suspended or banned), which they're refusing to do right now. Taken in whole with everything else you just said, are you suggesting (even if I'm not sure if I necessarily agree this is something that should reach the level of the DoJ) that Twitter gets this treatment as a precedent setting maneuver to push the others into getting in line? If, as you say Facebook has an 'entrenched monopoly[...]over communication', why in your opinion should the DOJ go after the company you've also argued has up to a 5th the size of Facebook's reach and influence? Bigger fish, frying pan, etc, if you catch my drift.
darpa_escapee 8y ago
> Google working on project Dragonfly, a service that-according to the article: 'would blacklist phrases like “human rights,” “student protest,” and “Nobel Prize.”' > People are (rightly) bothered by this. > Facebook and Twitter tell Alex Jones to pound sand. > People argue "Private corporations don't have to give anyone a platform". One of the two actions you listed results in the families of school shooting victims getting harassed by Alex Jones social media following less and the other enables the imprisonment, torture and execution of millions of people in China.
- iamdave 8y ago
  An accurate assessment, though I'm not sure if what I'm to take away from this is if there's some sort of 'ranking' system behind who gets to get away with what when it comes to 1) disagreeable speech 2) who is allowed to respond to it and how 3) who gets to decide what speech is promulgated and what speech is hidden. In the Google case, I find objections to suppressing information from the citizenry at the behest of government forces. In the Alex Jones case, I also find objections to harassing...well anyone who isn't themselves trying to agitate and disturb (don't start no s--- there wont be no s--- kind of thinking). So I posit this question: why is one weightier than the other in how we view and analyze them, again? Being as dispassionate as possible, I fall back to my prior statement: taken at face value it seems like the major differences here boil down to scale. Project Dragonfly casts a wide net over the question of accessing information, whereas the banishment of Jones is more localized and pointed.
  - xvector 8y ago
    > Being as dispassionate as possible Perhaps this is the issue? I know many of us software engineers hate to hear this, but... not everything can be rationalized down to cold, hard algorithms. Most reasonable people with a shred of empathy would gladly ban censorship in China but also ban Alex Jones. Why? Because empathy tells us what is right and what is wrong. Empathy is required to make many decisions, and ridding yourself of it in an effort to become more dispassionate does not always make you more correct.

dumbfoundded 8y ago

The difference is intolerance. I don't think the problem with Alex Jone's is the subject matter or beliefs but the advocation of violence and spread of intolerance, hate, and misinformation. Freedom of speech is not without reasonable restriction. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater without punishment. Silencing Jones on these platforms in my opinion amounts to good housekeeping allowing others to actually express their opinions without manipulation. Part of an intellectually open and honest society is banishing those who seek to manipulate it.

adventured 8y ago
You're conflating two entirely different things. Yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't an issue of speech, that's an act of violence. You're attempting harm upon people. Once you step into the realm of acts of initiating violence, you've crossed out of matters of free speech, they're two different things and must be addressed differently. If I take out a bullhorn and blast it into someone's ear, harming their eardrum, that's also not a matter of speech, it's an act of violence against that person. Holding someone down and painting a swastika on their chest is also not a matter of speech, that too is an act of violence, for the exact same conceptual reason as the bullhorn and yelling fire are. Disgusting speech should be protected. The absolute worst thing you can do, is try to bury that type of speech under laws. The US culture defeated the KKK - which was once large and influential at its peak - precisely because the realm of debate and ideas was firmly held open. Their speech and ideology was not outlawed, their ideas overwhelmingly lost in the public cultural debate. Extremely liberal free speech protections are why the KKK couldn't win then, and haven't managed to resuscitate themselves in the last 30 or 40 years.
- dumbfoundded 8y ago
  There's a difference between disgusting speech and hate speech. I like that you use the KKK as an example. In your world view, do you tolerance a bunch of people marching through the streets screaming: "Kill 'em all"? It's obviously a gray area but you should read up on the paradox of tolerance. The only logical solution for a tolerant society is to be intolerant of tolerance.
  - dandellion 8y ago
    I am all for that, as long as it's the other intolerants that are not tolerating, right? I've since come to the conclusion that it's mostly pointless to talk about "tolerance" and that it's the individual acts of intolerance that should be addressed on a case by case basis.
gerbilly 8y ago
> You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater without punishment. Fortunately, you can still yell "Theatre!" in a crowded fire though.
repolfx 8y ago
But the Chinese government is famously intolerant, and spreads misinformation and hate all the time (hate towards various groups, some of them ethnic some of them ideological). They consider silencing of various people to be good housekeeping as well. iamdave is correctly pointing out the hypocrisy here. Well, hypocrisy of some. Not everyone celebrated Alex Jones getting kicked off SV platforms.

adventured 8y ago

Facebook is a legitimate issue as it pertains to the Alex Jones style censorship, because they have a massive, entrenched monopoly over a very important communication / expression corner of US society and many parts of the globe. It's an important question as to whether Facebook should ever be allowed to ban a person from their platform, or whether it's a public square that should be forced open to all. Note, that's not the same as saying Facebook shouldn't be allowed to censor certain narrow types of content that violate the law. Those posts should be deleted, the rest should be left alone. If it's questionably offensive speech, it'd be easy enough to restrict it to adults, or require an acknowledgement to view it; some form of one to one privatization restriction of the exchange, rather than mass distribution, for that type of content. If someone like Jones wants to be an idiot that pushes conspiracies about gay frogs, or Obama being an alien, they should be allowed to - if society deems Facebook something akin to a utility that everyone should have access to. Alternatively, break Facebook up into pieces and end the monopoly. Twitter is not so much an issue. They're a modest player when it comes to market share in social. Maybe 3% to 5% the size of Facebook in regards to true reach and influence (not just supposed daily or monthly actives). If Twitter wants to be biased against conservatives, it's not nearly as big of a deal as people being banned for life from Facebook. Wikipedia recently stripped all Breitbart stories from their site (re sources/references), with a target of doing the same to Fox News next. Is that a big deal? Not so much, it's similar to Twitter's left bias when it comes to allowing hate speech and racism from the left, and banning or locking accounts on the right for trivial things. It's just not that important, Wikipedia is influential but has no monopoly on knowledge. The solution to Twitter's bias, is the DOJ should sue them and make them enforce their terms of service for all parties equally (rather than allowing one side to freely issue death threats, racism, hate speech, etc. without having accounts get suspended or banned), which they're refusing to do right now. Levy increasing fines against them until they enforce their terms of service for all users equally. Problem solved.

iamdave 8y ago
The solution to Twitter's bias, is the DOJ should sue them and make them enforce their terms of service for all parties equally (rather than allowing one side to freely issue death threats, racism, hate speech, etc. without having accounts get suspended or banned), which they're refusing to do right now. Taken in whole with everything else you just said, are you suggesting (even if I'm not sure if I necessarily agree this is something that should reach the level of the DoJ) that Twitter gets this treatment as a precedent setting maneuver to push the others into getting in line? If, as you say Facebook has an 'entrenched monopoly[...]over communication', why in your opinion should the DOJ go after the company you've also argued has up to a 5th the size of Facebook's reach and influence? Bigger fish, frying pan, etc, if you catch my drift.

darpa_escapee 8y ago

> Google working on project Dragonfly, a service that-according to the article: 'would blacklist phrases like “human rights,” “student protest,” and “Nobel Prize.”' > People are (rightly) bothered by this. > Facebook and Twitter tell Alex Jones to pound sand. > People argue "Private corporations don't have to give anyone a platform". One of the two actions you listed results in the families of school shooting victims getting harassed by Alex Jones social media following less and the other enables the imprisonment, torture and execution of millions of people in China.

iamdave 8y ago
An accurate assessment, though I'm not sure if what I'm to take away from this is if there's some sort of 'ranking' system behind who gets to get away with what when it comes to 1) disagreeable speech 2) who is allowed to respond to it and how 3) who gets to decide what speech is promulgated and what speech is hidden. In the Google case, I find objections to suppressing information from the citizenry at the behest of government forces. In the Alex Jones case, I also find objections to harassing...well anyone who isn't themselves trying to agitate and disturb (don't start no s--- there wont be no s--- kind of thinking). So I posit this question: why is one weightier than the other in how we view and analyze them, again? Being as dispassionate as possible, I fall back to my prior statement: taken at face value it seems like the major differences here boil down to scale. Project Dragonfly casts a wide net over the question of accessing information, whereas the banishment of Jones is more localized and pointed.
- xvector 8y ago
  > Being as dispassionate as possible Perhaps this is the issue? I know many of us software engineers hate to hear this, but... not everything can be rationalized down to cold, hard algorithms. Most reasonable people with a shred of empathy would gladly ban censorship in China but also ban Alex Jones. Why? Because empathy tells us what is right and what is wrong. Empathy is required to make many decisions, and ridding yourself of it in an effort to become more dispassionate does not always make you more correct.