6 ms·

Nobody owes you not selling your data either. But social networks got so big and powerful that we're developing specialized norms for this sort of stuff because

Nobody owes you not selling your data either. But social networks got so big and powerful that we're developing specialized norms for this sort of stuff because on balance it's better to live in a society where our data doesn't get sold. The same is true for speech and platforms -- nobody owes you one, but these companies accrue the astronomical benefits of massive network effects and are changing the ecology of our society. It's reasonable to impose free speech norms in exchange because on balance it will result in a better world than the counterfactual.

joe_the_user 8y ago
It's reasonable to impose free speech norms in exchange because on balance it will result in a better world than the counterfactual. Why exactly? The New York Times and the wire services were once the primary venue for most newspaper publication. There was never a requirement that anyone be able to write articles for them. The thing is allowing garbage views into "record of note" publications seriously empowers them. As an earlier article points out, youtube's algorithm is weight towards feeding people polarized extremist rants because these get responses (just the other day, my suggested "next videos" included a client change denier and Jordan Peterson for zero reason). We're looking at the result of extreme ideological polarization and these don't look pretty. A good portion of what could be called "hate speech" is pseudo-science presenting itself as science and this to someone who's (probably foolishly) expecting a bit of vetting on a large website, this pseudo-science sell is especially effective. Moreover, a large portion of those who uses a social network know that the "open web" exists and are quite capable of cruising it. Again, by letting into a venue the naive person imagines is vetted, you have increased its momentum considerably. The average person isn't necessary super competent at sorting modern issues. A good portion of heinous content leverages this by appearing respectable and being the web site of
- quadrangle 8y ago
  Free speech norms ≠ free speech absolutism. People could rightly have complained from a "free speech" position if the NYT published only left-wing letters-to-the-editor. They could also rightly complain if the NYT explicitly refused to publish a totally reasonable opinion piece (or more extreme: refuse a paid ad that was totally reasonable) because of tangential critiques of the author's statements in other contexts. Does that mean the NYT would have to do whatever the complainers say? No. But such complaints fairly relate to the ideas of "free speech norms" regardless of the NYT being an independent business.
root_axis 8y ago
> Nobody owes you not selling your data either. Indeed. I take the same stance with regard to Facebook and others. If you don't want them to sell your data, stop willingly giving them your data. > nobody owes you one, but these companies accrue the astronomical benefits of massive network effects and are changing the ecology of our society I don't dispute the massive impact of social media on society, but ultimately that is the collective responsibility of society, not private platforms that arbitrarily become targets based on their popularity. Why aren't we trying to regulate myspace or livejournal? What is the arbitrary DAU metric that demands someone's website must be regulated? If the site suffers from PR or technical issues that drop the DAU numbers, do they automatically regain the ability to operate their site however they like? Society needs to grapple with the reality that these websites have no real power over us. The next big platform that people will complain is censoring them doesn't even exist yet.
- quadrangle 8y ago
  "willingly" implies "willfully" and even "wittingly" and near-zero of the people Facebook tracks actually understand the depth of tracking or even a hint of it. Facebook is abusively invasive, and no amount of appeals to user choice changes that. Victim-blaming is a real thing and a real problem.
  - root_axis 8y ago
    > "willingly" implies "willfully" and even "wittingly" and near-zero of the people Facebook tracks actually understand the depth of tracking or even a hint of it. They don't understand the full depth, but they know enough to understand that Facebook is violating their privacy in ways that they don't understand. They know that Facebook is unhealthy and insecure. Anyone with any political leaning has a lot to say about the ills of Facebook. People pretty much get the idea that Facebook is a bad actor. > Facebook is abusively invasive, and no amount of appeals to user choice changes that It's not an appeal to user choice, it's an appeal to basic property rights. If I buy a bunch of servers and throw them up on the internet I can do whatever I want with them, it's not my fault if you choose to access my servers, at my expense, and litter it with your own personal data. Of course Facebook is abusive, but there's literally zero reason you are obligated to use Facebook. ...it's an app, just uninstall it.

joe_the_user 8y ago

It's reasonable to impose free speech norms in exchange because on balance it will result in a better world than the counterfactual. Why exactly? The New York Times and the wire services were once the primary venue for most newspaper publication. There was never a requirement that anyone be able to write articles for them. The thing is allowing garbage views into "record of note" publications seriously empowers them. As an earlier article points out, youtube's algorithm is weight towards feeding people polarized extremist rants because these get responses (just the other day, my suggested "next videos" included a client change denier and Jordan Peterson for zero reason). We're looking at the result of extreme ideological polarization and these don't look pretty. A good portion of what could be called "hate speech" is pseudo-science presenting itself as science and this to someone who's (probably foolishly) expecting a bit of vetting on a large website, this pseudo-science sell is especially effective. Moreover, a large portion of those who uses a social network know that the "open web" exists and are quite capable of cruising it. Again, by letting into a venue the naive person imagines is vetted, you have increased its momentum considerably. The average person isn't necessary super competent at sorting modern issues. A good portion of heinous content leverages this by appearing respectable and being the web site of

quadrangle 8y ago
Free speech norms ≠ free speech absolutism. People could rightly have complained from a "free speech" position if the NYT published only left-wing letters-to-the-editor. They could also rightly complain if the NYT explicitly refused to publish a totally reasonable opinion piece (or more extreme: refuse a paid ad that was totally reasonable) because of tangential critiques of the author's statements in other contexts. Does that mean the NYT would have to do whatever the complainers say? No. But such complaints fairly relate to the ideas of "free speech norms" regardless of the NYT being an independent business.

root_axis 8y ago

> Nobody owes you not selling your data either. Indeed. I take the same stance with regard to Facebook and others. If you don't want them to sell your data, stop willingly giving them your data. > nobody owes you one, but these companies accrue the astronomical benefits of massive network effects and are changing the ecology of our society I don't dispute the massive impact of social media on society, but ultimately that is the collective responsibility of society, not private platforms that arbitrarily become targets based on their popularity. Why aren't we trying to regulate myspace or livejournal? What is the arbitrary DAU metric that demands someone's website must be regulated? If the site suffers from PR or technical issues that drop the DAU numbers, do they automatically regain the ability to operate their site however they like? Society needs to grapple with the reality that these websites have no real power over us. The next big platform that people will complain is censoring them doesn't even exist yet.

quadrangle 8y ago
"willingly" implies "willfully" and even "wittingly" and near-zero of the people Facebook tracks actually understand the depth of tracking or even a hint of it. Facebook is abusively invasive, and no amount of appeals to user choice changes that. Victim-blaming is a real thing and a real problem.
- root_axis 8y ago
  > "willingly" implies "willfully" and even "wittingly" and near-zero of the people Facebook tracks actually understand the depth of tracking or even a hint of it. They don't understand the full depth, but they know enough to understand that Facebook is violating their privacy in ways that they don't understand. They know that Facebook is unhealthy and insecure. Anyone with any political leaning has a lot to say about the ills of Facebook. People pretty much get the idea that Facebook is a bad actor. > Facebook is abusively invasive, and no amount of appeals to user choice changes that It's not an appeal to user choice, it's an appeal to basic property rights. If I buy a bunch of servers and throw them up on the internet I can do whatever I want with them, it's not my fault if you choose to access my servers, at my expense, and litter it with your own personal data. Of course Facebook is abusive, but there's literally zero reason you are obligated to use Facebook. ...it's an app, just uninstall it.