4 ms·

I was sort of with it until it seemed to pivot abruptly into poor reasoning for breaking up big tech companies. The article seems to make contradictory argumen

by beaner 7y ago

I was sort of with it until it seemed to pivot abruptly into poor reasoning for breaking up big tech companies. The article seems to make contradictory arguments that (1) censorship is good, (2) big tech is the only way censorship can be enforced, (3) big tech must be broken up to enable smaller companies. The article also only focuses on examples of obvious right-leaning types of inflammatory content and excuses itself and its equal weight in dividing us. NYT also presents itself as the last beacon of hope, the only place such an article could be published in the future. Which is the biggest joke in the world for free speech; just read the paper daily and you will observe that it has one of the biggest self-applied filters anywhere. Big media doesn't like that people don't need it anymore, and it sees breaking up competing large institutions as part of what will save it. It is trying to use its weight and influence to squelch competition, which is what it accuses others of doing. But goes one step further by asking for it to be enforced politically. Maybe the papers should be broken up.

deogeo 7y ago
> Maybe the papers should be broken up. I mean, definitely [1], but that doesn't invalidate his argument. Both tech and media consolidation is a problem. [1] http://cgi.rumormillnews.com/pix0/Screen-shot-2012-07-19-at-5.23.17-PM.png http://cgi.rumormillnews.com/pix0/Screen-shot-2012-07-19-at-...
- beaner 7y ago
  Is it? There are more forums on the internet than there have ever been. It's not like FB and Twitter are the only 2 platforms that exist. I'm skeptical that "breaking them up" would really do anything. People would continue to use the thousands of other platforms that are out there, but there would still be a desire for a sufficiently abstract social network that another one would grow. Then there would be calls to break that one up... To fight against large social networks is to fight against natural human organization and interaction. Attempting to is pointless and probably even harmful, since the velocity of good ideas would be reduced along with the bad.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    > Then there would be calls to break that one up... Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Many markets naturally tend towards monopolies - that is no reason not to break them up. As for the thousands of other platforms - those can't sway elections like Facebook can.
    - beaner 7y ago
      What is really being asked to be broken up isn't a monopoly, but the way people interact with each other and organize themselves, which so far has manifested as large corporations because it has been the most efficient expression of our own built-in networking. What I hear when you say "smaller platforms can't influence elections like facebook" is "citizens vote differently when they are disconnected from their peers - in a way that I like".
      - eli_gottlieb 7y ago
        >the way people interact with each other and organize themselves, which so far has manifested as large corporations because it has been the most efficient expression of our own built-in networking. [citation needed]
      - deogeo 7y ago
        > isn't a monopoly, but the way people interact with each other But it's more than just the way people interact - it's also a company controlling it. E.g. no-one is calling for breaking up IRC or XMPP - because you couldn't. I'm just not comfortable giving a handful of companies so much soft power over national/global discussion.
        beaner 7y ago
        I think the point is that even if such a service were completely decentralized, there would be the same calls to action against it. The point being made in the article is not so much about the companies themselves, it's about how people communicate with each other on such platforms (even if the author intended otherwise).
- TheOperator 7y ago
  I disagree hugely and have seen a massive move towards the decentralization of media. Which is exactly what's causing a rise in extremism. How does a more diverse media environment NOT lead to more extremism by its very nature? It means people have more access to more extreme views. Extremism is a double edged sword, tends to accelerate societal progress but tends to result in more loons mucking things up. New York Times as society's moral arbiter will never happen again. I'm not sad either. For all this high minded talk about protecting people from extremism I'll never forget how much blood they have on their hands from back when they reported fake news that helped sell the Iraq war. That has killed way more people than the rise of extremism has. Their FUD about how we have to break up the NYTs competition doesn't sway me. The NYT also loves extremism so long as it's the kind they approve of. Neo-victorian social media lynching of men accused of sexual indiscretions? Well they're on board with that because it advances women's rights and the collateral damage is exaggerated anyways.
carlosdp 7y ago
Maybe I missed it, but where is it arguing that censorship is good? I thought he was arguing the exact opposite, that it's bad and doesn't actually solve the social problem.
- beaner 7y ago
  It does come off that way at the start, but I felt that about 1/3 of the way through, the undertone shifts in a way that presumes censorship is desirable. I think if the author were calling for censorship to be lifted, his first and loudest argument would be for it to be removed from existing networks. But his ultimate judgment is that the existing networks are bad because they can't properly apply censorship, and that the answer is smaller networks. What criteria would a large, abstract social network be broken up by? The only answer is content, meaning ideas would be relegated to certain spaces so that they cannot propagate as easily. That's an argument for censorship while trying to sell it as something else.
jakelazaroff 7y ago
It's definitely not making arguments 1 or 2. The underlying premise is that we don't want to build our digital infrastructure such that "fascism, harassment and crime" can be memetic. It then argues that as long as our online communication is dominated by a couple giant services, we won't be able to prevent that. It's certainly possible to build services to limit the damage of e.g. harassment, without censorship. Look at Mastodon. If you run your own instance, you can publish whatever you'd like. By default, any two instances can communicate. If one instance doesn't like what another publishes, they can block it. Also, with regard to your allegations around NYT's opinion of itself: the article was written by Cory Doctorow. I doubt he's particularly rooting for NYT to be an even more powerful gatekeeper.
- beaner 7y ago
  Re #1, my other comment below: > I think if the author were calling for censorship to be lifted, his first and loudest argument would be for it to be removed from existing networks. But his ultimate judgment is that the existing networks are bad because they can't properly apply censorship, and that the answer is smaller networks. What criteria would a large, abstract social network be broken up by? The only answer is content, meaning ideas would be relegated to certain spaces so that they cannot propagate as easily. That's an argument for censorship while trying to sell it as something else. Re #2, From the article: > Only the largest companies can afford the kinds of filters we’ve demanded of them, and that means that any would-be trustbuster who wants to break up the companies and bring them to heel first must unwind the mesh of obligations we’ve ensnared the platforms in and build new, state-based mechanisms to perform those duties. I don't know a whole lot about Mastodon yet, but the reason it "solves the problem" (according to you and the author) isn't because of how it changes network dynamics, but because it is federated and technically limited. Meaning it is not meant for any single instance to handle the load of e.g. Twitter. Its design basically prevents people from interacting as they would like to, which means we're deferring the power of our speech to an inferior technology designed for a different use case. If that was all we had, then someone would invent a large centralized network because that is what people want because that is how information travels quickly. Mandating federated networks would be an attack on the rights to free speech and property. As for who the author is, I don't think it matters, it still supports NYT's whole viewpoint of itself and the world.

by beaner 7y ago

deogeo 7y ago

> Maybe the papers should be broken up. I mean, definitely [1], but that doesn't invalidate his argument. Both tech and media consolidation is a problem. [1] http://cgi.rumormillnews.com/pix0/Screen-shot-2012-07-19-at-5.23.17-PM.png http://cgi.rumormillnews.com/pix0/Screen-shot-2012-07-19-at-...

beaner 7y ago
Is it? There are more forums on the internet than there have ever been. It's not like FB and Twitter are the only 2 platforms that exist. I'm skeptical that "breaking them up" would really do anything. People would continue to use the thousands of other platforms that are out there, but there would still be a desire for a sufficiently abstract social network that another one would grow. Then there would be calls to break that one up... To fight against large social networks is to fight against natural human organization and interaction. Attempting to is pointless and probably even harmful, since the velocity of good ideas would be reduced along with the bad.
- deogeo 7y ago
  > Then there would be calls to break that one up... Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Many markets naturally tend towards monopolies - that is no reason not to break them up. As for the thousands of other platforms - those can't sway elections like Facebook can.
  - beaner 7y ago
    What is really being asked to be broken up isn't a monopoly, but the way people interact with each other and organize themselves, which so far has manifested as large corporations because it has been the most efficient expression of our own built-in networking. What I hear when you say "smaller platforms can't influence elections like facebook" is "citizens vote differently when they are disconnected from their peers - in a way that I like".
    - eli_gottlieb 7y ago
      >the way people interact with each other and organize themselves, which so far has manifested as large corporations because it has been the most efficient expression of our own built-in networking. [citation needed]
    - deogeo 7y ago
      > isn't a monopoly, but the way people interact with each other But it's more than just the way people interact - it's also a company controlling it. E.g. no-one is calling for breaking up IRC or XMPP - because you couldn't. I'm just not comfortable giving a handful of companies so much soft power over national/global discussion.
      - beaner 7y ago
        I think the point is that even if such a service were completely decentralized, there would be the same calls to action against it. The point being made in the article is not so much about the companies themselves, it's about how people communicate with each other on such platforms (even if the author intended otherwise).
TheOperator 7y ago
I disagree hugely and have seen a massive move towards the decentralization of media. Which is exactly what's causing a rise in extremism. How does a more diverse media environment NOT lead to more extremism by its very nature? It means people have more access to more extreme views. Extremism is a double edged sword, tends to accelerate societal progress but tends to result in more loons mucking things up. New York Times as society's moral arbiter will never happen again. I'm not sad either. For all this high minded talk about protecting people from extremism I'll never forget how much blood they have on their hands from back when they reported fake news that helped sell the Iraq war. That has killed way more people than the rise of extremism has. Their FUD about how we have to break up the NYTs competition doesn't sway me. The NYT also loves extremism so long as it's the kind they approve of. Neo-victorian social media lynching of men accused of sexual indiscretions? Well they're on board with that because it advances women's rights and the collateral damage is exaggerated anyways.

carlosdp 7y ago

Maybe I missed it, but where is it arguing that censorship is good? I thought he was arguing the exact opposite, that it's bad and doesn't actually solve the social problem.

beaner 7y ago
It does come off that way at the start, but I felt that about 1/3 of the way through, the undertone shifts in a way that presumes censorship is desirable. I think if the author were calling for censorship to be lifted, his first and loudest argument would be for it to be removed from existing networks. But his ultimate judgment is that the existing networks are bad because they can't properly apply censorship, and that the answer is smaller networks. What criteria would a large, abstract social network be broken up by? The only answer is content, meaning ideas would be relegated to certain spaces so that they cannot propagate as easily. That's an argument for censorship while trying to sell it as something else.

jakelazaroff 7y ago

It's definitely not making arguments 1 or 2. The underlying premise is that we don't want to build our digital infrastructure such that "fascism, harassment and crime" can be memetic. It then argues that as long as our online communication is dominated by a couple giant services, we won't be able to prevent that. It's certainly possible to build services to limit the damage of e.g. harassment, without censorship. Look at Mastodon. If you run your own instance, you can publish whatever you'd like. By default, any two instances can communicate. If one instance doesn't like what another publishes, they can block it. Also, with regard to your allegations around NYT's opinion of itself: the article was written by Cory Doctorow. I doubt he's particularly rooting for NYT to be an even more powerful gatekeeper.

beaner 7y ago
Re #1, my other comment below: > I think if the author were calling for censorship to be lifted, his first and loudest argument would be for it to be removed from existing networks. But his ultimate judgment is that the existing networks are bad because they can't properly apply censorship, and that the answer is smaller networks. What criteria would a large, abstract social network be broken up by? The only answer is content, meaning ideas would be relegated to certain spaces so that they cannot propagate as easily. That's an argument for censorship while trying to sell it as something else. Re #2, From the article: > Only the largest companies can afford the kinds of filters we’ve demanded of them, and that means that any would-be trustbuster who wants to break up the companies and bring them to heel first must unwind the mesh of obligations we’ve ensnared the platforms in and build new, state-based mechanisms to perform those duties. I don't know a whole lot about Mastodon yet, but the reason it "solves the problem" (according to you and the author) isn't because of how it changes network dynamics, but because it is federated and technically limited. Meaning it is not meant for any single instance to handle the load of e.g. Twitter. Its design basically prevents people from interacting as they would like to, which means we're deferring the power of our speech to an inferior technology designed for a different use case. If that was all we had, then someone would invent a large centralized network because that is what people want because that is how information travels quickly. Mandating federated networks would be an attack on the rights to free speech and property. As for who the author is, I don't think it matters, it still supports NYT's whole viewpoint of itself and the world.