3 ms·

This brings up the inherent absurdity of wanting tech infrastructure providers to sensor their platforms. When the mob decides that they don't like a thing the

by anm89 7y ago

This brings up the inherent absurdity of wanting tech infrastructure providers to sensor their platforms. When the mob decides that they don't like a thing then it's "why were they allowed a platform". Whereas when the mob wants access to a thing and then it's restricted it's "why were they allowed to capriciously control my access" It's an inherently unwinnable game. Tech companies who are essentially an information utility at this point controlling huge flows of content should not be made judge jury and executioner on what is acceptable speech. It's bizarre to me that people who on one hand seem to hate these companies also want to give them immense power and responsibility to restrict access to information. It's because they associate the idea of censorship with getting the specific thing they want censored and not with a broader world in which these companies hold this power. Not a huge fan of Joe Rogan but Naval Ravikant expresses this very lucidly on the podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNWN5ioF-9A&feature=youtu.be&t=592 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNWN5ioF-9A&feature=youtu.be...

natalyarostova 7y ago
This is why the corner solution of free speech as a cultural meme was started, which was a precursor to its formalization. The corner solution essentially 'solves' this issue by realizing partial censorship is a non-stable equilibrium.
dv_dt 7y ago
I feel like we've forgetton how to propose and discuss common standards that should apply in encouraging and enforcing public speech. It looks like a unwinnable game if there aren't standards - but our media and our politicians rarely ever couch discussion in those terms, only in individual conflict terms which makes it more difficult to pull a common direction out of the mass.
- anm89 7y ago
  Yes this is a huge problem. These days everyone gets a say and the loudest voice wins but many people are simply not systematic thinkers. Their idea of a how a system should behave is whatever behavior gives them what they want now, regardless of what the final equilibrium of moving to that state would be.
loudtieblahblah 7y ago
bring up the topic of free speech and every socialist falls to their knees in order to pray to corporations.
lukifer 7y ago
There's been talk of antitrust/etc recently regarding big tech companies, from Warren and others. For better or worse, it occurred to me recently that we have no concept of eminent domain [0] when it comes to technology, data, or intellectual property. If it's in the public interest to build a bridge, lay train tracks, etc., your private property can be purchased against your wishes at a fair market price. When it comes to things like open APIs, protocols, interoperability, data portability, even patents, I wonder if it might every make sense to leverage this legal framework to build true network commons out of privatized silos (while compensating shareholders), as opposed to the old "break up AT&T into multiple companies" model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
- anm89 7y ago
  As it should be. Eminent domain is a policy that's is designed to be abused if there ever was one. I suspect that the only reason eminent domain has such a fancy name is to take focus of the fact that the other word for it is theft.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    You know, when someone wants to buy a public company, Joe Schmoe doesn't get to say "I'm only selling my 10 shares for $1 million apiece!" Is this an outrageous affront to property rights, or is it something you just take for granted because you don't see the connection to the government?
    - anm89 7y ago
      What???This is totally incoherent. Yes that's exactly how it works. Joe can ask for whatever price he wants and if he doesn't get that price then he has to keep holding the asset. An individual asking an unfair price for stock they own would not hold up the sale of other shares in the company in most (all?) cases unless they are the primary stake holder
      - perl4ever 7y ago
einpoklum 7y ago
It's not about "people". Google censors because of pressures from the US state (and other states they operate in) and commercial interests, particularly advertisers I would assume.

by anm89 7y ago

natalyarostova 7y ago

This is why the corner solution of free speech as a cultural meme was started, which was a precursor to its formalization. The corner solution essentially 'solves' this issue by realizing partial censorship is a non-stable equilibrium.

dv_dt 7y ago

I feel like we've forgetton how to propose and discuss common standards that should apply in encouraging and enforcing public speech. It looks like a unwinnable game if there aren't standards - but our media and our politicians rarely ever couch discussion in those terms, only in individual conflict terms which makes it more difficult to pull a common direction out of the mass.

anm89 7y ago
Yes this is a huge problem. These days everyone gets a say and the loudest voice wins but many people are simply not systematic thinkers. Their idea of a how a system should behave is whatever behavior gives them what they want now, regardless of what the final equilibrium of moving to that state would be.

loudtieblahblah 7y ago

bring up the topic of free speech and every socialist falls to their knees in order to pray to corporations.

lukifer 7y ago

There's been talk of antitrust/etc recently regarding big tech companies, from Warren and others. For better or worse, it occurred to me recently that we have no concept of eminent domain [0] when it comes to technology, data, or intellectual property. If it's in the public interest to build a bridge, lay train tracks, etc., your private property can be purchased against your wishes at a fair market price. When it comes to things like open APIs, protocols, interoperability, data portability, even patents, I wonder if it might every make sense to leverage this legal framework to build true network commons out of privatized silos (while compensating shareholders), as opposed to the old "break up AT&T into multiple companies" model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain

anm89 7y ago
As it should be. Eminent domain is a policy that's is designed to be abused if there ever was one. I suspect that the only reason eminent domain has such a fancy name is to take focus of the fact that the other word for it is theft.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  You know, when someone wants to buy a public company, Joe Schmoe doesn't get to say "I'm only selling my 10 shares for $1 million apiece!" Is this an outrageous affront to property rights, or is it something you just take for granted because you don't see the connection to the government?
  - anm89 7y ago
    What???This is totally incoherent. Yes that's exactly how it works. Joe can ask for whatever price he wants and if he doesn't get that price then he has to keep holding the asset. An individual asking an unfair price for stock they own would not hold up the sale of other shares in the company in most (all?) cases unless they are the primary stake holder
    - perl4ever 7y ago

einpoklum 7y ago

It's not about "people". Google censors because of pressures from the US state (and other states they operate in) and commercial interests, particularly advertisers I would assume.