5 ms·

They're just picking winners that align with their own ideology at this point. The dangers of authoritarianism are latent in any power structure - whether gover

They're just picking winners that align with their own ideology at this point. The dangers of authoritarianism are latent in any power structure - whether government, corporate, or other. This is bad for society.

rhizome 7y ago
>They're just picking winners that align with their own ideology at this point Which is why Twitter and Facebook and LinkedIn and all of them are actually publishers, akin to the Washington Times or Fox News, and don't (currently) deserve §230 protection.
- gizmo385 7y ago
  I mean at a certain point, does a difference in volume not become a difference in kind? Washington Times and Fox News are effectively "whitelisting" the content that goes onto their sites, whereas the stance that Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn are taking here is a blacklist. Those are different things.
  - rhizome 7y ago
    >does a difference in volume not become a difference in kind? Why should it? They built the firehose, they can build the valves. It's not reasonable to argue, "whoopsy, too hard to do now!" when moderation has been around for DECADES and which therefore they consciously decided not to implement anywhere along the line. Even if Zuckerberg was already in over his head by that point, Thiel knew about this stuff. So did Parker. FB pays smart people who know about this stuff, too, they're just presumably prevented from implementing it. This really is "a steering wheel that doesn't fly off while you're driving" situation, but FB refuses to secure steering wheels until they can figure out a way to do it without humans. It's their problem if blacklists don't work. Why can't (can't) they use whitelists if that's the sure-fire solution? They can, they just don't want to. Look how many teeth had to be pulled just to get attribution on ads that were proven to be problematic.
  - leggomylibro 7y ago
    Are they different from the consumer's perspective? It seems like adding a small amount of information to a blank page and removing a large amount of information from a full page can have the same result. In programming terms: ( 0xFF & 0x01 ) == ( 0x00 | 0x01 ) People still see the same thing, regardless of how the decision to show it is reached.

rhizome 7y ago

>They're just picking winners that align with their own ideology at this point Which is why Twitter and Facebook and LinkedIn and all of them are actually publishers, akin to the Washington Times or Fox News, and don't (currently) deserve §230 protection.

gizmo385 7y ago
I mean at a certain point, does a difference in volume not become a difference in kind? Washington Times and Fox News are effectively "whitelisting" the content that goes onto their sites, whereas the stance that Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn are taking here is a blacklist. Those are different things.
- rhizome 7y ago
  >does a difference in volume not become a difference in kind? Why should it? They built the firehose, they can build the valves. It's not reasonable to argue, "whoopsy, too hard to do now!" when moderation has been around for DECADES and which therefore they consciously decided not to implement anywhere along the line. Even if Zuckerberg was already in over his head by that point, Thiel knew about this stuff. So did Parker. FB pays smart people who know about this stuff, too, they're just presumably prevented from implementing it. This really is "a steering wheel that doesn't fly off while you're driving" situation, but FB refuses to secure steering wheels until they can figure out a way to do it without humans. It's their problem if blacklists don't work. Why can't (can't) they use whitelists if that's the sure-fire solution? They can, they just don't want to. Look how many teeth had to be pulled just to get attribution on ads that were proven to be problematic.
- leggomylibro 7y ago
  Are they different from the consumer's perspective? It seems like adding a small amount of information to a blank page and removing a large amount of information from a full page can have the same result. In programming terms: ( 0xFF & 0x01 ) == ( 0x00 | 0x01 ) People still see the same thing, regardless of how the decision to show it is reached.