4 ms·

For the most part, I support platform neutrality. I don't agree with all the Google censorship of misinformation and "misinformation" on their platforms. I thin

by wegs 6y ago

For the most part, I support platform neutrality. I don't agree with all the Google censorship of misinformation and "misinformation" on their platforms. I think Facebook should have less evil algorithms (it seems designed to encourage polarization), but I wouldn't want censorship or commentary their either. This case is an exception. Twitter drew a line in the sand. It is in exactly the right place. The PoTUS is threatening to shut down elections in November: he seems to be doing everything in his power to have a national emergency then when people can't vote, to shut down post offices, and to ban voting by mail. Any other problems with the PoTUS, we should address in the ballot box and through citizen activism (not through corporate activism). But when the PoTUS tries to shut down the ballot box or shut down citizen activism, that's different. I don't think he's likely to be successful, but I didn't think coronavirus would hit us this hard either. In January, it was a manageable billion-dollar problem. We did nothing. Now, it's a multi-trillion dollar problem. Right now, Trump trying to cancel the election is a manageable problem too; by his personality, if he doesn't get traction, we're done. He'll move on. But if he does get traction, we'll have a completely different scale of problem on our hands.

commandlinefan 6y ago
> It is in exactly the right place If they start fact-checking everybody, it is. Otherwise, they're just campaigning for the other side.
- aabhay 6y ago
  They have been fact checking other people. It was precisely that they weren’t fact checking trump.
loceng 6y ago
The internet itself needs to be the platform that is neutral, and then allowing the freedom of people to have private corporations - "digital land" they own - and can therefore moderate how they choose to govern, thereby giving individuals the freedom to decide who they use, give their attention to, and support financially. There are separate issues like economies of scale that don't allow a completely level playing field - however a monthly UBI where part of it is required to be allocated to be used for digital services (e.g. pay for Facebook vs. being bombarded by manipulative ads) would allow everyone to afford costs of bandwidth-CPU usage etc to take that burden off of private companies and would level the playing field. Similarly these massive platforms like Facebook wouldn't have grown to their scale if people's data and networks were completely mobile with no friction, therefore it would be a competitive battle based on governance and not merely difficulty, laziness, leading to strong defensible network effects.
50ckpuppet 6y ago
"The PoTUS is threatening to shut down elections in November:" linkage ??
- wegs 6y ago
  If there's a public health crisis, and people can't safely leave homes and can't vote by mail, there is no meaningful election. Right now, he's: * Doing everything in his power to have a public health crisis (which means people can't go out to vote) * Working to bankrupt the USPS so people can't vote by mail * Threatening to go after states which support vote-by-mail (that's the tweet and similar statements -- withholding federal funding to states which vote by mail) That's a concerning set of signals. That's not a verbal threat like a declaration of war, if that's the link you're looking for. It's a threat like when a country conducts military drills on your border, or like when there's a new virus outbreak on the other side of the world. Problems might or might not materialize, but you should take actions to be ready both to minimize the odds of problems, and in case they do. Our current PoTUS is an opportunist. He hedges and hangs out ideas to see if they'll get traction. If he gets any traction on an idea, he exploits it very effectively. If he doesn't get traction, he moves on. That has upsides and downsides, but in this case, it's to everyone's advantage that he doesn't get traction. And the response should be very similar. If a country appears to be preparing to invade, you prepare to defend yourself. That doesn't mean you need to be obnoxious about it or try to provoke a war (politeness pays), but you do want to respond to the threat. I apologize if I was imprecise in my wording. The word 'threat' has multiple meanings. I don't want to vilify the PoTUS, but I do want to make sure the checks-and-balances stay in place. That take vigilance against threats, both real and potential.
  - whateveracct 6y ago
    "Logical" HNers will say that those bullets don't amount to a bad faith attack on the election. They basically give Trump the benefit of the doubt. You can't give authoritarians the benefit of the doubt. They'll take that inch and turn it into miles and miles. Trump is well beyond benefit of the doubt bankruptcy.
    - 6y ago

by wegs 6y ago

commandlinefan 6y ago

> It is in exactly the right place If they start fact-checking everybody, it is. Otherwise, they're just campaigning for the other side.

aabhay 6y ago
They have been fact checking other people. It was precisely that they weren’t fact checking trump.

loceng 6y ago

The internet itself needs to be the platform that is neutral, and then allowing the freedom of people to have private corporations - "digital land" they own - and can therefore moderate how they choose to govern, thereby giving individuals the freedom to decide who they use, give their attention to, and support financially. There are separate issues like economies of scale that don't allow a completely level playing field - however a monthly UBI where part of it is required to be allocated to be used for digital services (e.g. pay for Facebook vs. being bombarded by manipulative ads) would allow everyone to afford costs of bandwidth-CPU usage etc to take that burden off of private companies and would level the playing field. Similarly these massive platforms like Facebook wouldn't have grown to their scale if people's data and networks were completely mobile with no friction, therefore it would be a competitive battle based on governance and not merely difficulty, laziness, leading to strong defensible network effects.

50ckpuppet 6y ago

"The PoTUS is threatening to shut down elections in November:" linkage ??

wegs 6y ago
If there's a public health crisis, and people can't safely leave homes and can't vote by mail, there is no meaningful election. Right now, he's: * Doing everything in his power to have a public health crisis (which means people can't go out to vote) * Working to bankrupt the USPS so people can't vote by mail * Threatening to go after states which support vote-by-mail (that's the tweet and similar statements -- withholding federal funding to states which vote by mail) That's a concerning set of signals. That's not a verbal threat like a declaration of war, if that's the link you're looking for. It's a threat like when a country conducts military drills on your border, or like when there's a new virus outbreak on the other side of the world. Problems might or might not materialize, but you should take actions to be ready both to minimize the odds of problems, and in case they do. Our current PoTUS is an opportunist. He hedges and hangs out ideas to see if they'll get traction. If he gets any traction on an idea, he exploits it very effectively. If he doesn't get traction, he moves on. That has upsides and downsides, but in this case, it's to everyone's advantage that he doesn't get traction. And the response should be very similar. If a country appears to be preparing to invade, you prepare to defend yourself. That doesn't mean you need to be obnoxious about it or try to provoke a war (politeness pays), but you do want to respond to the threat. I apologize if I was imprecise in my wording. The word 'threat' has multiple meanings. I don't want to vilify the PoTUS, but I do want to make sure the checks-and-balances stay in place. That take vigilance against threats, both real and potential.
- whateveracct 6y ago
  "Logical" HNers will say that those bullets don't amount to a bad faith attack on the election. They basically give Trump the benefit of the doubt. You can't give authoritarians the benefit of the doubt. They'll take that inch and turn it into miles and miles. Trump is well beyond benefit of the doubt bankruptcy.
  - 6y ago