9 ms·

The neutral companies, such as utilities, online hosting or financial providers serve nearly everyone with little objections - they defer to the law rather than

by lykahb 6y ago

The neutral companies, such as utilities, online hosting or financial providers serve nearly everyone with little objections - they defer to the law rather than any internal policies. The more selective companies such as newspapers and TV channels are expected to restrict who can get published. By representing itself both as an open platform and as a company with progressive values, Twitter has put itself into an awkward in-between spot and is bound to create such controversies.

seph-reed 6y ago
They fucked this up so badly. They could have just banned him and said "It's a free country and they felt like it." Instead they're trying to high-road, and it's.. such a mistake.
- hypersoar 6y ago
  We'll, they're certainly escalating. I don't think that Trump actually wants to shut Twitter down, nor does he want to get banned there. The banning would rile up his base, but it would do so at the expense of his primary channel of communication. This action puts the ball back in Trump's court and asks him how far he wants to actually go.
  - riffic 6y ago
    let the white house spin up its own activitypub instance, then. shouldn't public communications occur on public infrastructure?
    - closetohome 6y ago
      Well that's the ridiculous part of all this. Anyone with $20 and a half hour to spare can whip up their own blog on their own domain and post anything they want. As far as accessibility goes, that website will be 100% equal to Twitter. These private platforms are only being conflated with public infrastructure because people have such a narrow view of what constitutes "the internet." It's ridiculous for a politician's primary means of communication to be over a private platform to begin with. Could you imagine if Clinton only talked to the press via AOL chatroom? The fact that we're debating it as though Trump is being censored by CSPAN just shows how much the abnormal has become normal.
- carapace 6y ago
  The high-road leads to where we actually want to be. I was thinking about what you said in the other thread about trolls, and I think you're off-base. Trolls aren't zen master ego busters, they're the self-hating jerks they seem to be. The "zen master ego buster" story is just another layer of the ego trip.
  - seph-reed 6y ago
    EDIT: and as if to prove the point, I've been trolled by someone who really doesn't want a race to the top, they just want to have the same easy answer that everyone who ever grew up in the blue would have. I said more words, you said less. Congratulations on your victory my fellow piece of shit. ------------- Only the inwardly good ones are zen master ego busters. Everyone is a self-hating jerk sometimes. I don't think that's a great label for trolls anyways. Saying they all hate themselves is more masturbatory than true. > The high-road leads to where we actually want to be. Absolutely agree. What I'm doing right now is high-roading about the paradoxical nature of high-roading a troll. In this circumstance, the true high-road is the low-road, and the true low-road is the high-road. I'm saying you're low-roading by thinking something that obviously has not worked is suddenly going to start. You're taking an irrational but popular position. You'll win, but be wrong: low-roading. All of the problems currently most difficult are ones which our intuition inherently fails at, this being one. Similarly, most heroes journeys end where they began just with a better perspective. Similarly, the easiest answer is often the best, but it usually takes trying everything else to understand why. These long-arc experience-driven positions are hard to achieve, and hard to understand, but correct: high-roading. Right now is one of those cases where we have to re-learn tactics that seem savage, but with the benefit of knowing savagery is context sensitive. In this battle there's a side that cares about being right, and there's a side that cares about winning. Trumps side can literally physically kick the asses of the side that cares about being right. Not only that, but they've got trolls that can get under their skin and make Liberals pout, and whine, and cry. Liberals are largely more rational/correct about most things. Personally, I believe that true leaders should be able to win a race to either bottom or top. They should be able to beat others physically, rationally, and emotionally. Trying to do this "fact-check" stuff is just liberals patting themselves on the back for being justifiably more rational. But that's not what matters now. What matters is that liberals should be better at trolling, and better at fist fighting because that is the only dominance that will create the change this world legitimately needs. ------- In conclusion, just ban the POTUS and say it was for the lulz. As long as everyone knows you're not actually that dumb, it's the best possible strategy for dealing with trolls.
- montagg 6y ago
  It's a risk. It's not a mistake. I appreciate they are trying to thread a very difficult needle. I'd argue democracy's continued survival is predicated on being able to both have a flattened playing field where every voice is accessible and like-minded people can find each other easily (what the Internet has enabled so far), and a way of inoculating people against lies intended for malicious manipulation (which the Internet has also enabled). Getting there, if we can, will be messy and ugly. Failing will be fatal to the idea that people can effectively self-govern.
QuercusMax 6y ago
Fact-checking obvious lies is a "progressive value"? Wow, that really shows how bad things have gotten.
- pnako 6y ago
  If the lies are obvious, why do they need "fact checking"?
  - sethhochberg 6y ago
    Because, for better or worse, the sources of truth that normal people historically relied on for their barometer of what is true or not have been democratized by the internet. We live in a world where a substantial number of people believe the earth is flat, that 5G cellular is a mind control scheme, that vaccines cause autism, that COVID-19 was created by a political party, that the concept of climate change is manufactured, or that major national crises are actually just actors being paid to further a political narrative. Most of these ideas aren't new, but in decades past you might have heard about them from a conspiracy-therorist neighbor, a low profile website, or an alternative magazine with little reputation of its own. Now, these ideas are spread on the exact same platforms as objectively truthful / scientifically sound media. Your Youtube conspiracy theory channel is right next to the BBC's videos. Your viral Facebook post could be from the New York Times, or it might be from a propaganda organization - or worse, an account that looks like a normal person but which was specifically created to spread misinformation that seems plausibly truthful. Credibility is distributed and anyone can publish to a huge audience, which is wonderful sometimes, and othertimes deeply problematic, because the viewer often doesn't know enough to distinguish fact from fiction and can't trust the publisher at face value anymore. Its uncharted territory. The cost to distribute is zero, and ideas spread far and wide - but that means that there are equally as many incredible sources on any given topic as credible ones, and telling the difference is hard, and sometimes not knowing the difference is dangerous. Dunning-Kruger writ large.
    - cameronbrown 6y ago
      > can't trust the publisher at face value anymore So you don't think mainstream media lies too, all the time, like politicians? RussiaGate is still unproven and by all definitions, a conspiracy. What makes them any more allowed to shill but individuals cannot?
anthony_doan 6y ago
> utilities It's natural monopoly and highly regulated. > online hosting There was several hoster that ban pornography and white supremacist hosting content. > financial providers Templeton fired the lady that was choking her dog while calling the police because an African American man was bird watching. He also asked her to leash her dog. It's a private company. I don't believe Trump is under a protected class to get special perks.
riffic 6y ago
Twitter has never been a "Utility" in the way that you may be imagining it to be.
- scaredtobeme 6y ago
  The argument is that it's getting there. It's the leading platform for public debate in the US right now. Journalists spend their days refreshing their Twitter feed, so the effect isn't just in the size of Twitter's platform but its influence.
  - qchris 6y ago
    I'd love to be a fly on the wall when a legal team responsible for supporting this narrative has to tackle the issue of regulating the platforms as a public utility, but not the Internet providers that carry them.
  - riffic 6y ago
    There have been people making these arguments both for and against for a very long time. Even as an example, on this very site: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22public%20utility%22%20AND%20twitter&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... I think you'll quickly lean in the opposing view after reviewing those viewpoints, because if Twitter was a utility it would have been declared one at some point in the previous 11 years.
    - baq 6y ago
      how long did it take to break up standard oil? ma bell?
      - root_axis 6y ago
        What would it even mean to break up twitter? How would that work?
        6y ago
sushid 6y ago
Online hosting or financial providers have never been "neutral."
bosswipe 6y ago
Where did Twitter represent itself as a company with progressive values?
nitwit005 6y ago
A number of countries are directly demanding they remove content that is considered "terrorist" or in some way an incitement to violence. Realistically, they have no choice but to have policies that forbid any such content on the platform. France, for example, recently passed a law demanding that various illegal content be removed in 1 hour or 24 hours, or face enormous fines: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52664609 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52664609

by lykahb 6y ago

seph-reed 6y ago

They fucked this up so badly. They could have just banned him and said "It's a free country and they felt like it." Instead they're trying to high-road, and it's.. such a mistake.

hypersoar 6y ago
We'll, they're certainly escalating. I don't think that Trump actually wants to shut Twitter down, nor does he want to get banned there. The banning would rile up his base, but it would do so at the expense of his primary channel of communication. This action puts the ball back in Trump's court and asks him how far he wants to actually go.
- riffic 6y ago
  let the white house spin up its own activitypub instance, then. shouldn't public communications occur on public infrastructure?
  - closetohome 6y ago
    Well that's the ridiculous part of all this. Anyone with $20 and a half hour to spare can whip up their own blog on their own domain and post anything they want. As far as accessibility goes, that website will be 100% equal to Twitter. These private platforms are only being conflated with public infrastructure because people have such a narrow view of what constitutes "the internet." It's ridiculous for a politician's primary means of communication to be over a private platform to begin with. Could you imagine if Clinton only talked to the press via AOL chatroom? The fact that we're debating it as though Trump is being censored by CSPAN just shows how much the abnormal has become normal.
carapace 6y ago
The high-road leads to where we actually want to be. I was thinking about what you said in the other thread about trolls, and I think you're off-base. Trolls aren't zen master ego busters, they're the self-hating jerks they seem to be. The "zen master ego buster" story is just another layer of the ego trip.
- seph-reed 6y ago
  EDIT: and as if to prove the point, I've been trolled by someone who really doesn't want a race to the top, they just want to have the same easy answer that everyone who ever grew up in the blue would have. I said more words, you said less. Congratulations on your victory my fellow piece of shit. ------------- Only the inwardly good ones are zen master ego busters. Everyone is a self-hating jerk sometimes. I don't think that's a great label for trolls anyways. Saying they all hate themselves is more masturbatory than true. > The high-road leads to where we actually want to be. Absolutely agree. What I'm doing right now is high-roading about the paradoxical nature of high-roading a troll. In this circumstance, the true high-road is the low-road, and the true low-road is the high-road. I'm saying you're low-roading by thinking something that obviously has not worked is suddenly going to start. You're taking an irrational but popular position. You'll win, but be wrong: low-roading. All of the problems currently most difficult are ones which our intuition inherently fails at, this being one. Similarly, most heroes journeys end where they began just with a better perspective. Similarly, the easiest answer is often the best, but it usually takes trying everything else to understand why. These long-arc experience-driven positions are hard to achieve, and hard to understand, but correct: high-roading. Right now is one of those cases where we have to re-learn tactics that seem savage, but with the benefit of knowing savagery is context sensitive. In this battle there's a side that cares about being right, and there's a side that cares about winning. Trumps side can literally physically kick the asses of the side that cares about being right. Not only that, but they've got trolls that can get under their skin and make Liberals pout, and whine, and cry. Liberals are largely more rational/correct about most things. Personally, I believe that true leaders should be able to win a race to either bottom or top. They should be able to beat others physically, rationally, and emotionally. Trying to do this "fact-check" stuff is just liberals patting themselves on the back for being justifiably more rational. But that's not what matters now. What matters is that liberals should be better at trolling, and better at fist fighting because that is the only dominance that will create the change this world legitimately needs. ------- In conclusion, just ban the POTUS and say it was for the lulz. As long as everyone knows you're not actually that dumb, it's the best possible strategy for dealing with trolls.
montagg 6y ago
It's a risk. It's not a mistake. I appreciate they are trying to thread a very difficult needle. I'd argue democracy's continued survival is predicated on being able to both have a flattened playing field where every voice is accessible and like-minded people can find each other easily (what the Internet has enabled so far), and a way of inoculating people against lies intended for malicious manipulation (which the Internet has also enabled). Getting there, if we can, will be messy and ugly. Failing will be fatal to the idea that people can effectively self-govern.

QuercusMax 6y ago

Fact-checking obvious lies is a "progressive value"? Wow, that really shows how bad things have gotten.

pnako 6y ago
If the lies are obvious, why do they need "fact checking"?
- sethhochberg 6y ago
  Because, for better or worse, the sources of truth that normal people historically relied on for their barometer of what is true or not have been democratized by the internet. We live in a world where a substantial number of people believe the earth is flat, that 5G cellular is a mind control scheme, that vaccines cause autism, that COVID-19 was created by a political party, that the concept of climate change is manufactured, or that major national crises are actually just actors being paid to further a political narrative. Most of these ideas aren't new, but in decades past you might have heard about them from a conspiracy-therorist neighbor, a low profile website, or an alternative magazine with little reputation of its own. Now, these ideas are spread on the exact same platforms as objectively truthful / scientifically sound media. Your Youtube conspiracy theory channel is right next to the BBC's videos. Your viral Facebook post could be from the New York Times, or it might be from a propaganda organization - or worse, an account that looks like a normal person but which was specifically created to spread misinformation that seems plausibly truthful. Credibility is distributed and anyone can publish to a huge audience, which is wonderful sometimes, and othertimes deeply problematic, because the viewer often doesn't know enough to distinguish fact from fiction and can't trust the publisher at face value anymore. Its uncharted territory. The cost to distribute is zero, and ideas spread far and wide - but that means that there are equally as many incredible sources on any given topic as credible ones, and telling the difference is hard, and sometimes not knowing the difference is dangerous. Dunning-Kruger writ large.
  - cameronbrown 6y ago
    > can't trust the publisher at face value anymore So you don't think mainstream media lies too, all the time, like politicians? RussiaGate is still unproven and by all definitions, a conspiracy. What makes them any more allowed to shill but individuals cannot?

anthony_doan 6y ago

> utilities It's natural monopoly and highly regulated. > online hosting There was several hoster that ban pornography and white supremacist hosting content. > financial providers Templeton fired the lady that was choking her dog while calling the police because an African American man was bird watching. He also asked her to leash her dog. It's a private company. I don't believe Trump is under a protected class to get special perks.

riffic 6y ago

Twitter has never been a "Utility" in the way that you may be imagining it to be.

scaredtobeme 6y ago
The argument is that it's getting there. It's the leading platform for public debate in the US right now. Journalists spend their days refreshing their Twitter feed, so the effect isn't just in the size of Twitter's platform but its influence.
- qchris 6y ago
  I'd love to be a fly on the wall when a legal team responsible for supporting this narrative has to tackle the issue of regulating the platforms as a public utility, but not the Internet providers that carry them.
- riffic 6y ago
  There have been people making these arguments both for and against for a very long time. Even as an example, on this very site: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22public%20utility%22%20AND%20twitter&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... I think you'll quickly lean in the opposing view after reviewing those viewpoints, because if Twitter was a utility it would have been declared one at some point in the previous 11 years.
  - baq 6y ago
    how long did it take to break up standard oil? ma bell?
    - root_axis 6y ago
      What would it even mean to break up twitter? How would that work?
      - 6y ago

sushid 6y ago

Online hosting or financial providers have never been "neutral."

bosswipe 6y ago

Where did Twitter represent itself as a company with progressive values?

nitwit005 6y ago

A number of countries are directly demanding they remove content that is considered "terrorist" or in some way an incitement to violence. Realistically, they have no choice but to have policies that forbid any such content on the platform. France, for example, recently passed a law demanding that various illegal content be removed in 1 hour or 24 hours, or face enormous fines: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52664609 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52664609