6 ms·

Likely because a lot of people disagree with your stance for substantive reasons. But you won't be the only voice saying it. HN and the tech industry in genera

Likely because a lot of people disagree with your stance for substantive reasons. But you won't be the only voice saying it. HN and the tech industry in general has a consistent presence of people espousing the laissez faire view on free speech. It might not be the popular view, but it has plenty of mindshare.

syshum 6y ago
>>HN and the tech industry in general has a consistent presence of people espousing the laissez faire view on free speech. Pre-2016 I would have agreed. Today the tech industry DOES NOT in any way have a "laissez faire view on free speech" the Tech Industry in general has a one sided political bias that is very clear, and the goal to suppress any speech not aligned with that political bias for the purposes of influencing elections
- AnotherGoodName 6y ago
  If i ask people if they think the tech industry has a very clear political bias i'd expect the majority would agree, if i asked which way the bias leans i suspect the majority would disagree. To put this to the point which way do you think the bias leans?
  - syshum 6y ago
    It is not a matter of thinking or belief, there is documented Evidence of this political bias from many sources and from many Tech companies. The debate comes into place because the Tech companies will still ban people for clear rules violations even though they are on the "correct" side, direct calls for violence as an example But the even the rules themselves on most of these platforms show a political worldview toward one side. This is also influenced by the massive shift in the overton window over the last 4 years, so much so that many people on one political side seem to have whiplash. So I do not doubt you will find people that will disagree with what way the bias leans, however when you have documented and video evidence of the bias in one direction then the debate is much less valid
  - naeemtee 6y ago
    You would have to live in a ridiculous echo chamber to disagree on the political leaning of the industry based almost entirely in San Francisco
    - AnotherGoodName 6y ago
      Really? Because there's a lot of talk that the tech companies were (partly) the reason Trump was elected. How does that fit in?
      - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        That means they messed up, not that they don't lean left.
      - EdSharkey 6y ago
        Oh, it fits simply: * greed: there's buckets of money to be made during election season selling voter info and ads to campaigns * hubris: they never thought she'd lose, she was a terrible candidate (just like Biden this time!)
      - syshum 6y ago
        My comment specifically states Post-2016. Trump was elected in 2016 and as a result of this the Tech Companies "woke" up to become political entities instead of platforms, many many tech executives were filmed/recorded publicly saying would would do anything in their power to avoid "another 2016"
        krapp 6y ago
        >many many tech executives were filmed/recorded publicly saying would would do anything in their power to avoid "another 2016" Wow, "many many?" Like not one, not even many, but many squared by even more many? That's a lot. And each of them of was filmed and recorded individually making the same statement too. That's shocking. I don't suppose you could point us to the mountain of video and audio evidence implied by this comment, could you?
        6y ago
  - EdSharkey 6y ago
    I don't think you need to ask around or play dumb. Just read what gets boosted in feeds. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-i-fully-admit-our-bias-is-more-left-leaning https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jac... @jack says one thing in interviews but does another. https://www.projectveritas.com/news/undercover-video-twitter-engineers-to-ban-a-way-of-talking-through-shadow-banning-algorithms-to-censor-opposing-political-opinions/ https://www.projectveritas.com/news/undercover-video-twitter... What types get a pass on speech and what types get deplatformed? https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/24/carpe-donktum-banned-twitter/ https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/24/carpe-donktum...
- ben_w 6y ago
  Imagine what the world would actually look like if that were true. I mean really imagine that. If the tech industry wanted to suppress a particular presidential candidate, not only with that candidate have no account on any social platform, but links to their websites or to news articles that sentiment analysis decides are pro that candidate would be blocked by search engines, and videos of that candidate or pro that candidate would be flagged and removed.
  - zo1 6y ago
    That's like rebutting systemic racism by claiming "if there was racism in America, you wouldn't have had a black president!". Maybe there isn't a blatant set of acts that is "biased" on tech platforms that you could point to and say "look see, bias!". Perhaps it is just systemic bias and there is structural suppression of certain viewpoints on the aggregate level.
  - syshum 6y ago
    No, that would have extreme backlash. It would influence the election in a wrong way. They know this Infact one of the best things the opposition should be doing is promoting other platforms, if high profile political candidates would abandon mainstream platforms and signal boost alternatives (like the new comer Parler) then it would reduce the power of the platforms No the platforms want the HIGH PROFILE people, then they suppress the supporters of those high profile people, that is how the game is played That is how the population is influences, they get the High Profile people to speak on the platform, then only allow dissenters to respond that gives the observing public the idea that the majority disagrees triggering a band wagon effect
EdSharkey 6y ago
There is only one substantive reason I am aware of: power. Suppression of speech, especially political speech, is a raw power play by the suppressors. That's a losing game though. I agree with GP, only dumb (aka honest) conduits last.
- randomfool 6y ago
  Should HN be completely un-moderated? There's a decent chance that the quality of the forum would drop and users could move elsewhere. I firmly believe that Facebook is responsible for shaping the tone of their platform (every social network does this in one way or another). A platform that allows anything may not attract the audience that Facebook desires. Arguing that Facebook cannot set the tone of their platform is a losing game.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    HN is probably as good as it gets in terms of striking the balance between comteting interests. You may be right in the current environment, but were the 4chans of the world not constantly shooed away maybe there would be no need for heavy handed approach. I didn't say it cannot. I said it should not. It should stay as neutral as it can possibly be.
  - EdSharkey 6y ago
    Moderation is great, I can SEE dead posts on hn if I opt into them. Taste is a good thing. I like the choices about what hits the main page on hn most days, that's why I come here. I cannot opt into a deplatformed political person's speech on Twitter because they're absent. So, no, I don't conflate taste and moderation with silencing political speech, in an election year no less, like you do.
    - learc83 6y ago
      HN bans people too as well as just marking comments as dead.
      - 6y ago

syshum 6y ago

>>HN and the tech industry in general has a consistent presence of people espousing the laissez faire view on free speech. Pre-2016 I would have agreed. Today the tech industry DOES NOT in any way have a "laissez faire view on free speech" the Tech Industry in general has a one sided political bias that is very clear, and the goal to suppress any speech not aligned with that political bias for the purposes of influencing elections

AnotherGoodName 6y ago
If i ask people if they think the tech industry has a very clear political bias i'd expect the majority would agree, if i asked which way the bias leans i suspect the majority would disagree. To put this to the point which way do you think the bias leans?
- syshum 6y ago
  It is not a matter of thinking or belief, there is documented Evidence of this political bias from many sources and from many Tech companies. The debate comes into place because the Tech companies will still ban people for clear rules violations even though they are on the "correct" side, direct calls for violence as an example But the even the rules themselves on most of these platforms show a political worldview toward one side. This is also influenced by the massive shift in the overton window over the last 4 years, so much so that many people on one political side seem to have whiplash. So I do not doubt you will find people that will disagree with what way the bias leans, however when you have documented and video evidence of the bias in one direction then the debate is much less valid
- naeemtee 6y ago
  You would have to live in a ridiculous echo chamber to disagree on the political leaning of the industry based almost entirely in San Francisco
  - AnotherGoodName 6y ago
    Really? Because there's a lot of talk that the tech companies were (partly) the reason Trump was elected. How does that fit in?
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      That means they messed up, not that they don't lean left.
    - EdSharkey 6y ago
      Oh, it fits simply: * greed: there's buckets of money to be made during election season selling voter info and ads to campaigns * hubris: they never thought she'd lose, she was a terrible candidate (just like Biden this time!)
    - syshum 6y ago
      My comment specifically states Post-2016. Trump was elected in 2016 and as a result of this the Tech Companies "woke" up to become political entities instead of platforms, many many tech executives were filmed/recorded publicly saying would would do anything in their power to avoid "another 2016"
      - krapp 6y ago
        >many many tech executives were filmed/recorded publicly saying would would do anything in their power to avoid "another 2016" Wow, "many many?" Like not one, not even many, but many squared by even more many? That's a lot. And each of them of was filmed and recorded individually making the same statement too. That's shocking. I don't suppose you could point us to the mountain of video and audio evidence implied by this comment, could you?
      - 6y ago
- EdSharkey 6y ago
  I don't think you need to ask around or play dumb. Just read what gets boosted in feeds. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-i-fully-admit-our-bias-is-more-left-leaning https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jac... @jack says one thing in interviews but does another. https://www.projectveritas.com/news/undercover-video-twitter-engineers-to-ban-a-way-of-talking-through-shadow-banning-algorithms-to-censor-opposing-political-opinions/ https://www.projectveritas.com/news/undercover-video-twitter... What types get a pass on speech and what types get deplatformed? https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/24/carpe-donktum-banned-twitter/ https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/24/carpe-donktum...
ben_w 6y ago
Imagine what the world would actually look like if that were true. I mean really imagine that. If the tech industry wanted to suppress a particular presidential candidate, not only with that candidate have no account on any social platform, but links to their websites or to news articles that sentiment analysis decides are pro that candidate would be blocked by search engines, and videos of that candidate or pro that candidate would be flagged and removed.
- zo1 6y ago
  That's like rebutting systemic racism by claiming "if there was racism in America, you wouldn't have had a black president!". Maybe there isn't a blatant set of acts that is "biased" on tech platforms that you could point to and say "look see, bias!". Perhaps it is just systemic bias and there is structural suppression of certain viewpoints on the aggregate level.
- syshum 6y ago
  No, that would have extreme backlash. It would influence the election in a wrong way. They know this Infact one of the best things the opposition should be doing is promoting other platforms, if high profile political candidates would abandon mainstream platforms and signal boost alternatives (like the new comer Parler) then it would reduce the power of the platforms No the platforms want the HIGH PROFILE people, then they suppress the supporters of those high profile people, that is how the game is played That is how the population is influences, they get the High Profile people to speak on the platform, then only allow dissenters to respond that gives the observing public the idea that the majority disagrees triggering a band wagon effect

EdSharkey 6y ago

There is only one substantive reason I am aware of: power. Suppression of speech, especially political speech, is a raw power play by the suppressors. That's a losing game though. I agree with GP, only dumb (aka honest) conduits last.

randomfool 6y ago
Should HN be completely un-moderated? There's a decent chance that the quality of the forum would drop and users could move elsewhere. I firmly believe that Facebook is responsible for shaping the tone of their platform (every social network does this in one way or another). A platform that allows anything may not attract the audience that Facebook desires. Arguing that Facebook cannot set the tone of their platform is a losing game.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  HN is probably as good as it gets in terms of striking the balance between comteting interests. You may be right in the current environment, but were the 4chans of the world not constantly shooed away maybe there would be no need for heavy handed approach. I didn't say it cannot. I said it should not. It should stay as neutral as it can possibly be.
- EdSharkey 6y ago
  Moderation is great, I can SEE dead posts on hn if I opt into them. Taste is a good thing. I like the choices about what hits the main page on hn most days, that's why I come here. I cannot opt into a deplatformed political person's speech on Twitter because they're absent. So, no, I don't conflate taste and moderation with silencing political speech, in an election year no less, like you do.
  - learc83 6y ago
    HN bans people too as well as just marking comments as dead.
    - 6y ago