8 ms·

You are not wrong in your assessment. It is clearly bias at play. This will change the social media landscape where you will have platforms delineated by politi

You are not wrong in your assessment. It is clearly bias at play. This will change the social media landscape where you will have platforms delineated by political ideologies. It is sad that it is happening but it is true that voices are being suppressed. Suppression/Censorship of speech has never lead to a free society. The opposite in fact!

uncoder0 6y ago
You are correct. Reddit tried to change all the moderators on the Donald Trump subreddit a few months back and in response the moderators built thedonald.win. After the recent ban wave of subs several others moved to the '.win network'.
- shripadk 6y ago
  Yes! It is happening everywhere. Any right or right of centric publication, channel, individual is ripe for targeting in the current social media landscape. There is literally zero protection or recourse. It is their platforms and they can do whatever they please. In essence, these social media companies wield influence greater than many Governments in the World. This sort of unchecked power is scary to say the least!
- olivermarks 6y ago
  I think the time has come for the major big tech PLATFORMS to declare their formal political allegiances and end the travesty they are 'just providing a Section230 service'. The EU's MEPs are organized by political views rather than party in a Burning Man style semi circle to debate the political views of the Commissioners and provide some input. In many ways the tech world could be organized in a similar way to better provide free speech and formally 'biased' platforms.
  - tzs 6y ago
    Section 230 has nothing whatsoever to do with political alliances. You can explicitly moderate your site in favor of any particular position (political or otherwise) and you still get full section 230 immunity for user provided content. That was the whole point of section 230. Before section 230 there had been court ruling that said if you moderated you were then responsible for everything. Section 230 was written to reverse that.
- belltaco 6y ago
  >Reddit tried to change all the moderators on the Donald Trump subreddit a few months back and in response the moderators built thedonald.win. Not exactly true. They banned the top mods for not removing problematic content or posting some of their own. This led to there not being enough manpower to manage an active sub. So the remaining mods were instructed to hire new mods based on certain standards, like having a certain karma threshold on the sub. >After the recent ban wave of subs several others moved to the '.win network'. What subs are those and do they live on the same domain?
  - TechBro8615 6y ago
    > What subs are those and do they live on the same domain? Here's a list of them: https://communities.win/p/GIEblc8H/list-of-win-communities/ https://communities.win/p/GIEblc8H/list-of-win-communities/ - TheDonald.win - OmegaCanada.win - GavinMcInnes.win - ConsumeProduct.win - KotakuInAction.win - KotakuInAction2.win - WeekendGunnit.win (no allegiance, just an observer)
CerealFounder 6y ago
What? Did you just read the headline and assume? If we're gonna hold the community responsible for quality of discourse than this should be downvoted. These are just finger pointing with not support. It feels like Twitter comment with no intellectual rigor. This isnt a shot at the writer, instead a commenting on the value added to the dialouge. This seems to be much more "squeaky wheel gets the grease" than some political ideology. Also, this argument is ridiculous. Facebook is NOT US democracy, it's a media company that gatekeeper, like TV before it, Radio before that and townhall meetings before that. Theyve never allowed sex work or profanity on the site and there was little fanfare over that decision. These companies are the next "Type" of media and the extension of that is the power to shape acceptable culture. The real problem is that its being hearlded as both a utility (citizen communication right) and a media company (broadcast and ad network) and dodging the historically clear responsiblities of both camps by claiming to be the other when it comes time to pay the piper. To end with a clearer analogy. Facebook is cable TV where you are the channel. Then they add commercial breaks between your rants, pictures of cats and support of some political idea. They even ask you to stump for your own "subscribers." Cleverly they've simultaneously made it a messaging product as well to dilute the metaphor above.
- shripadk 6y ago
  It is not my responsibility to define whether it is a "platform" or a "publisher" as a user. I feel it is behaving more as a publisher than as a platform. I have explained in detail my reasoning (if you wish to learn more about my stand on this): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23716300 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23716300 I have no issues with any social media groups taking action on posts that are explicitly illegal (based on your jurisdiction): child porn, gambling, calls to violence etc. My problem lies in the power that these social media companies enjoy. They can literally influence people in ways that could never have been done in the past. You are always connected to Google or Facebook wherever you go. Through their "audience network" they have nearly 100% reach to every user in the World. Yes that includes any app that you use on your mobile that shows you ads. With that kind of power, these social media companies have more reach than any Government on this planet. They can influence elections in profound ways. They can swing voters to any policy they feel meets their goals. There has to be some sort of regulation that keeps these powers in check! Censorship of voices is just the first step towards building an Orwellian society where every flow of information is controlled by these media giants.

uncoder0 6y ago

You are correct. Reddit tried to change all the moderators on the Donald Trump subreddit a few months back and in response the moderators built thedonald.win. After the recent ban wave of subs several others moved to the '.win network'.

shripadk 6y ago
Yes! It is happening everywhere. Any right or right of centric publication, channel, individual is ripe for targeting in the current social media landscape. There is literally zero protection or recourse. It is their platforms and they can do whatever they please. In essence, these social media companies wield influence greater than many Governments in the World. This sort of unchecked power is scary to say the least!
olivermarks 6y ago
I think the time has come for the major big tech PLATFORMS to declare their formal political allegiances and end the travesty they are 'just providing a Section230 service'. The EU's MEPs are organized by political views rather than party in a Burning Man style semi circle to debate the political views of the Commissioners and provide some input. In many ways the tech world could be organized in a similar way to better provide free speech and formally 'biased' platforms.
- tzs 6y ago
  Section 230 has nothing whatsoever to do with political alliances. You can explicitly moderate your site in favor of any particular position (political or otherwise) and you still get full section 230 immunity for user provided content. That was the whole point of section 230. Before section 230 there had been court ruling that said if you moderated you were then responsible for everything. Section 230 was written to reverse that.
belltaco 6y ago
>Reddit tried to change all the moderators on the Donald Trump subreddit a few months back and in response the moderators built thedonald.win. Not exactly true. They banned the top mods for not removing problematic content or posting some of their own. This led to there not being enough manpower to manage an active sub. So the remaining mods were instructed to hire new mods based on certain standards, like having a certain karma threshold on the sub. >After the recent ban wave of subs several others moved to the '.win network'. What subs are those and do they live on the same domain?
- TechBro8615 6y ago
  > What subs are those and do they live on the same domain? Here's a list of them: https://communities.win/p/GIEblc8H/list-of-win-communities/ https://communities.win/p/GIEblc8H/list-of-win-communities/ - TheDonald.win - OmegaCanada.win - GavinMcInnes.win - ConsumeProduct.win - KotakuInAction.win - KotakuInAction2.win - WeekendGunnit.win (no allegiance, just an observer)

CerealFounder 6y ago

What? Did you just read the headline and assume? If we're gonna hold the community responsible for quality of discourse than this should be downvoted. These are just finger pointing with not support. It feels like Twitter comment with no intellectual rigor. This isnt a shot at the writer, instead a commenting on the value added to the dialouge. This seems to be much more "squeaky wheel gets the grease" than some political ideology. Also, this argument is ridiculous. Facebook is NOT US democracy, it's a media company that gatekeeper, like TV before it, Radio before that and townhall meetings before that. Theyve never allowed sex work or profanity on the site and there was little fanfare over that decision. These companies are the next "Type" of media and the extension of that is the power to shape acceptable culture. The real problem is that its being hearlded as both a utility (citizen communication right) and a media company (broadcast and ad network) and dodging the historically clear responsiblities of both camps by claiming to be the other when it comes time to pay the piper. To end with a clearer analogy. Facebook is cable TV where you are the channel. Then they add commercial breaks between your rants, pictures of cats and support of some political idea. They even ask you to stump for your own "subscribers." Cleverly they've simultaneously made it a messaging product as well to dilute the metaphor above.

shripadk 6y ago
It is not my responsibility to define whether it is a "platform" or a "publisher" as a user. I feel it is behaving more as a publisher than as a platform. I have explained in detail my reasoning (if you wish to learn more about my stand on this): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23716300 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23716300 I have no issues with any social media groups taking action on posts that are explicitly illegal (based on your jurisdiction): child porn, gambling, calls to violence etc. My problem lies in the power that these social media companies enjoy. They can literally influence people in ways that could never have been done in the past. You are always connected to Google or Facebook wherever you go. Through their "audience network" they have nearly 100% reach to every user in the World. Yes that includes any app that you use on your mobile that shows you ads. With that kind of power, these social media companies have more reach than any Government on this planet. They can influence elections in profound ways. They can swing voters to any policy they feel meets their goals. There has to be some sort of regulation that keeps these powers in check! Censorship of voices is just the first step towards building an Orwellian society where every flow of information is controlled by these media giants.