5 ms·

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 a

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.
- CerealFounder 6y ago
  They've always been censoring is my point. Profanity, porn and hatefulness is a normative decision. This also doesn't touch the problem that the platform based on its content structuring and targeting will always reward emotional ideas over everything. You're just frustrated now because they came for your voice. If they're going to put advertising up against it, they should be held to the same annoying process and responsibility that broadcast media is.
  - shripadk 6y ago
    > If they're going to put advertising up against it, they should be held to the same annoying process and responsibility that broadcast media is. But then don't you think that is selective application of law? Why should they be held to the same annoying process and responsibility only for advertising? Why not for the entire platform or publisher or whatever you want to call it. Let them be held liable for every post that goes on their network just like broadcast media is. Why just stop at advertising? EDIT: > You're just frustrated now because they came for your voice Maybe they are suppressing other voices too which I am unaware of. But that point is not going to change my opinion is it? That these social media companies do enjoy powers that even Governments do not. My question is: Why are we letting them get away with it?
    - belltaco 6y ago
      Section 230 was explicitly written to allow a hybrid between platforms and publishers. It stemmed from a court case where a financial forum run by Prodigy was successfully sued for a forum post by a member. It was designed to allow forums like HN etc. moderate without being liable for users' posts. You can argue about what you think the law should be, contact your local reps and push a bill to do that. But just repeating the argument about how Twitter is behaving like a publisher won't get you far when there have been court cases that ended in the judges saying what they do is the intent of Section 230. Again, you're arguing like it's 1992.
      - olivermarks 6y ago

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.

CerealFounder 6y ago
They've always been censoring is my point. Profanity, porn and hatefulness is a normative decision. This also doesn't touch the problem that the platform based on its content structuring and targeting will always reward emotional ideas over everything. You're just frustrated now because they came for your voice. If they're going to put advertising up against it, they should be held to the same annoying process and responsibility that broadcast media is.
- shripadk 6y ago
  > If they're going to put advertising up against it, they should be held to the same annoying process and responsibility that broadcast media is. But then don't you think that is selective application of law? Why should they be held to the same annoying process and responsibility only for advertising? Why not for the entire platform or publisher or whatever you want to call it. Let them be held liable for every post that goes on their network just like broadcast media is. Why just stop at advertising? EDIT: > You're just frustrated now because they came for your voice Maybe they are suppressing other voices too which I am unaware of. But that point is not going to change my opinion is it? That these social media companies do enjoy powers that even Governments do not. My question is: Why are we letting them get away with it?
  - belltaco 6y ago
    Section 230 was explicitly written to allow a hybrid between platforms and publishers. It stemmed from a court case where a financial forum run by Prodigy was successfully sued for a forum post by a member. It was designed to allow forums like HN etc. moderate without being liable for users' posts. You can argue about what you think the law should be, contact your local reps and push a bill to do that. But just repeating the argument about how Twitter is behaving like a publisher won't get you far when there have been court cases that ended in the judges saying what they do is the intent of Section 230. Again, you're arguing like it's 1992.
    - olivermarks 6y ago