5 ms·

The barely concealed subtext here seems to be that this is not at all about monopolies, and is really about forcing Google to return search results favorable to

The barely concealed subtext here seems to be that this is not at all about monopolies, and is really about forcing Google to return search results favorable to conservative politicians and ideologies.

Spartan-S63 6y ago
Of course it is. Conservatives have raced so quickly to the right that they've outrun the Overton Window. So rather than snap back, they're trying to push Big Tech to accelerate the movement of the window.
- aspenmayer 6y ago
  Big Tech tries to play for both teams by writing the legislation that regulates Big Tech, while making money from large government contracts and making public statements of support for more or less or certain kinds of regulations, depending on the company and the context. The personal is political in life and in business. Regulation could make currently profitable companies less profitable, and would thus make compliance a foregone conclusion. If the public wills that business and data collection practices should change, and such changes mandated by law, Big Tech will change, and the status quo would change. Those that currently benefit from the status quo make noises about changing it in an effort to guide and forestall such change as long as it is profitable to do so, to ensure the possibility of increasing profits in the future.
- DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
  > Conservatives have raced so quickly to the right ... I'd like to suggest that we use care with the term "conservative". Is it possible that the parent post conflates "conservative" with "Republican"? I'm no authority on the U.S. Republic party, but I know it's sometimes said that that party has shifted hard to "the right". I could believe that's true, which would line up with the parent post. However, some of my own political views would be considered "conservative" in the traditional sense, and I don't think they've undergone a hard shift to the right.
  - tstrimple 6y ago
    Where is this wealth of principled conservatives people keep pretending exist, but are no where to be seen in politics or political discussions? Like it or not, Republicans are the "conservative" party and around 95% of them support Trump and the vast majority of them consider themselves to be conservatives. Attempts from conservatives to distance themselves from the Republican party just reek of No true Scotsman.
    - DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
      > Like it or not, Republicans are the "conservative" party and around 95% of them support Trump and the vast majority of them consider themselves to be conservatives. I apologize but I may be missing your point. In the GP, I was suggesting that the term "conservative" is being used in competing ways by different groups, and we should be clear on that. Are you saying that it's not worth making such a distinction, because the vast, vast majority of the public use the term "conservative" to mean "whatever the Republican party's platform is"?
      - tstrimple 6y ago
        If the vast majority of the public use the term conservative to mean Republican, that's pretty much what the words mean. That's how language works. Conservatives of today have the same hallmarks as the original conservatives. It's little to nothing to do with sound fiscal policy or responsible spending or size of government and everything to do with maintaining social hierarchies. From that perspective, Trump supporters are definitely conservative.
        DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
        > That's how language works. I agree. It sounds like we have disagreeing estimates regarding how popular each definition is. We may be at an impasse on this, unless you know of a good source of reliable data for it.
  - Brendinooo 6y ago
slowmovintarget 6y ago
The legislation asks them to take their finger off the scales, not put it on the other side. > The current interpretations of Section 230 have enabled online platforms to hide behind the immunity to censor lawful speech in bad faith and is inconsistent with their own terms of service. To remedy this, the department’s legislative proposal revises and clarifies the existing language of Section 230 and replaces vague terms that may be used to shield arbitrary content moderation decisions with more concrete language that gives greater guidance to platforms, users, and courts. > > The legislative proposal also adds language to the definition of “information content provider” to clarify when platforms should be responsible for speech that they affirmatively and substantively contribute to or modify. From the proposal: > a. Replace Vague Terminology in (c)(2). First, the Department supports replacing the vague catch-all “otherwise objectionable” language in Section 230(c)(2) with “unlawful” and “promotes terrorism.” This reform would focus the broad blanket immunity for content moderation decisions on the core objective of Section 230—to reduce online content harmful to children—while limiting a platform's ability to remove content arbitrarily or in ways inconsistent with its terms or service simply by deeming it “objectionable.” That cuts both ways, you know... like it's supposed to.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > The legislation asks them to take their finger off the scales What do you mean? In what way is the DOJ's finger on the scale? Either facebook is free to manage itself as it sees fit, or it isn't. But if it isn't, then that's the finger being on the scale. That's the government controlling facebook. If you want the government controlling facebook's editorial powers, that's all well and good, but it's putting its finger on the scales.
  - jaywalk 6y ago
    Not the DOJ, the tech companies. Their fingers are on the scale.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      That's a claim, yes. The government is [implicitly] claiming that tech companies are being inconsistent. To fix this, the government is stepping in and regulating speech. A perfect solution.
tathougies 6y ago
Given that large swaths of the American public believe in these 'conservative' ideologies, a more charitable interpretation would be that DOJ is looking out for American's ability to speak freely in the brave new world that is the digital public square. And make no mistake about it. This is a racial issue. As noted by the LA times (https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-09-02/democrats-blacks-latinos-white-liberals-biden https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-09-02/democrats-b...), both blacks and asians are more likely than liberal whites to favor stricter immigration policies and to be skeptical of both political correctness and the new politics of sex and gender. Blacks are also more conservative on 'anti-racism' than liberal whites. Other research shows that hispanic liberals are also significantly to the right of liberal whites on many social issues, such as abortion. Thankfully, the DOJ is looking out for the rights of all Americans, not just coastal white elite liberals.

Spartan-S63 6y ago

Of course it is. Conservatives have raced so quickly to the right that they've outrun the Overton Window. So rather than snap back, they're trying to push Big Tech to accelerate the movement of the window.

aspenmayer 6y ago
Big Tech tries to play for both teams by writing the legislation that regulates Big Tech, while making money from large government contracts and making public statements of support for more or less or certain kinds of regulations, depending on the company and the context. The personal is political in life and in business. Regulation could make currently profitable companies less profitable, and would thus make compliance a foregone conclusion. If the public wills that business and data collection practices should change, and such changes mandated by law, Big Tech will change, and the status quo would change. Those that currently benefit from the status quo make noises about changing it in an effort to guide and forestall such change as long as it is profitable to do so, to ensure the possibility of increasing profits in the future.
DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
> Conservatives have raced so quickly to the right ... I'd like to suggest that we use care with the term "conservative". Is it possible that the parent post conflates "conservative" with "Republican"? I'm no authority on the U.S. Republic party, but I know it's sometimes said that that party has shifted hard to "the right". I could believe that's true, which would line up with the parent post. However, some of my own political views would be considered "conservative" in the traditional sense, and I don't think they've undergone a hard shift to the right.
- tstrimple 6y ago
  Where is this wealth of principled conservatives people keep pretending exist, but are no where to be seen in politics or political discussions? Like it or not, Republicans are the "conservative" party and around 95% of them support Trump and the vast majority of them consider themselves to be conservatives. Attempts from conservatives to distance themselves from the Republican party just reek of No true Scotsman.
  - DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
    > Like it or not, Republicans are the "conservative" party and around 95% of them support Trump and the vast majority of them consider themselves to be conservatives. I apologize but I may be missing your point. In the GP, I was suggesting that the term "conservative" is being used in competing ways by different groups, and we should be clear on that. Are you saying that it's not worth making such a distinction, because the vast, vast majority of the public use the term "conservative" to mean "whatever the Republican party's platform is"?
    - tstrimple 6y ago
      If the vast majority of the public use the term conservative to mean Republican, that's pretty much what the words mean. That's how language works. Conservatives of today have the same hallmarks as the original conservatives. It's little to nothing to do with sound fiscal policy or responsible spending or size of government and everything to do with maintaining social hierarchies. From that perspective, Trump supporters are definitely conservative.
      - DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
        > That's how language works. I agree. It sounds like we have disagreeing estimates regarding how popular each definition is. We may be at an impasse on this, unless you know of a good source of reliable data for it.
- Brendinooo 6y ago

slowmovintarget 6y ago

The legislation asks them to take their finger off the scales, not put it on the other side. > The current interpretations of Section 230 have enabled online platforms to hide behind the immunity to censor lawful speech in bad faith and is inconsistent with their own terms of service. To remedy this, the department’s legislative proposal revises and clarifies the existing language of Section 230 and replaces vague terms that may be used to shield arbitrary content moderation decisions with more concrete language that gives greater guidance to platforms, users, and courts. > > The legislative proposal also adds language to the definition of “information content provider” to clarify when platforms should be responsible for speech that they affirmatively and substantively contribute to or modify. From the proposal: > a. Replace Vague Terminology in (c)(2). First, the Department supports replacing the vague catch-all “otherwise objectionable” language in Section 230(c)(2) with “unlawful” and “promotes terrorism.” This reform would focus the broad blanket immunity for content moderation decisions on the core objective of Section 230—to reduce online content harmful to children—while limiting a platform's ability to remove content arbitrarily or in ways inconsistent with its terms or service simply by deeming it “objectionable.” That cuts both ways, you know... like it's supposed to.

joshuamorton 6y ago
> The legislation asks them to take their finger off the scales What do you mean? In what way is the DOJ's finger on the scale? Either facebook is free to manage itself as it sees fit, or it isn't. But if it isn't, then that's the finger being on the scale. That's the government controlling facebook. If you want the government controlling facebook's editorial powers, that's all well and good, but it's putting its finger on the scales.
- jaywalk 6y ago
  Not the DOJ, the tech companies. Their fingers are on the scale.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    That's a claim, yes. The government is [implicitly] claiming that tech companies are being inconsistent. To fix this, the government is stepping in and regulating speech. A perfect solution.

tathougies 6y ago

Given that large swaths of the American public believe in these 'conservative' ideologies, a more charitable interpretation would be that DOJ is looking out for American's ability to speak freely in the brave new world that is the digital public square. And make no mistake about it. This is a racial issue. As noted by the LA times (https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-09-02/democrats-blacks-latinos-white-liberals-biden https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-09-02/democrats-b...), both blacks and asians are more likely than liberal whites to favor stricter immigration policies and to be skeptical of both political correctness and the new politics of sex and gender. Blacks are also more conservative on 'anti-racism' than liberal whites. Other research shows that hispanic liberals are also significantly to the right of liberal whites on many social issues, such as abortion. Thankfully, the DOJ is looking out for the rights of all Americans, not just coastal white elite liberals.