10 ms·

U.S. Senate tech hearing becomes political tussle

bigbubba 6y ago
Surely any Senate hearing is a political tussle by definition. This seems like the usual unproductive showboating and I'm not sure any of this will matter two weeks from now.
- rektide 6y ago
  Hearings are a means of inquiry & discovery. That some electected representatives come with axes already well ground & biases all set, are there to score points, is unfortunate & not entirely surprising, but I'm not ok with normalizing this bad behavior. I like to think the Senate has hearings that do function too, where there are more adults present.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  You're almost right. You are correct that they are filled with showboating. But at the same time they very often trigger changes in both policy and public opinion. If nothing else, they allow us to see that a particular issue is on the radar in Washington, and not just something a bunch of randos on the internet are barking about. There are hundreds, even thousands, of hearings like this that are productive. The difference is that they're handled more quietly, and are relegated to CSPAN, not HN.
  - tboyd47 6y ago
    I think GP's cynicism is warranted in this case. I listened to the first hour of this hearing, including Cruz's rant, and it's pretty clear that Congress is not touching Section 230 anytime soon. They're content just dragging these CEOs into Congress for a tongue-lashing every once in a while. There's nothing of substance being discussed.
    - belly_joe 6y ago
      GOP senators going through these motions is kind of like a weird mirror image of when the Dems bring in the relevant CEO from the latest financial fraud for grilling, but no relevant laws get changed
      - nerdponx 6y ago
        The difference being that the laws should be changed in that case, whereas here maybe Section 230 is kinda OK.
    - pyronik19 6y ago
      Of course, GOP Senate can't do anything to stop them since the Dems not only enjoy the benefits of the censorship but they are encouraging more of it. All the R's can do is grandstand about it.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- LeifCarrotson 6y ago
  I've started watching some CSPAN hearings lately, going to the first-party source, because the reporting was so polarized. I'd hoped that that the difficulty of finding reasonable, moderate platforms was in part a problem of an extreme vocal minority being amplified by a media incentive to generate views. Unfortunately, I found that senators can be just as vitrolic as the anchors.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    A few days ago I read this comment on HN which says CSPAN is part of the problem too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24807616 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24807616 I don't have the perspective to evaluate this claim though. I don't know much about the intersection of politics and media in the 80s and 90s. It seems worth considering though. The premise seems straight forward: broadcasting politicians changes how politicians behave.
- nerdponx 6y ago
  That, or the current front-runner for president (and next-best alternative to the incumbent President Trump) supports repealing Section 230, and if the Republicans can drum up enough popular support for a repeal that might be enough for Biden to support it as a "bipartisan" effort.
dane-pgp 6y ago
> Senator Ted Cruz went after Twitter’s Jack Dorsey after the CEO said Twitter has no influence over elections. Is the answer to Senator Cruz's question (from the headline) "The board of directors of Twitter"?
- think814 6y ago
  Twitter has no influence on elections as much as the Russians didn't influence 2016 elections. All sides think we're stupid at this point.
  - hnlurker 6y ago
    Frankly speaking, the weather had more influence on the 2016 election than Russian influence. Russian use of digital platforms like Facebook and Twitter are about as effective as homeopathic medicines on cancer. Yah, there's 1/100000000000 ppm active ingredients in that there remedy, so it's not zero, but... c'mon man.
- paulgb 6y ago
  Ted Cruz argued vehemently against net neutrality at the physical layer, on the basis that private markets, not governments, should dictate what traffic ISPs allow and prioritize on their pipes. But when there's a perceived bias against conservatives, suddenly he's all for government intervention at the application layer. Cry me a river, Ted.
  - Balgair 6y ago
    Ted is not stupid. He went to Princeton (cum laude, '92) and has a Harvard Law degree (magna cum laude, '95). He's acting. The question is why.
  - _up 6y ago
    It's not the same though. You can be at the same time for minimizing Government involvement and even allowing ISPs to decide how they prevent/censor business models, but draw a line when they begin to censor political speech.
riffic 6y ago
Media and the public sector needs to disentangle itself from these spaces. I would suggest writing to your congress-critters asking for an exploration of the ActivityPub ecosystem.
beepboopbeep 6y ago
Cruz was putting on a disingenuous show for right wing audiences. This was a waste of time and further demeans the procedure, and congress.
- rektide 6y ago
  I'm torn between HN rules that we shouldn't talk politics, & Ted talking BS tech out his bunghole. He's making his hamfisted politics a mortal threat to tech (and sowing rabid dissent & unrest).
- eiji 6y ago
  Those hearings are also used to get representatives of these organizations on the record. Cruz certainly asked pointed questions, albeit driven by his political interest. I'm still surprised how unprepared and naïve Jack seems to be for these kinds of procedures. The NYPost article in question and the entire account is still blocked to this day. I can only assume that they squashed it in such a way that they cannot recover it anymore. I know people find a GOP election win unlikely (Not including me), but he is doing his investors a great disservice by not being prepared for a landslide GOP win that could transform Sec 230 greatly.
rektide 6y ago
Scarey note that Biden has said he may support repeal. As every CEO noted, censorship would have to (radically) increase if platforms were no longer had protection from the speech they happen to host. So weird how Cruz &c keep making this sound like there's some mandate that these platforms be nuetral. Definitely in large part to score sympathy, but what if he & his sect realize (how can they not?) & do want to errode the Safe Harbor provisions, make it unsafe to host content online? Or are they confident this is only a PR stunt, & that it will go nowhere?
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  I'd prefer full censorship instead of the partisan sham that Twitter is doing now.
  - rektide 6y ago
    why don't you go someplace else then? no one is forcing anyone on to Twitter, it had no more sway or status than the Babylon Bee or any other media. if people vote with their feet to hang out someplace, it should not face increasing nuetrality regulations, imo. to answer Cruzcs question, every active Twitter user voted for Twitter, & our choice not to go use an alternative is an ongoing continual voting that could change any day. I also don't agree, don't think Twitter is acting at all biased. I think they have very basic rules & have been very kind about trying to enforce them.
    - perryizgr8 6y ago
      > no one is forcing anyone on to Twitter, it had no more sway or status than the Babylon Bee or any other media. That is probably the most untrue statement I've heard this week. Twitter the de facto standard way by which famous people and journalists speak out to their audience. As a general user, I have no alternative for the kind of news that is on Twitter. As a journalist/celebrity, there is no alternative to reach my audience directly. There is an immensely strong network effect. > I also don't agree, don't think Twitter is acting at all biased. I think they have very basic rules & have been very kind about trying to enforce them. Why then did they let people post about the fictional Russian collusion for 3 years? Investigations by federal agencies finally concluded that there was none. So why did Twitter allow that narrative to play out? Why did they let the leaked video of Trump saying random things in personal conversations be posted and shared? Why did Twitter let people post about fake and unproven allegations against Bret Kavanaugh? What was different?
csours 6y ago
What should social media do with directed propaganda campaigns? If one side of an argument poisons the discourse, what then? Should both sides poison the well?
- DubiousPusher 6y ago
  Whatever they want. This is how all media companies have exercised editorial control for decades. The only difference here is people feel some strange sense of ownership over Twitter that they do not over The New York Times.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Because users are creating the content.
    - DubiousPusher 6y ago
      You created it but you gave it away the moment you posted it.
      - chrisco255 6y ago
        Right, just like I give my labor away to my employer. Still, there are reasonable limits and laws on how workers are treated. Likewise, social media is due for the same.
        DubiousPusher 6y ago
        I am super confused by that counterpoint. You essentially have to have a job in a modern economy. You don't have to post to social media. This gives your employer an outsized degree of influence in your personal viability. Hence the government regulates the market exchange of labor for money. I'm having a really hard time seeing how that relates to the government getting involved with a media company because you don't like what they did with short blog you posted as a passtime. What's more the government doesn't do much to protect your work product as an employee. Generally that's down to contract which most companies ensure you sign away any rights to.
dariusj18 6y ago
> “Who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear,” Pretty sure that is the opposite of what we (generally) allow our elected officials to do.
- khazhoux 6y ago
  Great observation! I was lost in Cruz's angry theatrics, did not even catch the invalidity of his premise.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - dariusj18 6y ago
    At the very least it seems the opposite of what Republicans/Conservatives espouse.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Yeah, the gist of what he was saying probably should have been worded as "who made you king?"
  - rektide 6y ago
    Which seems to have a clear enough answer: The billion+ active users of Twitter & Facebook, for whom these rules seem acceptable & decent.
    - apta 6y ago
      It's not that straightforward. The rules are anything but obvious. It's one big echo chamber.
    - noxer 6y ago
      The rules are not the problem. People agree or go somewhere else. Its how they are applied. Having hacked material not allowed would be totally fine but you cant allow it once and then block it another time. Either is against the rules or not. And before creating such a rule there would need to be serious effort to figure out how to enforce it fair and if that's not possible the rule should never even be set up. This no hacked content rule for example was nonsense form the beginning. You would need to block everything instantly or at first report because you simply cant know if its hacked content. And it puts twitter in the position to judge if something is in fact hacked content or not. And by the time they decide its already all over the internet anyway because the Streisand effect is real. Its just a useless rule with no concept to implement but it opens doors to suppress something from becoming a trending topic.
Shared404 6y ago
Might be worth pointing out that the title is clickbait -- This sentence was spoken to Jack Dorsey, not a senator. (Not blaming this on OP at all, it is the original title.)
reaperducer 6y ago
A lot of people, especially on HN, like to characterize this as a Republican witch hunt. Before we devolve into that kind of thinking, remember this line from the article: "Biden has expressed support for revoking the law" Even though there are Democrats on the committee who think this is all nonsense, it is a bipartisan issue, going back years. A number of HN-favorite Democrats also supported what was going on back when they were still running for their party's nomination.
KorematsuFred 6y ago
Senate hearings have become a circus. It is only a matter of time before one of the CEOs will deliver a Henry Reardon (Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged) styled speech which will leave these smarty pant Senators with an egg on face. It wont come from Sundar, Jack or Zuck but it will come from someone. Perhaps someone like Musk. Instead of using these hearings to genuinely uncover information we don't have, Senators are using this to ask rhetorical questions that can give sensational headlines for the partisan websites e.g. "Who elected you ? Angry Cruz flays far left tech company Twitter's CEO". I have seen ordinary journalists asking more relevant and better questions to Jack and others than these Senators. These hearings were once about people holding other powerful individuals accountable. Now they are about clever soundbytes ironically optimized for platforms like Twitter.
- wil421 6y ago
  Pretty sure politicians have been standing on podiums spouting nonsense to boost themselves since ancient times. Roman senators did it and it’s only more sophisticated in a world with cameras and the internet.
  - KorematsuFred 6y ago
    Fully agree. It is just that now with internet even Senator hearings have become part of that theater in a similar fashion.
- rayiner 6y ago
  And now you know why they refuse to allow cameras in the Supreme Court.
- s5300 6y ago
  Musk may have just started this. Read the EULA for Starlink
- leftyted 6y ago
  In other words, if juries deliberated in front of cameras, every jury would be hung.
spamizbad 6y ago
Some of the stuff Mike Lee is talking about is very troubling. He is saying the mere act of "labeling: content is censorship. This would classify things like spam filters (or hell, email with an important flag set) as mechanisms for censorship.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Spam filters could be used for censorship. But the key difference is spam filters allow the user to tweak their settings. If I'm explicitly following someone on Twitter, I should be able to hear what they have to say just like I can hear whatever email newsletter I subscribe to. And I shouldn't have to fight with Gmail to get approval for my newsletter to be published.
  - spamizbad 6y ago
    This isn't true for the vast majority of consumers. For example, the IP address of the SMTP server will carry a reputation. ISPs will block IPs that are untrusted and your message will get "dropped" before you receive it. You can run your own server and just let everything through but we're dangerously close to the "just build your own facebook if they censor you" rebuttle. If we are going to let the government declare this a form of illegal censorship the email email trust framework is going to break down. Lee and his ilk are playing with fire.
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  Spam filters are a form of censorship. Not all censorship is bad.
  - Silhouette 6y ago
    And from the other perspective, not all spam filters are good, either. There is a real problem today with a relatively small number of organisations that host a lot of email accounts being so aggressive with their filtering that it has undermined the basic mechanics and reliability of email as a communications channel. Stronger obligations on those claiming to provide an email hosting service to actually deliver legitimate mail to their account holders, or to at least provide an effective and standardised recovery mechanism when they make a bad judgement while trying to block junk mail, wouldn't go amiss.
3PcabNCC 6y ago
> “Who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear,” Cruz said. That's such a ridiculous thing to say. Twitter has the unanimous consent of everyone who is subject to their rules. Every Twitter user became a Twitter user by choice and no-one is going to use violence against them for no longer using Twitter or for creating an alternative. That couldn't be further from the situation with the government. Cruz and other politicians impose their rules on people who never had a choice. The US government did not create the land it claims as its territory, it took control of it by force killing thousands of people. The government is both willing and able to use extreme violence to prevent people from avoiding it or creating alternatives to it. A Twitter user who is angry about Twitter's censorship only has to spend a few minutes to delete their account and create an account with another service (Gab, mastodon, etc.). A US citizen who is angry about the US government's censorship have to abandon their home and be accepted by another government. Even then, the US government may still demand their money and loyalty.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  > The US government did not create the land it claims as its territory, it took control of it by force killing thousands of people. Yeah, that's true of every nation in existence and every nation in the past. We just happen to live in a relatively peaceful time. Not too long ago, constant war and fighting for territory was all there was, and there wasn't a square mile on planet earth that blood hasn't been spilt for. Twitter is a monopoly and has an outsized influence on politics and news today, beyond any media force in history, perhaps. They're protected by arbitrary legislation from the 90s that prevents them from being held accountable for false or defamatory statements from getting published and shared on their platform. The whole impetus from that protection was to promote free speech. Instead, Twitter has chosen to arbitrarily and selectively mute, shadow ban, lock out, and silence those who they disagree with. I think if they are benefitting from 230 protection, they should not be allowed to engage in this kind of manipulation. Or they should be forced to federate their service with other platforms. With Twitter, individual contributors can spend a decade building up a following of tens of thousands to millions of users, and then with a click, Twitter can take that away. I mean, I'm old enough to remember when we got the right to keep your phone number passed so that you can keep your number when you switch cell phone carriers. That sort of thing does not exist in social media. If I switch platforms, I lose my ability to communicate with my connections. That's a problem. That should be legislated away.
drewrv 6y ago
I'm genuinely curious what the republicans want here. I get that they're mad because they think big tech is out to get them. And I don't even expect a policy proposal or bill at this stage. But is there even a paper from a think tank, or a right-wing law professor, who has put forward a coherent framework for how to regulate social media? My understand is that if you repeal section 230, social media sites would either have to be completely unmoderated (like 4chan) or really heavily moderated (as they'd be liable for everything people post). Is that their goal here? Or if they want to replace 230, what would they replace it with?
- Covzire 6y ago
  >> because they (republicans) think big tech is out to get them. I'm genuinely curious how someone could follow the news in a basic way and still think it's just some conspiracy. It's been beyond proven through leaks, deplatforming and whistleblowers that big tech is trying desperately to get Democrats elected.
  - drewrv 6y ago
    Republicans have said the same thing about Hollywood, academics, journalists, and scientists. And they've cherry picked stories to "prove" it with those groups too.
    - insickness 6y ago
      It's a proven fact that Hollywood, academics and journalists all lean to the left. No need to cherry pick stories.
      - drewrv 6y ago
        Lean to the left compared to what? I don't think there's an abstract platonic "center", rather the center is defined by the major institutions in a society. These institutions probably lean left of our national politics, but our national political system was intentionally designed to give disproportionate power to rural, low population areas.
beschissen 6y ago
Either social media is a Platform and respects the First Ammendment and the right to free speech) OR it is a Publisher that can choose what to publish or censor and is thus subject to litigation. Blatant falsehoods about Trump have been published in social media for the past 3 years but verified documents showing Biden family colusion and pay to access to the office of the Vice President is deemed "misinformation"? A blatant double standard that is completely untenable in a free society.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  This is a false dichotomy. I can’t name any platforms that don’t exercise moderation, except maybe 4chan? I think it’s desirable for places to put rules in place to kick out or mute the asshats.
  - argue_facts 6y ago
    If you can't name something, that makes it a "false dichotomy"?
insickness 6y ago
Jack Dorsey seems to have lied to Cruz. He said that it was now possible to tweet the NY Post story (at 4:41): https://youtu.be/EsE3mnzgpQM?t=281 https://youtu.be/EsE3mnzgpQM?t=281 But it apparently is not: https://twitter.com/abigailmarone/status/1321476036211757056?s=20 https://twitter.com/abigailmarone/status/1321476036211757056...
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  "What @jack told the Senate, under oath, is false. I just tried to tweet the @nypost story alleging Biden’s CCP corruption. Still blocked. 18 USC 1621 makes it a felony to lie under oath to the Senate." https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1321499884919377927?s=20 https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1321499884919377927?s=20
  - vernie 6y ago
    What a fucking dweeb.
    - dang 6y ago
      Please don't do this here.
  - apta 6y ago
    They should take action.
khazhoux 6y ago
I watched Jack's testimony in part to try to take a lesson in handling the heat. He did very well and stayed cool. Myself, I don't think I handle the heat very well. In executive reviews, I never quite understand what VPs are asking, because the way they phrase questions is always kind of flawed and it makes me think of 5 ways to answer based on 5 possible interpretations of their question, and invariably (every time!) I start answering and then am asked to stop because that's not what they asked. I also get pretty stressed/nervous before big exec reviews (it just always feels like an exposition of any personal failure), and my brain has seized once or twice. I supposed I'm not cut out for being in the line of fire. So much for my dreams of being CEO of a mega- tech company! :-) Maybe goes without saying that I'm envious of my peers who can waltz into the fiercest review and not flinch while they state their case. I'd love to hear from others on this.
- s5300 6y ago
  Have you ever tried doing copious amounts of beta blockers? I hear they're well for this. Seriously. Symphony orchestras apparently praise them for taking the extreme anxiety out of performing to massive audiences
  - Diederich 6y ago
    > Have you ever tried doing copious amounts of beta blockers? I hear they're well for this. This seems like some potentially dangerous general advise.
    - khazhoux 6y ago
      "Copious" does seem dangerous. But beta blockers do seem like a recognized chemical fix to the fight-or-flight response. I've heard: half a tablet of propanolol an hour before a major performance or presentation, and try it out in advance to make sure no adverse effects. At any rate, it's a prescription drug, so a physician needs to be involved.
  - khazhoux 6y ago
    Not sure why you're being downvoted. I've looked into Propranolol as that seems like an acceptable and safe (mild) solution to fight off the lizard-brain aspects of anxiety. As you say, praised by performers. Anecdotally, I have a friend who gives it a glowing review for helping him accept a major award ("I'd like to thank the Academy").
vernie 6y ago
These freaks love freedom and private industry until it doesn't go their way.
robomartin 6y ago
I am not taking sides, right or left. I think it is fair to say it’s a mess. I fail to see why the US constitution’s protection of the press would apply to organizations indistinguishable from political action groups engaging in the dissemination and promotion of lies with the intent to shape narratives and manipulate the audience. What the media has devolved into should be outside of constitutional protection. This protection should be reserved for the truth. A high bar, yes, yet the only metric that can assure the delivery of information rather than political indoctrination through lies and careful manipulation. Too difficult? Well, if what is being said can’t be determined to be truthful, don’t say it or print it. It’s that simple. Go look for a story backed by facts. That’s the other point: The constitution should be about protecting quality, not quantity. These enterprises are doing unmeasurable damage to society. Again, all sides are guilty.
- DubiousPusher 6y ago
  > This protection should be reserved for the truth. I think this is literally impossible to credibly establish in a political/legal context, especially in our present epistemological crisis.
  - robomartin 6y ago
    Which is fine. My perspective is simple: If the matter being reported isn’t objectively true, move on and look for something else to report. We need less noise and more signal.
    - DubiousPusher 6y ago
      I'm confused. Your post seems to indicate that what is "untrue" should not be constitutionally protected speech. That's a far cry from "move on and look for something else to report". My point is that I don't know how you establish a credible arbiter of what is and isn't protected speech in a world where most people's concept of what "true" and "untrue" are highly depends on their base political positions.
argue_facts 6y ago
IMHO, Hacker News is equally guilty of censoring valid, substantive critics with its use of barely visible font and outright removal of comments it does not like based solely on opinion -- not verifiable facts, nor strength of polemic.

Surely any Senate hearing is a political tussle by definition. This seems like the usual unproductive showboating and I'm not sure any of this will matter two weeks from now.

rektide 6y ago
Hearings are a means of inquiry & discovery. That some electected representatives come with axes already well ground & biases all set, are there to score points, is unfortunate & not entirely surprising, but I'm not ok with normalizing this bad behavior. I like to think the Senate has hearings that do function too, where there are more adults present.
reaperducer 6y ago
You're almost right. You are correct that they are filled with showboating. But at the same time they very often trigger changes in both policy and public opinion. If nothing else, they allow us to see that a particular issue is on the radar in Washington, and not just something a bunch of randos on the internet are barking about. There are hundreds, even thousands, of hearings like this that are productive. The difference is that they're handled more quietly, and are relegated to CSPAN, not HN.
- tboyd47 6y ago
  I think GP's cynicism is warranted in this case. I listened to the first hour of this hearing, including Cruz's rant, and it's pretty clear that Congress is not touching Section 230 anytime soon. They're content just dragging these CEOs into Congress for a tongue-lashing every once in a while. There's nothing of substance being discussed.
  - belly_joe 6y ago
    GOP senators going through these motions is kind of like a weird mirror image of when the Dems bring in the relevant CEO from the latest financial fraud for grilling, but no relevant laws get changed
    - nerdponx 6y ago
      The difference being that the laws should be changed in that case, whereas here maybe Section 230 is kinda OK.
  - pyronik19 6y ago
    Of course, GOP Senate can't do anything to stop them since the Dems not only enjoy the benefits of the censorship but they are encouraging more of it. All the R's can do is grandstand about it.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
LeifCarrotson 6y ago
I've started watching some CSPAN hearings lately, going to the first-party source, because the reporting was so polarized. I'd hoped that that the difficulty of finding reasonable, moderate platforms was in part a problem of an extreme vocal minority being amplified by a media incentive to generate views. Unfortunately, I found that senators can be just as vitrolic as the anchors.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  A few days ago I read this comment on HN which says CSPAN is part of the problem too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24807616 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24807616 I don't have the perspective to evaluate this claim though. I don't know much about the intersection of politics and media in the 80s and 90s. It seems worth considering though. The premise seems straight forward: broadcasting politicians changes how politicians behave.
nerdponx 6y ago
That, or the current front-runner for president (and next-best alternative to the incumbent President Trump) supports repealing Section 230, and if the Republicans can drum up enough popular support for a repeal that might be enough for Biden to support it as a "bipartisan" effort.

dane-pgp 6y ago

> Senator Ted Cruz went after Twitter’s Jack Dorsey after the CEO said Twitter has no influence over elections. Is the answer to Senator Cruz's question (from the headline) "The board of directors of Twitter"?

think814 6y ago
Twitter has no influence on elections as much as the Russians didn't influence 2016 elections. All sides think we're stupid at this point.
- hnlurker 6y ago
  Frankly speaking, the weather had more influence on the 2016 election than Russian influence. Russian use of digital platforms like Facebook and Twitter are about as effective as homeopathic medicines on cancer. Yah, there's 1/100000000000 ppm active ingredients in that there remedy, so it's not zero, but... c'mon man.
paulgb 6y ago
Ted Cruz argued vehemently against net neutrality at the physical layer, on the basis that private markets, not governments, should dictate what traffic ISPs allow and prioritize on their pipes. But when there's a perceived bias against conservatives, suddenly he's all for government intervention at the application layer. Cry me a river, Ted.
- Balgair 6y ago
  Ted is not stupid. He went to Princeton (cum laude, '92) and has a Harvard Law degree (magna cum laude, '95). He's acting. The question is why.
- _up 6y ago
  It's not the same though. You can be at the same time for minimizing Government involvement and even allowing ISPs to decide how they prevent/censor business models, but draw a line when they begin to censor political speech.

riffic 6y ago

Media and the public sector needs to disentangle itself from these spaces. I would suggest writing to your congress-critters asking for an exploration of the ActivityPub ecosystem.

beepboopbeep 6y ago

Cruz was putting on a disingenuous show for right wing audiences. This was a waste of time and further demeans the procedure, and congress.

rektide 6y ago
I'm torn between HN rules that we shouldn't talk politics, & Ted talking BS tech out his bunghole. He's making his hamfisted politics a mortal threat to tech (and sowing rabid dissent & unrest).
eiji 6y ago
Those hearings are also used to get representatives of these organizations on the record. Cruz certainly asked pointed questions, albeit driven by his political interest. I'm still surprised how unprepared and naïve Jack seems to be for these kinds of procedures. The NYPost article in question and the entire account is still blocked to this day. I can only assume that they squashed it in such a way that they cannot recover it anymore. I know people find a GOP election win unlikely (Not including me), but he is doing his investors a great disservice by not being prepared for a landslide GOP win that could transform Sec 230 greatly.

rektide 6y ago

Scarey note that Biden has said he may support repeal. As every CEO noted, censorship would have to (radically) increase if platforms were no longer had protection from the speech they happen to host. So weird how Cruz &c keep making this sound like there's some mandate that these platforms be nuetral. Definitely in large part to score sympathy, but what if he & his sect realize (how can they not?) & do want to errode the Safe Harbor provisions, make it unsafe to host content online? Or are they confident this is only a PR stunt, & that it will go nowhere?

perryizgr8 6y ago
I'd prefer full censorship instead of the partisan sham that Twitter is doing now.
- rektide 6y ago
  why don't you go someplace else then? no one is forcing anyone on to Twitter, it had no more sway or status than the Babylon Bee or any other media. if people vote with their feet to hang out someplace, it should not face increasing nuetrality regulations, imo. to answer Cruzcs question, every active Twitter user voted for Twitter, & our choice not to go use an alternative is an ongoing continual voting that could change any day. I also don't agree, don't think Twitter is acting at all biased. I think they have very basic rules & have been very kind about trying to enforce them.
  - perryizgr8 6y ago
    > no one is forcing anyone on to Twitter, it had no more sway or status than the Babylon Bee or any other media. That is probably the most untrue statement I've heard this week. Twitter the de facto standard way by which famous people and journalists speak out to their audience. As a general user, I have no alternative for the kind of news that is on Twitter. As a journalist/celebrity, there is no alternative to reach my audience directly. There is an immensely strong network effect. > I also don't agree, don't think Twitter is acting at all biased. I think they have very basic rules & have been very kind about trying to enforce them. Why then did they let people post about the fictional Russian collusion for 3 years? Investigations by federal agencies finally concluded that there was none. So why did Twitter allow that narrative to play out? Why did they let the leaked video of Trump saying random things in personal conversations be posted and shared? Why did Twitter let people post about fake and unproven allegations against Bret Kavanaugh? What was different?

csours 6y ago

What should social media do with directed propaganda campaigns? If one side of an argument poisons the discourse, what then? Should both sides poison the well?

DubiousPusher 6y ago
Whatever they want. This is how all media companies have exercised editorial control for decades. The only difference here is people feel some strange sense of ownership over Twitter that they do not over The New York Times.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Because users are creating the content.
  - DubiousPusher 6y ago
    You created it but you gave it away the moment you posted it.
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      Right, just like I give my labor away to my employer. Still, there are reasonable limits and laws on how workers are treated. Likewise, social media is due for the same.
      - DubiousPusher 6y ago
        I am super confused by that counterpoint. You essentially have to have a job in a modern economy. You don't have to post to social media. This gives your employer an outsized degree of influence in your personal viability. Hence the government regulates the market exchange of labor for money. I'm having a really hard time seeing how that relates to the government getting involved with a media company because you don't like what they did with short blog you posted as a passtime. What's more the government doesn't do much to protect your work product as an employee. Generally that's down to contract which most companies ensure you sign away any rights to.

dariusj18 6y ago

> “Who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear,” Pretty sure that is the opposite of what we (generally) allow our elected officials to do.

khazhoux 6y ago
Great observation! I was lost in Cruz's angry theatrics, did not even catch the invalidity of his premise.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dariusj18 6y ago
  At the very least it seems the opposite of what Republicans/Conservatives espouse.
chrisco255 6y ago
Yeah, the gist of what he was saying probably should have been worded as "who made you king?"
- rektide 6y ago
  Which seems to have a clear enough answer: The billion+ active users of Twitter & Facebook, for whom these rules seem acceptable & decent.
  - apta 6y ago
    It's not that straightforward. The rules are anything but obvious. It's one big echo chamber.
  - noxer 6y ago
    The rules are not the problem. People agree or go somewhere else. Its how they are applied. Having hacked material not allowed would be totally fine but you cant allow it once and then block it another time. Either is against the rules or not. And before creating such a rule there would need to be serious effort to figure out how to enforce it fair and if that's not possible the rule should never even be set up. This no hacked content rule for example was nonsense form the beginning. You would need to block everything instantly or at first report because you simply cant know if its hacked content. And it puts twitter in the position to judge if something is in fact hacked content or not. And by the time they decide its already all over the internet anyway because the Streisand effect is real. Its just a useless rule with no concept to implement but it opens doors to suppress something from becoming a trending topic.

Shared404 6y ago

Might be worth pointing out that the title is clickbait -- This sentence was spoken to Jack Dorsey, not a senator. (Not blaming this on OP at all, it is the original title.)

reaperducer 6y ago

A lot of people, especially on HN, like to characterize this as a Republican witch hunt. Before we devolve into that kind of thinking, remember this line from the article: "Biden has expressed support for revoking the law" Even though there are Democrats on the committee who think this is all nonsense, it is a bipartisan issue, going back years. A number of HN-favorite Democrats also supported what was going on back when they were still running for their party's nomination.

KorematsuFred 6y ago

Senate hearings have become a circus. It is only a matter of time before one of the CEOs will deliver a Henry Reardon (Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged) styled speech which will leave these smarty pant Senators with an egg on face. It wont come from Sundar, Jack or Zuck but it will come from someone. Perhaps someone like Musk. Instead of using these hearings to genuinely uncover information we don't have, Senators are using this to ask rhetorical questions that can give sensational headlines for the partisan websites e.g. "Who elected you ? Angry Cruz flays far left tech company Twitter's CEO". I have seen ordinary journalists asking more relevant and better questions to Jack and others than these Senators. These hearings were once about people holding other powerful individuals accountable. Now they are about clever soundbytes ironically optimized for platforms like Twitter.

wil421 6y ago
Pretty sure politicians have been standing on podiums spouting nonsense to boost themselves since ancient times. Roman senators did it and it’s only more sophisticated in a world with cameras and the internet.
- KorematsuFred 6y ago
  Fully agree. It is just that now with internet even Senator hearings have become part of that theater in a similar fashion.
rayiner 6y ago
And now you know why they refuse to allow cameras in the Supreme Court.
s5300 6y ago
Musk may have just started this. Read the EULA for Starlink
leftyted 6y ago
In other words, if juries deliberated in front of cameras, every jury would be hung.

spamizbad 6y ago

Some of the stuff Mike Lee is talking about is very troubling. He is saying the mere act of "labeling: content is censorship. This would classify things like spam filters (or hell, email with an important flag set) as mechanisms for censorship.

chrisco255 6y ago
Spam filters could be used for censorship. But the key difference is spam filters allow the user to tweak their settings. If I'm explicitly following someone on Twitter, I should be able to hear what they have to say just like I can hear whatever email newsletter I subscribe to. And I shouldn't have to fight with Gmail to get approval for my newsletter to be published.
- spamizbad 6y ago
  This isn't true for the vast majority of consumers. For example, the IP address of the SMTP server will carry a reputation. ISPs will block IPs that are untrusted and your message will get "dropped" before you receive it. You can run your own server and just let everything through but we're dangerously close to the "just build your own facebook if they censor you" rebuttle. If we are going to let the government declare this a form of illegal censorship the email email trust framework is going to break down. Lee and his ilk are playing with fire.
googthrowaway42 6y ago
Spam filters are a form of censorship. Not all censorship is bad.
- Silhouette 6y ago
  And from the other perspective, not all spam filters are good, either. There is a real problem today with a relatively small number of organisations that host a lot of email accounts being so aggressive with their filtering that it has undermined the basic mechanics and reliability of email as a communications channel. Stronger obligations on those claiming to provide an email hosting service to actually deliver legitimate mail to their account holders, or to at least provide an effective and standardised recovery mechanism when they make a bad judgement while trying to block junk mail, wouldn't go amiss.

3PcabNCC 6y ago

> “Who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear,” Cruz said. That's such a ridiculous thing to say. Twitter has the unanimous consent of everyone who is subject to their rules. Every Twitter user became a Twitter user by choice and no-one is going to use violence against them for no longer using Twitter or for creating an alternative. That couldn't be further from the situation with the government. Cruz and other politicians impose their rules on people who never had a choice. The US government did not create the land it claims as its territory, it took control of it by force killing thousands of people. The government is both willing and able to use extreme violence to prevent people from avoiding it or creating alternatives to it. A Twitter user who is angry about Twitter's censorship only has to spend a few minutes to delete their account and create an account with another service (Gab, mastodon, etc.). A US citizen who is angry about the US government's censorship have to abandon their home and be accepted by another government. Even then, the US government may still demand their money and loyalty.

chrisco255 6y ago
> The US government did not create the land it claims as its territory, it took control of it by force killing thousands of people. Yeah, that's true of every nation in existence and every nation in the past. We just happen to live in a relatively peaceful time. Not too long ago, constant war and fighting for territory was all there was, and there wasn't a square mile on planet earth that blood hasn't been spilt for. Twitter is a monopoly and has an outsized influence on politics and news today, beyond any media force in history, perhaps. They're protected by arbitrary legislation from the 90s that prevents them from being held accountable for false or defamatory statements from getting published and shared on their platform. The whole impetus from that protection was to promote free speech. Instead, Twitter has chosen to arbitrarily and selectively mute, shadow ban, lock out, and silence those who they disagree with. I think if they are benefitting from 230 protection, they should not be allowed to engage in this kind of manipulation. Or they should be forced to federate their service with other platforms. With Twitter, individual contributors can spend a decade building up a following of tens of thousands to millions of users, and then with a click, Twitter can take that away. I mean, I'm old enough to remember when we got the right to keep your phone number passed so that you can keep your number when you switch cell phone carriers. That sort of thing does not exist in social media. If I switch platforms, I lose my ability to communicate with my connections. That's a problem. That should be legislated away.

drewrv 6y ago

I'm genuinely curious what the republicans want here. I get that they're mad because they think big tech is out to get them. And I don't even expect a policy proposal or bill at this stage. But is there even a paper from a think tank, or a right-wing law professor, who has put forward a coherent framework for how to regulate social media? My understand is that if you repeal section 230, social media sites would either have to be completely unmoderated (like 4chan) or really heavily moderated (as they'd be liable for everything people post). Is that their goal here? Or if they want to replace 230, what would they replace it with?

Covzire 6y ago
>> because they (republicans) think big tech is out to get them. I'm genuinely curious how someone could follow the news in a basic way and still think it's just some conspiracy. It's been beyond proven through leaks, deplatforming and whistleblowers that big tech is trying desperately to get Democrats elected.
- drewrv 6y ago
  Republicans have said the same thing about Hollywood, academics, journalists, and scientists. And they've cherry picked stories to "prove" it with those groups too.
  - insickness 6y ago
    It's a proven fact that Hollywood, academics and journalists all lean to the left. No need to cherry pick stories.
    - drewrv 6y ago
      Lean to the left compared to what? I don't think there's an abstract platonic "center", rather the center is defined by the major institutions in a society. These institutions probably lean left of our national politics, but our national political system was intentionally designed to give disproportionate power to rural, low population areas.

beschissen 6y ago

Either social media is a Platform and respects the First Ammendment and the right to free speech) OR it is a Publisher that can choose what to publish or censor and is thus subject to litigation. Blatant falsehoods about Trump have been published in social media for the past 3 years but verified documents showing Biden family colusion and pay to access to the office of the Vice President is deemed "misinformation"? A blatant double standard that is completely untenable in a free society.

edmundsauto 6y ago
This is a false dichotomy. I can’t name any platforms that don’t exercise moderation, except maybe 4chan? I think it’s desirable for places to put rules in place to kick out or mute the asshats.
- argue_facts 6y ago
  If you can't name something, that makes it a "false dichotomy"?

insickness 6y ago

Jack Dorsey seems to have lied to Cruz. He said that it was now possible to tweet the NY Post story (at 4:41): https://youtu.be/EsE3mnzgpQM?t=281 https://youtu.be/EsE3mnzgpQM?t=281 But it apparently is not: https://twitter.com/abigailmarone/status/1321476036211757056?s=20 https://twitter.com/abigailmarone/status/1321476036211757056...

googthrowaway42 6y ago
"What @jack told the Senate, under oath, is false. I just tried to tweet the @nypost story alleging Biden’s CCP corruption. Still blocked. 18 USC 1621 makes it a felony to lie under oath to the Senate." https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1321499884919377927?s=20 https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1321499884919377927?s=20
- vernie 6y ago
  What a fucking dweeb.
  - dang 6y ago
    Please don't do this here.
- apta 6y ago
  They should take action.

khazhoux 6y ago

I watched Jack's testimony in part to try to take a lesson in handling the heat. He did very well and stayed cool. Myself, I don't think I handle the heat very well. In executive reviews, I never quite understand what VPs are asking, because the way they phrase questions is always kind of flawed and it makes me think of 5 ways to answer based on 5 possible interpretations of their question, and invariably (every time!) I start answering and then am asked to stop because that's not what they asked. I also get pretty stressed/nervous before big exec reviews (it just always feels like an exposition of any personal failure), and my brain has seized once or twice. I supposed I'm not cut out for being in the line of fire. So much for my dreams of being CEO of a mega- tech company! :-) Maybe goes without saying that I'm envious of my peers who can waltz into the fiercest review and not flinch while they state their case. I'd love to hear from others on this.

s5300 6y ago
Have you ever tried doing copious amounts of beta blockers? I hear they're well for this. Seriously. Symphony orchestras apparently praise them for taking the extreme anxiety out of performing to massive audiences
- Diederich 6y ago
  > Have you ever tried doing copious amounts of beta blockers? I hear they're well for this. This seems like some potentially dangerous general advise.
  - khazhoux 6y ago
    "Copious" does seem dangerous. But beta blockers do seem like a recognized chemical fix to the fight-or-flight response. I've heard: half a tablet of propanolol an hour before a major performance or presentation, and try it out in advance to make sure no adverse effects. At any rate, it's a prescription drug, so a physician needs to be involved.
- khazhoux 6y ago
  Not sure why you're being downvoted. I've looked into Propranolol as that seems like an acceptable and safe (mild) solution to fight off the lizard-brain aspects of anxiety. As you say, praised by performers. Anecdotally, I have a friend who gives it a glowing review for helping him accept a major award ("I'd like to thank the Academy").

vernie 6y ago

These freaks love freedom and private industry until it doesn't go their way.

robomartin 6y ago

I am not taking sides, right or left. I think it is fair to say it’s a mess. I fail to see why the US constitution’s protection of the press would apply to organizations indistinguishable from political action groups engaging in the dissemination and promotion of lies with the intent to shape narratives and manipulate the audience. What the media has devolved into should be outside of constitutional protection. This protection should be reserved for the truth. A high bar, yes, yet the only metric that can assure the delivery of information rather than political indoctrination through lies and careful manipulation. Too difficult? Well, if what is being said can’t be determined to be truthful, don’t say it or print it. It’s that simple. Go look for a story backed by facts. That’s the other point: The constitution should be about protecting quality, not quantity. These enterprises are doing unmeasurable damage to society. Again, all sides are guilty.

DubiousPusher 6y ago
> This protection should be reserved for the truth. I think this is literally impossible to credibly establish in a political/legal context, especially in our present epistemological crisis.
- robomartin 6y ago
  Which is fine. My perspective is simple: If the matter being reported isn’t objectively true, move on and look for something else to report. We need less noise and more signal.
  - DubiousPusher 6y ago
    I'm confused. Your post seems to indicate that what is "untrue" should not be constitutionally protected speech. That's a far cry from "move on and look for something else to report". My point is that I don't know how you establish a credible arbiter of what is and isn't protected speech in a world where most people's concept of what "true" and "untrue" are highly depends on their base political positions.

argue_facts 6y ago

IMHO, Hacker News is equally guilty of censoring valid, substantive critics with its use of barely visible font and outright removal of comments it does not like based solely on opinion -- not verifiable facts, nor strength of polemic.