4 ms·

We are getting into a dark era of humanity. Platforms with their corporate overlords now decide what I can and cannot see, because I'm too stupid to think for

We are getting into a dark era of humanity. Platforms with their corporate overlords now decide what I can and cannot see, because I'm too stupid to think for myself. This has always been a slippery slope and won't end well. Zuckerberg as it stands today got more power than the president of the united states. He can swing any election and push any level of propaganda. I really want to see some laws around what they can censor.

sundvor 6y ago
I would be ashamed to work as an engineer at Facebook today; they empower the proliferation of lies that undermine democracy and our common health, hiding behind the "oh we're just a platform" pretense. Yes, I know free speech. However, there's a responsibility here that needs to be filled when the information is so carefully crafted (actual facts be damned) towards people who haven't got the education to understand the manipulation that is happening. The big platforms are falling well short.
CamperBob2 6y ago
That's one way to look at it. Another way is to ask how healthy it is for a society to allow such a powerful platform to be used to incite violence toward nonviolent parties.
donkey-hotei 6y ago
The cries for large tech corporations to moderate their content in ways that would make them something like thought-police has always baffled me. Though I understand that it is unhealthy for society to give a platform for violent right-wing rhetoric as well. Was Bannon's comment hyperbolic or not? Did they ever come out and say so or did they double down on it?
ghayes 6y ago
Out of curiosity, do you believe the NYTimes should have the right to censor its own comments section? What about censorship in its op-ed section (if the Times decides to not, let’s say, publish your article in the Op-Ed). Facebook is not a public utility, so restricting how Facebook can moderate is, in fact, censorship (and potentially a violation of the prior restraint doctrine). Safe harbor is an odd work-around to this fundamental concern, in my opinion (that is, forcing a company to censor or not and otherwise holding it criminally liable for the all content, which could technically be posted maliciously by an aggrieved anonymous user).
- imgabe 6y ago
  If, for example, the NY Times hosted their website on AWS, do you think Amazon should be able to shut off their servers if the NY Times publishes something Amazon doesn't like? This where we have to ask whether we want Facebook to be a publisher or a platform. Is Facebook responsible for Steve Bannon's speech, or is Steve Bannon?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jwalgenbach 6y ago
    Actually, yes. This is entirely reasonable. Hosting companies decided they didn't want 4chan or Stormfront or other hives of white supremacy and that's okay. Publishers are allowed to not publish a book. Fox News and CNN get to decide what guests are on their talking heads shows. Facebook is not a public utility. It is not a dot gov. They can allow whatever content they want so long as it doesn't break the law.
    - imgabe 6y ago
      If I run my own ecommerce shop on AWS, Amazon should just be able to shut it down and force me to sell through Amazon instead? If I run a service on an EC2 instance that uses Auth.0, they can shut it off until I agree to use Cognito?
      - ChrisLomont 6y ago
        Sure, if their terms of service allow it. Conversely, should every user of a platform get to dictate terms? No. In both cases you and a provider enter into a mutually agreeable relation under some terms of service. And you both can terminate that relationship up to terms of service.
friendlybus 6y ago
Agent Smith said it well, once the machines started doing the thinking for humans, it really became their world. Zuckerberg is a glorified newspaper salesman. He depends on soaking up negative narratives to appear powerful. Nobody is more powerful than the government, they can only impose costs on the gov, the government will resolve all conflicts.
enumjorge 6y ago
The problem with takes like this is that they don’t acknowledge the equally serious issue of misinformation and propaganda in social networks. Of course it’s worrisome to let Zuckerberg decide what people see or don’t see. It’s also serious to do nothing while Zuckerberg’s platform amplifies misinformation. That stuff has serious consequences. A good chunk of the country thinks Biden stole the election based on claims that have no merit. These people are pushing the health of the American democracy to its limits and yet so many comments on HN seem to be solely preoccupied about censorship.
discordance 6y ago
Rupert Murdoch has been defining election outcomes for decades. Murdoch won't be around much longer, and it seems like a natural progression for Zuckerberg. Quite the progression from FaceMash.
ZeteticElench 6y ago
Trump has proven that a shockingly large percentage of the US IS in fact too stupid to think for themselves and just let Fox News and the like tell them what to think.

sundvor 6y ago

I would be ashamed to work as an engineer at Facebook today; they empower the proliferation of lies that undermine democracy and our common health, hiding behind the "oh we're just a platform" pretense. Yes, I know free speech. However, there's a responsibility here that needs to be filled when the information is so carefully crafted (actual facts be damned) towards people who haven't got the education to understand the manipulation that is happening. The big platforms are falling well short.

CamperBob2 6y ago

That's one way to look at it. Another way is to ask how healthy it is for a society to allow such a powerful platform to be used to incite violence toward nonviolent parties.

donkey-hotei 6y ago

The cries for large tech corporations to moderate their content in ways that would make them something like thought-police has always baffled me. Though I understand that it is unhealthy for society to give a platform for violent right-wing rhetoric as well. Was Bannon's comment hyperbolic or not? Did they ever come out and say so or did they double down on it?

ghayes 6y ago

Out of curiosity, do you believe the NYTimes should have the right to censor its own comments section? What about censorship in its op-ed section (if the Times decides to not, let’s say, publish your article in the Op-Ed). Facebook is not a public utility, so restricting how Facebook can moderate is, in fact, censorship (and potentially a violation of the prior restraint doctrine). Safe harbor is an odd work-around to this fundamental concern, in my opinion (that is, forcing a company to censor or not and otherwise holding it criminally liable for the all content, which could technically be posted maliciously by an aggrieved anonymous user).

imgabe 6y ago
If, for example, the NY Times hosted their website on AWS, do you think Amazon should be able to shut off their servers if the NY Times publishes something Amazon doesn't like? This where we have to ask whether we want Facebook to be a publisher or a platform. Is Facebook responsible for Steve Bannon's speech, or is Steve Bannon?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jwalgenbach 6y ago
  Actually, yes. This is entirely reasonable. Hosting companies decided they didn't want 4chan or Stormfront or other hives of white supremacy and that's okay. Publishers are allowed to not publish a book. Fox News and CNN get to decide what guests are on their talking heads shows. Facebook is not a public utility. It is not a dot gov. They can allow whatever content they want so long as it doesn't break the law.
  - imgabe 6y ago
    If I run my own ecommerce shop on AWS, Amazon should just be able to shut it down and force me to sell through Amazon instead? If I run a service on an EC2 instance that uses Auth.0, they can shut it off until I agree to use Cognito?
    - ChrisLomont 6y ago
      Sure, if their terms of service allow it. Conversely, should every user of a platform get to dictate terms? No. In both cases you and a provider enter into a mutually agreeable relation under some terms of service. And you both can terminate that relationship up to terms of service.

friendlybus 6y ago

Agent Smith said it well, once the machines started doing the thinking for humans, it really became their world. Zuckerberg is a glorified newspaper salesman. He depends on soaking up negative narratives to appear powerful. Nobody is more powerful than the government, they can only impose costs on the gov, the government will resolve all conflicts.

enumjorge 6y ago

The problem with takes like this is that they don’t acknowledge the equally serious issue of misinformation and propaganda in social networks. Of course it’s worrisome to let Zuckerberg decide what people see or don’t see. It’s also serious to do nothing while Zuckerberg’s platform amplifies misinformation. That stuff has serious consequences. A good chunk of the country thinks Biden stole the election based on claims that have no merit. These people are pushing the health of the American democracy to its limits and yet so many comments on HN seem to be solely preoccupied about censorship.

discordance 6y ago

Rupert Murdoch has been defining election outcomes for decades. Murdoch won't be around much longer, and it seems like a natural progression for Zuckerberg. Quite the progression from FaceMash.

ZeteticElench 6y ago

Trump has proven that a shockingly large percentage of the US IS in fact too stupid to think for themselves and just let Fox News and the like tell them what to think.