4 ms·

Yeah I really don't envy them. They're just guys who built some websites trying to make money. I'm sure they never thought they would be at the center of nation

by vlunkr 6y ago

Yeah I really don't envy them. They're just guys who built some websites trying to make money. I'm sure they never thought they would be at the center of national discussions about free speech, defending themselves against senators on TV, or being in the no-win situation of having the President use your platform to share obvious lies.

Balgair 6y ago
> They're just guys who built some websites trying to make money Maybe before Tahrir Square that was true, but they've been at this fulcrum for ~9 years now. They know what they're doing and what their part is in the play staging today.
tshaddox 6y ago
And yet, surely they could change things essentially overnight if they wanted to. I’m not sure how far “they didn’t expect this to happen” goes as a defense.
- vlunkr 6y ago
  How would they change though? As the original comment stated, they're being asked to do contradictory things by different parties. The defense isn't that "they didn't expect this to happen," it's that there's no way for them to win. People can't agree on what they did wrong if anything.
  - tshaddox 6y ago
    Sure, at this point various groups want very specific accommodations to "patch" specific perceived problems. But I think it's pretty clear that the overall problem is the algorithms which boost the distribution of certain kinds of content. Yes, conservatives get upset if posts are removed or flagged as inaccurate, but I don't think liberals would deem that necessary if it weren't the case that every doctored video that fits a conservative political agenda gets distributed to millions of people instantly. (Feel free to swap "conservative" and "liberal" in that previous sentence with whatever you like, the particular groups aren't important to my argument.)
    - nemothekid 6y ago
      I think that only applies to Facebook. I know Twitter has an algorithmic timeline, but I think it's "Latest Mode" is still actually quite popular.
smnrchrds 6y ago
You must not remember Twitter revolutions [0]. When journalists were attributing a wave of protests ranging from Iran to Egypt to Syria (which were later come to be named Arab Spring) to the effect of social media, especially Twitter. Social media giants were hailed as saviours of humanity through spreading democracy. Social media executives were ecstatic: they were changing the world for the better and making a lot of money in the process. I don't know if they took credit for it explicitly, but at least they never objected to the articles praising them for being humanity's saviours. Twitter et. al. have been a political force for most of their existence. The only thing that has changed is that while in their early years, their political effects were concentrated in the developing world in faraway lands, in recent years they have started affecting western politics as well. Many people who praised the earlier effects are condemning the latter. But the fundamental forces and processes are the same; it is the target that has changed. And Twitter has known it was political at least since 2009, when revolutions were named after it and multiple countries blocked it from their internet for the fear of the havoc it may cause. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Revolution
- ehsankia 6y ago
  I still think there's a big difference between giving a platform to the people who don't have a voice (Twitter revolutions), vs giving a platform to world leaders and people in power trying to use the platform to disseminate their propaganda. Also, realistically no one's gonna care too much if you ban one of those millions of people without a voice, but good luck trying to censor the president.
  - smnrchrds 6y ago
    > I still think there's a big difference between giving a platform to the people who don't have a voice (Twitter revolutions), vs giving a platform to world leaders and people in power trying to use the platform to disseminate their propaganda. I don't think Twitter revolutions were free of propaganda. I am sure all the superpowers and regional powers were fanning the flames of discontent and trying to steer the results in their favourite direction. The excuse many countries gave for blocking Twitter was that it was a foreign propaganda tool. I am not saying the entire thing was foreign agents and propaganda. I am saying that there was some of that then as it is now. We have just learned to see it, because now the propaganda is directed at us and we have a clearer view.
bleepblorp 6y ago
I don't extend personal sympathy to people worth over even a few million dollars -- if they don't like their jobs they can just retire -- but, in the abstract, the social media firms have bitten off far more than they can chew. The kinds of problems social media has exposed are problems that society isn't able to deal with and the people who were just looking for a quick buck, without needing to do much work, are caught in the middle of it. Corporate structures were never intended to regulate the speech of billions of people in thousands of legal jurisdictions, but that's exactly the situation Facebook is now in. I don't know if there is a good solution to the problems of social media short of simply outlawing it.

by vlunkr 6y ago

Balgair 6y ago

> They're just guys who built some websites trying to make money Maybe before Tahrir Square that was true, but they've been at this fulcrum for ~9 years now. They know what they're doing and what their part is in the play staging today.

tshaddox 6y ago

And yet, surely they could change things essentially overnight if they wanted to. I’m not sure how far “they didn’t expect this to happen” goes as a defense.

vlunkr 6y ago
How would they change though? As the original comment stated, they're being asked to do contradictory things by different parties. The defense isn't that "they didn't expect this to happen," it's that there's no way for them to win. People can't agree on what they did wrong if anything.
- tshaddox 6y ago
  Sure, at this point various groups want very specific accommodations to "patch" specific perceived problems. But I think it's pretty clear that the overall problem is the algorithms which boost the distribution of certain kinds of content. Yes, conservatives get upset if posts are removed or flagged as inaccurate, but I don't think liberals would deem that necessary if it weren't the case that every doctored video that fits a conservative political agenda gets distributed to millions of people instantly. (Feel free to swap "conservative" and "liberal" in that previous sentence with whatever you like, the particular groups aren't important to my argument.)
  - nemothekid 6y ago
    I think that only applies to Facebook. I know Twitter has an algorithmic timeline, but I think it's "Latest Mode" is still actually quite popular.

smnrchrds 6y ago

You must not remember Twitter revolutions [0]. When journalists were attributing a wave of protests ranging from Iran to Egypt to Syria (which were later come to be named Arab Spring) to the effect of social media, especially Twitter. Social media giants were hailed as saviours of humanity through spreading democracy. Social media executives were ecstatic: they were changing the world for the better and making a lot of money in the process. I don't know if they took credit for it explicitly, but at least they never objected to the articles praising them for being humanity's saviours. Twitter et. al. have been a political force for most of their existence. The only thing that has changed is that while in their early years, their political effects were concentrated in the developing world in faraway lands, in recent years they have started affecting western politics as well. Many people who praised the earlier effects are condemning the latter. But the fundamental forces and processes are the same; it is the target that has changed. And Twitter has known it was political at least since 2009, when revolutions were named after it and multiple countries blocked it from their internet for the fear of the havoc it may cause. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Revolution

ehsankia 6y ago
I still think there's a big difference between giving a platform to the people who don't have a voice (Twitter revolutions), vs giving a platform to world leaders and people in power trying to use the platform to disseminate their propaganda. Also, realistically no one's gonna care too much if you ban one of those millions of people without a voice, but good luck trying to censor the president.
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  > I still think there's a big difference between giving a platform to the people who don't have a voice (Twitter revolutions), vs giving a platform to world leaders and people in power trying to use the platform to disseminate their propaganda. I don't think Twitter revolutions were free of propaganda. I am sure all the superpowers and regional powers were fanning the flames of discontent and trying to steer the results in their favourite direction. The excuse many countries gave for blocking Twitter was that it was a foreign propaganda tool. I am not saying the entire thing was foreign agents and propaganda. I am saying that there was some of that then as it is now. We have just learned to see it, because now the propaganda is directed at us and we have a clearer view.

bleepblorp 6y ago

I don't extend personal sympathy to people worth over even a few million dollars -- if they don't like their jobs they can just retire -- but, in the abstract, the social media firms have bitten off far more than they can chew. The kinds of problems social media has exposed are problems that society isn't able to deal with and the people who were just looking for a quick buck, without needing to do much work, are caught in the middle of it. Corporate structures were never intended to regulate the speech of billions of people in thousands of legal jurisdictions, but that's exactly the situation Facebook is now in. I don't know if there is a good solution to the problems of social media short of simply outlawing it.