6 ms·

People are making normative arguments, not legal arguments. We are aware that this is legal, just like it used to be legal to discriminate in hiring practices a

People are making normative arguments, not legal arguments. We are aware that this is legal, just like it used to be legal to discriminate in hiring practices against black people. Taibbi is suggesting that if you can't trust the people not to post error and lies, how can you trust the oligarchs and officials? Especially if your access to alternative perspectives is limited. Read for yourself: >> Cutting down the public’s ability to flip out removes one of the only real checks on the most dangerous kind of fake news, the official lie. Imagine if these mechanisms had been in place in the past. Would we disallow published claims that the Missile Gap was a fake? That the Gulf of Tonkin incident was staged? How about Watergate, a wild theory about cheating in a presidential election that was universally disbelieved by “reputable” news agencies, until it wasn’t? It’s not hard to imagine a future where authorities would ask tech platforms to quell “conspiracy theories” about everything from poisoned water systems to war crimes.

majormajor 6y ago
Those with platforms have always had the opportunity to lie to large groups, but extending that ability to every single person seems like an EXTREMELY BAD "solution." Historically there's been a burden of proof for wild claims because it's been hard to get a huge mass audience. And people with those audiences were reluctant to repeat whatever wild bullshit was proposed to them if they couldn't vet it themselves. If you didn't have your own credibility, you had to convince those who did to run your stuff. The cost of this is that it's slower to break things, and some stuff gets missed. Unmoderated internet platforms with algorithmic jumps between otherwise-unconnected publishers let you borrow and hijack other people's credibility and platforms. Why those platforms shouldn't be allowed to have editorial control - given that maintaining a certain reputation will still be critical for their long-term success - is beyond me and seems to have obvious un-American problems (infringement on their own private rights). The trade-off being desired also seems fundamentally bad. More people being misled more quickly seems like a worse situation than slower breaking of news and the ability to suppress some stories, given that we were still able to break those stories you mention in the past. (Of course, I don't know what else might have been more widely reported in the past... I'm having to rely on a "we didn't feel like we were living in a totalitarian dystopia in the 60s-through-80s" assumption.)
- miohtama 6y ago
  This is the best explanation of the dangers of mega publishing platforms I have seen on Hacker News.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > Those with platforms have always had the opportunity to lie to large groups, but extending that ability to every single person seems like an EXTREMELY BAD "solution." Why is it bad? before only a few people could lie to everyone and keep the majority in the dark because they lacked access to information that would expose the lies they were told. Now everyone's voice is amplified and the people who used to have this power are upset because people believe things they don't want them to believe. > Historically there's been a burden of proof for wild claims because it's been hard to get a huge mass audience. This seems like a non sequitur. Historically its been hard to spread wild claims for most people because they didn't have a platform. What burden of proof are you referring to? > And people with those audiences were reluctant to repeat whatever wild bullshit was proposed to them if they couldn't vet it themselves. Isn't it more likely that they were reluctant to repeat stories unless it benefitted them? Yellow journalism predates the internet by almost 100 years. > Unmoderated internet platforms with algorithmic jumps between otherwise-unconnected publishers let you borrow and hijack other people's credibility and platforms. Perhaps. I'm not sure that I could hijack the credibility of (for example) Dr. Fauci by retweeting him. Its more likely that he could voluntarily lend me his credibility by retweeting me. > Why those platforms shouldn't be allowed to have editorial control - given that maintaining a certain reputation will still be critical for their long-term success - is beyond me and seems to have obvious un-American problems (infringement on their own private rights). The argument is that they have become large and commonly used enough that they are akin to a public utility. This is an open question and I certainly don't have the answer. Think of it as if the interstate highway system was owned by Procter & Gamble and they began to limit access to the interstate for carriers who delivered their competitors' products, or refused to allow left-handed redheads to access the interstate. A lot of people would say that in that case it would be an appropriate use of the government's regulatory power to nationalize or break up the "P&G Interstate" for the public good. Other people would say that it was within their rights as property owners to decide who they sold roadway access to. You'd have a situation where people's interpretations of fundamental rights conflicted because of technological advancement. > The trade-off being desired also seems fundamentally bad. More people being misled more quickly seems like a worse situation than slower breaking of news and the ability to suppress some stories, given that we were still able to break those stories you mention in the past. (Of course, I don't know what else might have been more widely reported in the past... I'm having to rely on a "we didn't feel like we were living in a totalitarian dystopia in the 60s-through-80s" assumption.) Consider that Manufacturing Consent was published in 1988.
xnyan 6y ago
Should you be forced to publish and host things that you think are terrible lies? If so, why? If not, why should YouTube? Not making a comment on the validity of their claims, just trying to understand what you are saying - a private organization should be legally compelled to spend money to host ideas that they think are harmful? How does that work in practical terms?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- waterhouse 6y ago
  No, they should not be forced. However, YouTube should be shamed for the bans, and everyone should be encouraged to think worse of them for it.
  - FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
    I think YouTube should be applauded for protecting democracy. Why do you think they should be shamed for doing this?
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      Probably because its dangerous to democracy to silence people who question the integrity of elections. It sends the impression that there is something to hide. And people who suspect that the election was stolen will take this as confirmation of that suspicion. Since they won't be allowed to use that platform to raise their suspicions, no one will be able to respond to them to allay their suspicions. Then as time goes on confirmation bias will lead them to become entrenched in this belief. Eventually this belief (that the elections have been stolen) will lead to the perception of a loss of legitimacy for the government, and consequentially public servants will find it more difficult and dangerous to do their jobs.
      - supercanuck 6y ago
        >Probably because its dangerous to democracy to silence people YouTube is not silencing anyone. These people are free to espouse these views espouse these views anyway they please just not on YouTube's private property. The New York Times is not a danger to democracy because they refuse to publish my article on why the earth is flat.
rhino369 6y ago
Just look early 2020 for an example. Should Youtube have taken down videos saying face masks were effective given the CDC said they weren't? Should Youtube have taken down videos about Li Wenliang. After all, there was no new SARS problem, according to china?

majormajor 6y ago

Those with platforms have always had the opportunity to lie to large groups, but extending that ability to every single person seems like an EXTREMELY BAD "solution." Historically there's been a burden of proof for wild claims because it's been hard to get a huge mass audience. And people with those audiences were reluctant to repeat whatever wild bullshit was proposed to them if they couldn't vet it themselves. If you didn't have your own credibility, you had to convince those who did to run your stuff. The cost of this is that it's slower to break things, and some stuff gets missed. Unmoderated internet platforms with algorithmic jumps between otherwise-unconnected publishers let you borrow and hijack other people's credibility and platforms. Why those platforms shouldn't be allowed to have editorial control - given that maintaining a certain reputation will still be critical for their long-term success - is beyond me and seems to have obvious un-American problems (infringement on their own private rights). The trade-off being desired also seems fundamentally bad. More people being misled more quickly seems like a worse situation than slower breaking of news and the ability to suppress some stories, given that we were still able to break those stories you mention in the past. (Of course, I don't know what else might have been more widely reported in the past... I'm having to rely on a "we didn't feel like we were living in a totalitarian dystopia in the 60s-through-80s" assumption.)

miohtama 6y ago
This is the best explanation of the dangers of mega publishing platforms I have seen on Hacker News.
chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Those with platforms have always had the opportunity to lie to large groups, but extending that ability to every single person seems like an EXTREMELY BAD "solution." Why is it bad? before only a few people could lie to everyone and keep the majority in the dark because they lacked access to information that would expose the lies they were told. Now everyone's voice is amplified and the people who used to have this power are upset because people believe things they don't want them to believe. > Historically there's been a burden of proof for wild claims because it's been hard to get a huge mass audience. This seems like a non sequitur. Historically its been hard to spread wild claims for most people because they didn't have a platform. What burden of proof are you referring to? > And people with those audiences were reluctant to repeat whatever wild bullshit was proposed to them if they couldn't vet it themselves. Isn't it more likely that they were reluctant to repeat stories unless it benefitted them? Yellow journalism predates the internet by almost 100 years. > Unmoderated internet platforms with algorithmic jumps between otherwise-unconnected publishers let you borrow and hijack other people's credibility and platforms. Perhaps. I'm not sure that I could hijack the credibility of (for example) Dr. Fauci by retweeting him. Its more likely that he could voluntarily lend me his credibility by retweeting me. > Why those platforms shouldn't be allowed to have editorial control - given that maintaining a certain reputation will still be critical for their long-term success - is beyond me and seems to have obvious un-American problems (infringement on their own private rights). The argument is that they have become large and commonly used enough that they are akin to a public utility. This is an open question and I certainly don't have the answer. Think of it as if the interstate highway system was owned by Procter & Gamble and they began to limit access to the interstate for carriers who delivered their competitors' products, or refused to allow left-handed redheads to access the interstate. A lot of people would say that in that case it would be an appropriate use of the government's regulatory power to nationalize or break up the "P&G Interstate" for the public good. Other people would say that it was within their rights as property owners to decide who they sold roadway access to. You'd have a situation where people's interpretations of fundamental rights conflicted because of technological advancement. > The trade-off being desired also seems fundamentally bad. More people being misled more quickly seems like a worse situation than slower breaking of news and the ability to suppress some stories, given that we were still able to break those stories you mention in the past. (Of course, I don't know what else might have been more widely reported in the past... I'm having to rely on a "we didn't feel like we were living in a totalitarian dystopia in the 60s-through-80s" assumption.) Consider that Manufacturing Consent was published in 1988.

xnyan 6y ago

Should you be forced to publish and host things that you think are terrible lies? If so, why? If not, why should YouTube? Not making a comment on the validity of their claims, just trying to understand what you are saying - a private organization should be legally compelled to spend money to host ideas that they think are harmful? How does that work in practical terms?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
waterhouse 6y ago
No, they should not be forced. However, YouTube should be shamed for the bans, and everyone should be encouraged to think worse of them for it.
- FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
  I think YouTube should be applauded for protecting democracy. Why do you think they should be shamed for doing this?
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    Probably because its dangerous to democracy to silence people who question the integrity of elections. It sends the impression that there is something to hide. And people who suspect that the election was stolen will take this as confirmation of that suspicion. Since they won't be allowed to use that platform to raise their suspicions, no one will be able to respond to them to allay their suspicions. Then as time goes on confirmation bias will lead them to become entrenched in this belief. Eventually this belief (that the elections have been stolen) will lead to the perception of a loss of legitimacy for the government, and consequentially public servants will find it more difficult and dangerous to do their jobs.
    - supercanuck 6y ago
      >Probably because its dangerous to democracy to silence people YouTube is not silencing anyone. These people are free to espouse these views espouse these views anyway they please just not on YouTube's private property. The New York Times is not a danger to democracy because they refuse to publish my article on why the earth is flat.

rhino369 6y ago

Just look early 2020 for an example. Should Youtube have taken down videos saying face masks were effective given the CDC said they weren't? Should Youtube have taken down videos about Li Wenliang. After all, there was no new SARS problem, according to china?