6 ms·
And YT deletes content mentioning election fraud, and twitter permanent bans the president, all under the historically totalitarian guise of "safety" Nothing w
by not_a_moth 6y ago
And YT deletes content mentioning election fraud, and twitter permanent bans the president, all under the historically totalitarian guise of "safety"
Nothing wrong here at all. As Eric Weinstein put it, something went terribly wrong at big tech.
- iscrewyou 6y agoThe president for the last 4 years used the leniency of big tech to work up his supporters. Then told them to take over the capitol on his way out of the White House. Now everyone is surprised to see when big tech says enough is enough. Where else would these people draw the line if not here?
- tonystubblebine 6y agoI'm beginning to think free speech advocates here don't believe in property rights. Big Tech can do what they want with their products. They own them.
- Fjolsvith 6y agoTell that to Ma Bell.
- bcrl 6y agoMa Bell has pretty strict privacy laws that it must adhere to.
- Fjolsvith 6y agoMa Bell was broke up into pieces.
- bcrl 6y agoBut many of the legacy telecom laws remain on the books. It's tech that was exempted from these regulations, not legacy telecom. Sadly the privacy protections we had on phone calls were never applied to data. That would have resulted in a very different world than that in which we live today.
- jessaustin 6y agoThat was a scam. Follow the money. Lots of it was invested in 1990s/early 2000s, and every penny ended up in the pockets of ATT, VZN, and their executives and investment bankers. Only now, as sibling observes, common carriage and other requirements are gone.
- rzz3 6y agoThere is a difference between “can” and “should”. Twitter has every legal right to do what they did, but I feel that the decisions they (and other social media companies) are making are extremely dangerous and misguided.
- gibolt 6y agoThese platforms were used to incite a coup of our government. This is a perfect, clear-cut reason to ban a user/group. Platforms ban bad actors all the time. Anyone taking advantage of a service against its TOS or against the country it is bound to is not welcome.
- asdf333 6y agoalso keep in mind that i’m the united states, free speech is restricted. you can’t shout fire in a crowded theatre and you also can’t use hate speech which can incite riots or cause violence. i think people forget this too.
- reversengineer 6y agoThank goodness for big tech for telling me when enough is enough, otherwise I wouldn't be able to think for myself. What a relief!
- BoiledCabbage 6y agoThis has nothing to do with you. This is their platform and they said enough is enough post the attempted coup. You can think just as much for yourself as you could before.
- victorevector 6y agoDid Parlor tell you to think that ;) ?
- asdf333 6y agofree speech has always had restrictions in the united states. this clearly crosses the “can’t use it to incite violence” line
- not_a_moth 6y ago? He repeatedly told them to be peaceful and then to go home. What/how exactly did he incite this? Serious truth bending for political capital, which has been the DC establishment playbook the entire trump admin.
- another_sock 6y agoThat was debunked by fact-checkers.
- wslack 6y agoIf that was the case, why do the people invading the capitol feel "betrayed" by his video condemning them? No, it wasn't legally incitement. It was absolutely stoked by him.
- FartyMcFarter 6y ago> He repeatedly told them to be peaceful and then to go home. What/how exactly did he incite this? Exactly in the same speech: he repeated his claims that the election was stolen.
- not_a_moth 6y agoYou're blaming election fraud as the culprit then not trump. Half the country is mad as hell, because there's 3k+ signed affidavits, 140 congressmen, at least two majority of state congresses, reports from data scientists, cctv footage, voting machine forensic reports in MI and AZ, and a lot of dismissal by courts based on standing not merits. It's unprecedented and it's straight up totalitarian to say "no mention of election fraud is allowed"
- acdha 6y agoNobody is saying you can’t mention the idea of election fraud. What’s getting rejected are attempts to lie about it and still be taken seriously. It’s true that a large number of people are mad but that’s because people are feeding them propaganda instead of truth. I don’t know whether you are intentionally repeating claims you know to be untrue or haven’t looked at the details but you should ask yourself what it tells us when the President’s own lawyers keep dropping these cases. They wouldn’t do that if there was any merit to the case – and they’re certainly not out of money. The claims just aren’t true and they know it - once the fundraising dries up they’ll move on to something else.
- vmh1928 6y agoThe paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- asdf333 6y agowell put. it is now clear we must all defend our democracy. we can’t take it for granted.
- devmunchies 6y agoPeople care more about tolerance than they do Facebook and Google creating a human attention farms. But as long as these megacorps have a rainbow logo once a year then they're the good guy, right?
- chillwaves 6y agoWhat are you trying to say? More regulations for Facebook and Google? ??
- devmunchies 6y agoabsolutely. require age restrictions. anything. its causing mass brain damage and that's not a hyperbole. they should be treated like casinos, not handed to youth on iPads. Trump's real incompetence was not tackling big tech. If you control the minds of the people, you control the democracy.
- chillwaves 6y agoI just don't see how that is tenable due to the way our society is structured. Also I thought there were already age restrictions in place for a lot of these services? Not that it is enforced. Unless folks are willing to have some kind of real ID verification to access these services.
- vmh1928 6y agoAnother way to say this is the "well-kept gardens die by pacifism." https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-gardens-die-by-pacifism https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-...
- TooKool4This 6y agoOne interesting thing to consider is the Paradox of Tolerance[1]. In the case of our society, allowing the norms to be consistently pushed can lead to the rise of intolerance. Not to mention that the decisions to ban Trump certainly wasn’t taken overnight and he was given a very long leash. Regardless I’m sure the motives here are not philosophical but mostly profit motivated. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- asdf333 6y agono. this is appreciated. you’d be surprised how many such gems i discover here on HN
- vmh1928 6y agoAnother variant is by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the most intolerant win. https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
- disown 6y ago> And YT deletes content mentioning election fraud, and twitter permanent bans the president, all under the historically totalitarian guise of "safety" Also, really puts a dent into the anti-free speech argument that "you can go to another platform" argument. I do love watching all these "tech/social media is evil" crowd here suddenly praising tech/social media and wanting them to have even more control over our lives. Social media is so evil that we need them to control our lives even more. Wonderful logic that.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y agoThat's a mistatement of what many of us are saying. I certainly am not advocating that social media companies should have even more control over our lives. I would like them to have less, which presumably happens either because (a) we stop using social media (at least in the current sense) and/or (b) more options for "social media" platforms emerge. Since (a) is unlikely in the near term, that probably means (b). I don't how Twitter banning anyone (including POTUS) from their platform does anything but encourage that. I also don't see how "large corporations that have used psychological manipulation and network effects to become really popular must be consider public utilities, despite no law to that effect" really lines up with free speech. Do you believe that the NY Times should be required to print my op-ed's in their online version? How about my comments on their articles?
- disown 6y ago> That's a mistatement of what many of us are saying. Actually I described you to the tee. > I certainly am not advocating that social media companies should have even more control over our lives So you are against censorship or for it? > Since (a) is unlikely in the near term, that probably means (b). I don't how Twitter banning anyone (including POTUS) from their platform does anything but encourage that. Except that if tech companies collude together to prevent that. Fine, you say go make your own twitter. They do and then it gets banned from google play/apple store/etc. And down the line it goes. That's my point. > I also don't see how "large corporations that have used psychological manipulation and network effects to become really popular must be consider public utilities, despite no law to that effect" really lines up with free speech. Who or what are you quoting? You just plucked a quote out of the ether. That's very dishonest and disingenuous. You almost write like a journalist. > Do you believe that the NY Times should be required to print my op-ed's in their online version? Of course not. But then again, they are not a platform, they are publishers. But you already knew that.
- megablast 6y agoThe president just attempted a coup.
- asdf333 6y agothere are limits on free speech in the united states, if you recall secondary school. after the capitol building riot where multiple people died, it’s clear that this falls into the “you can’t shout fire in a crowded theatre” bucket.
- wslack 6y agoTwitter should let everyone talk freely, but that isn't worth being a party to an attempted insurrection. Being an absolutist about this means being okay with violence based on those lies, just as we saw in Myanmar.
- eyelidlessness 6y agoWhich of those websites is in any way obligated to amplify things that violate their policies?