7 ms·
The deplatforming of a president: An unprecedented week for the tech industry
- m94710 6y agoCompared to all the other places we could discuss the recent affairs online, HN is a unique place because we are the ones who’ve built the big tech industry. So we’re in the unique position of having to grapple with whether we’re failing the American people, or if we’re actually enabling good moral and ethical decisions Personally I fall more on the former side. Whatever your stance, the tech industry is going through a deep existential moment right now
- grzm 6y ago> "we are the ones who’ve built the big tech industry" Some of the participants on HN are some of the those who've build the big tech industry. It's always important to keep in mind that HN is more than just "big tech" and that "big tech" is more than just HN. Just as it's important when we're categorizing or characterizing any sufficiently large community.
- ReaLNero 6y agoThis strikes me as insightless pedantry. Of course the union of the two sets isn't the intersection of the two sets! Nobody was debating this. I am fairly certain what the parent comments meant was that the people on HN are a significant portion of the talent (note: talent != headcount) of big tech. HN is a fantastic resource for learning about new tech. And being curious around technology is usually a sign that you're much above average.
- grzm 6y agoWhen you have so many people talking past each other because they're bucketing groups of people and assigning to them beliefs and behaviors while dismissing concerns with the casual "do all x believe y?" with on-going violent results, I don't think it's pedantry at all. In less heated times when people are engaged in good-faith debate, we can be more lax with our language. From the discussions of the past few days, that's clearly not the case right now. We're unlikely to get past this without first being more nuanced ourselves.
- afavour 6y agoI’d throw a note of caution in the opposite direction though: as a group, HN are very atypical users of social media. Every time there’s a post about Facebook one of the most upvoted comments is someone saying they deleted Facebook. Societally speaking that’s super weird. I still have Facebook but even then, over the holidays I saw the feeds of some older relatives and it was unlike anything I’ve seen before. An absolute mess of corrosive disinformation. Even knowing about it, I still don’t know it well. I don’t live in it. I can’t speak about it authoritatively. And it’s not even like, say, a subreddit. You can’t wander in and take a look, it’s all private to the user. I don’t know whether the current censorship moves are wise or not, but as a group we’re not exposed to the reason the censorship is taking place. The HN crowd tends to lean towards free speech absolutism (as does the internet at large), which feels like a good reflex in general. But there’s mitigating context here and I don’t know that we (as a group) are the best people to talk to it.
- NikolaeVarius 6y agoI argue that the "i deleted facebook" is a perfectly typical user of social media. Its trendy to tell that you quit Facebook. Instead "follow me on instagram". HN is social media, and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.
- afavour 6y ago“typical” in the sense that there are lots of examples of it, yes. But “typical” in the sense that it’s something the majority of people do... absolutely not. My social circle is full of people that deleted FB. But when I step outside that circle not being on FB is very rare.
- alsetmusic 6y ago> I argue that the "i deleted facebook" is a perfectly typical user of social media. Its trendy to tell that you quit Facebook. Instead "follow me on instagram". I don't think a typical HN participant is deleting their FB account and then telling people to follow them on Instagram. HN readers know that Instagram is owned by FB.
- 6y ago
- abernard1 6y ago> or if we’re actually enabling good moral and ethical decisions What an unbelievably patronizing worldview. Personally, I think classical industry should act in kind, and refuse to sell gasoline, clothes, electricity, food, etc. to anyone who gave voice to BLM. Let's see who wins this tiresome war of refusing to do business with anyone whom we disagree.
- pmarreck 6y agoThe best evidence I could find says 7% of the protests weren't peaceful, and those almost entirely after sundown. You might argue that 7% has already lost an org credibility, but that's still 93% of protests that were peaceful. Also, if you were black, how many George Floyd-esque videos do you think it would take you to see before you got physically angry? (Note that I'm partially blaming the media optimizing for outrage, here)
- abernard1 6y agoAnd 7% of those protests killed over 25 people and caused > $1B in damage. 6th street in Austin is completely gone. People who live in major metros may not understand this, but rural America is laughing at them. These cities are national embarrassments. But that's not the point. The point is the sheer arrogance required to believe that they're qualified to control what people are allowed to read. These same people can't even keep their cities from being burned down, 50+% increases in murder rates, fecal matter on the streets, people leaving in droves... I'm supposed to listen to them? Really?
- wool_gather 6y agoDisregarding the hyperbole, rural areas have their own set of problems that seem outrageous in turn to city dwellers. It's easy to scorn the speck in your neighbor's eye; removing one's own is more constructive.
- abernard1 6y agoThey most definitely do have their own set of problems. But if 90% of Twitter was run by Republicans who lived exclusively in rural areas, would you like it if they deplatformed Biden? Would that be construed as offensive? Because that exact scenario is happening in reverse. People at tech companies in San Francisco who vote 90+% Democrat have just kicked off the Republican president of the United States. They've been talking about it for years, and this event is just pretext.
- jcampbell1 6y agoWatch Chappel’s “killing them softly” from 2002. It is a good reminder that BLM is a product of social media and smartphone cameras. Remember there have been tons of George Floyds before George Floyd. The difference is social media and cameras. Social media is rough and polarizing, but on balance I expect history will see it as a positive with growing pains. Also, the funniest line ever told starts with “Open and shut case, Johnson. I saw this once before when I was a rookie.”
- joeblow21 6y agoScary
- throwarayes 6y agoI think there are speech issues involved here, but before you go too far down the road of comparing it to your idyllic childhood, remember the media context of the 80s and 90s. Specifically that National News controlled by professional journalistic outlets which set the tone and heavily moderated what the public saw. In other words we replaced a pretty gatekept national media environment with one that was a civil liberties free for all on social media. Now the pendulum is perhaps feeling like it’s going back the other way where Major social media now will be more moderated around what’s considered a core set of values and facts, a little closer in feel to the boring 6:30 news of our childhood. I don’t say that to draw judgment either way, but only to give context.
- papaf 6y agoSpecifically that National News controlled by professional journalistic outlets which set the tone and heavily moderated what the public saw. I have been watching a lot of TV news lately. As far as I know, professional journalists haven't deplatformed Trump. You make a great point but I can't help feeling that its cowardly big Tech cosying up to the new president after years of being cosy with the outgoing one.
- toomuchtodo 6y agoMany times journalists live on TV have cut away from the President when he’s devolved into lying during press conferences. Is that not deplatforming?
- CogitoCogito 6y agoIs it though? News organizations have always chosen which portions of presidents' speeches/conferences to broadcast. They've always made editorial decisions as to which parts they consider important. This is just seems like another dimension to that sort of consideration.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- throwaway4good 6y agoI wonder how these firms coordinate actions like this?
- slumdev 6y agoIt's more likely a domino effect. In other words, they've all wanted to do it for a long time, and now there's a social momentum that allows them to do it without having been the first firm to do it. It's just optics.
- Dma54rhs 6y agoThe only momentum is changing administration or fear of attack for their profits, there's not much more to it.
- GuB-42 6y agoI don't think there is deliberate coordination. It is more like the dancefloor effect (is it the official term?). When the dancefloor is empty, no one dares to take the first step, even if they want to, the someone finally steps in, then another, then another, etc... Dancing becomes more and more acceptable as the dancefloor fills up. Past a certain point, the opposite happens, it becomes unacceptable not to dance, so people step in even if they don't really want to.
- vulcan01 6y agoIt's called the first follower effect, I think. Derek Sivers wrote about it: https://sive.rs/ff https://sive.rs/ff
- ordu 6y agoAs I understand you mean a hidden kind of coordination, not the obvious one, like "look at the news, they banned Trump, good idea, don't you think? shouldn't we do the same?". Why the hypothesis of such a coordination seems to be requisite? The obvious one explains facts nicely, I believe. I feel not the trace of a cognitive dissonance remained, so why to invent more complex explanations?
- kitkat_new 6y agolove it
- fuckyoufaggot48 6y agoFuck you faggot
- jmull 6y agoWhat baffles me about this is how people can call for private companies to be obligated to broadcast the direct messages of government leaders, and do it in the name of free speech. Really? You want media to be state-run in the US? You would actually need to repeal the first amendment to make that happen.
- exstudent2 6y ago> Really? You want media to be state-run in the US? No, I just don't want tech companies "protecting" me from information. I'll read the direct words from people and process them for myself. Twitter/FB/Apple/Google are not entities I would ever want choosing what I see and don't see. [EDIT] Ironic that HN has chosen to censor my account. I guess what I said is too "dangerous" for you, the lowly user to read.
- ccortes 6y ago>Twitter/FB/Apple/Google are not entities I would ever want choosing what I see and don't see. Isn't that exactly what they do to keep engagement up?
- exstudent2 6y agoCorrect. Not providing access to a chronological, raw timeline is also censorship and anti-user.
- dominotw 6y ago> for private companies what is the relevance of these companies being private?
- smitty1110 6y agoCaveat Lector: I am not a lawyer. It’s less about the company being privately held and more about being a private sector company. There’s also a distinction in American common law between speech in the Public Square from speech in other locations, like private property.
- hn_asker 6y agocorporate totalitarianism... but for good? 2020 is weird. The Government needs enough autonomy and power to regulate corporations. Of course, corps send in their lobbyists to control government. They'll live in a constant tug of war. What's scary is what happens when they're both evil.
- nathias 6y agoHorrible precedent, before the dominance of big tech was implicit and now it has become explicit, in the next years we will see much more of this along with new propaganda to sell censorship.
- grej 6y agoI have heard it said that the test of a good governmental system is whether you would be ok with letting those you politically oppose run it. I feel somewhat similar here. Are we really comfortable with the tremendous power and editorial discretion that the large tech companies have, if we step back and look at it in a vacuum rather than through the emotionally charged lens that comes with Trump? I don’t know what the right solution is, or if there even is one in the near future. I do feel, however, that vesting the extreme control of information into a handful of companies seems very unhealthy for democracy to me.
- treeman79 6y agoThey are no longer being subtle. They are now open in supporting one party rule.
- dasil003 6y agoThese companies want nothing more than to be hands off and they tried to play the free speech card for a long time. The problem is that the large online forums with no social consequences eventually get taken over by extremists every time. I agree this power should not be centralized in a few companies, but neither do I think we can afford to do nothing. The big problem in the modern age is that the reasonable majority is staying silent while the extremists on both sides of the political spectrum are given free rein to spout demagoguery, which is amplified by engagement-driven algorithms. Politics and the mechanics of control aside, one thing is certain: we can not get out of this situation if someone does not start standing up for the truth. Tump's disregard for the truth was deeply unsettling, and if his tactics are seen as successful and taken up by the left, then we are in for civil war.
- mynameishere 6y agoThey won't come after Biden. That guy wrote the Patriot Act. Well, the original, not the compromised second draft. And he's now proposing an expanded version. All true. Thanks for your "votes". Anyway, good luck!
- tonetheman 6y agoTo me this is not crazy nor bad. He is actively calling for a coup. He is actively calling for his followers to harm people. It is a clear line. In that case he should be stopped at all costs by all platforms. If he had clearly said go march and do not try to "murder the press" or go march and not smash peoples heads in with blunt objects you would have a leg to stand on. There is not an issue here. He is a danger.
- haunter 6y agoidm Twitter blocking Trump but I mind the selectiveness. They really should go after everyone otherwise it's total meaningless in my eyes. The official government account of the Chinese Embassy in US is still tweeting about how good and liberating are the Xianjing camps and only the west are not understanding them. Ali Khamenei also tweeting about Holocaust denial. How come he is even allowed to use Twitter considering the sanctions? And more others. It's just really weird.
- jankyxenon 6y agoThat’s the part that I struggle with. These are private platforms and have every right to moderate. But - they’re also very socially important, so rules should be applied clearly and equally.
- dominotw 6y ago> Ali Khamenei also tweeting about Holocaust denial. How come he is even allowed to use Twitter considering the sanctions? Because Iran isn't threatening them with anti trust laws. It makes sense to me, not that weird tbh.
- nfoz 6y agoIf The Public is interested in the existence of Public media, like a digital town-square soapbox, then we could use Public resources to make that exist. Like a public-broadcasting version of social media. But if someone like a President will use private services like Twitter then they're choosing to subject themself to the rules and whims of that private service. It was a weird thing to do in the first place. There are official communication channels for the President to use.
- CivBase 6y agoWhat would you recommend as an alternative? A presidential email chain?
- bthrn 6y agoPresidents can have press conferences whenever they want. Historically speaking, that's how it's been done.
- treeman79 6y agoThe media has running commentary on his press conferences. It doesn’t matter what he says. They are going to twist it however they want to make it as bad as possible.
- watwut 6y agoPresident is not dependent on twitter, just like his predecessors were not. The president can make official and unofficial announcements.
- cylinder714 6y agoI always wondered why Trump didn't simply create a blog at "whitehouse.gov/~djt" or the like. Now that he's been banned from Twitter, I expect he'll set up something at Trump.com. IndieWeb, indeed.
- sto_hristo 6y agoIt's terrifying and humiliating that corporations can do such things to a President nonetheless. And not just some banana President, but one that presides over an absolute superpower. USA looks more like decentralized China by doing this. No issues with Trump have been fixed, dirt has been swept under the rug. Silencing someone doesn't undo their words and, ironically, it tends to amplify their message. Impeach him, sue him, shutdown the government, rally against him persistently and systematically. That is the right way. But it takes effort, much, much, much more effort than hitting the ban button and calling it day (and achieving nothing in the process). These corps play by the FOTM. Thinking that they aligned with your just cause is crazy. Have you forgotten they cuddle with China as well?
- watwut 6y agoI would point out that president still can speak outside of twitter and facebook. It means the exact same way as all previous presidents did. > Impeach him, sue him, shutdown the government Twitter really really should not do any of those. Twitter can apply to him exact same rules non-presidential accounts are subject of. Non presidential accounts are closed either temporary or forever all the time.
- treeman79 6y agoHe has national emergency broadcast. At this point I could see him using it just to really piss off the censors.
- realmod 6y agoTrump is indeed the President - not a king nor a dictator. His powers are limited and in this case he cannot force a private enterprise to host his private, i.e. non official, statements/comments. Trump has a multitude of other venues to use if he wants to disseminate his statements private or official.
- gmm1990 6y agoI don't know if private corporations should have to allow the president unfettered access to their platforms. I would be opposed if every newspaper was required to post whatever the president wanted. The necessity of communication to the the people should be filled with an official government website that isp's have to allow access too or something. And the president should only be able to use that when acting as the president not campaigning etc. Two issues that make this look worse are the idea that the president needs Twitter or even Facebook to communicate to people. And that the president acts solely as the president on the platform. Neither of these are really true.
- contemporary343 6y agoIt is worth pointing out that Twitter had concrete near-term reasoning around incitement of further attacks on the capitol that they included in their reasoning - incitement is generally not protected speech (even though of course Twitter is a private platform and not restricted by the First Amendment). It is a legitimate concern that Trump would tacitly or explicitly encourage further mob attacks on the Capitol: "Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021. As such, our determination is that the two Tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so." https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio... I also understand, even if it's not consistent, that Twitter would maintain a policy-violating account if it is that of a major world leader on public interest grounds alone. Once he is no longer the head of government, such reasons no longer apply. Practically speaking, this reason for maintaining the account the last two weeks of his presidency was, I suspect, outweighed by the immediacy of the worry on further insurrection attempts. I fall into the small camp of people (it seems?) that thinks Twitter was right not to have suspended his account earlier, and is right to now.
- CivBase 6y agoThe two tweets are as follows: > “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” > “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” I do not support Trumps actions throughout all of this. But how are those incitements for violence, even in context?
- ng12 6y agoBecause Twitter has stolen the narrative. They decided what Trump meant by those tweets for you.
- jorblumesea 6y agoIt's weird how people treat social media as somehow very different than other types of media. If someone in your town distributed pamphlets telling people to burn down the courthouse, they'd probably faces charged or be censured. Most people would agree with this, or at least, the idea that there are consequences for some kinds of speech actions. Freedom of speech has limits whether it's First amendment or just the general idea of freedom. Why is social media any different?
- JarlUlvi 6y agoselective media outrage BLM/Antifa marches, and violence were celebrated, boosted, and amplified, though they were overall much more violent than Trump marches. Law Enforcement in blue areas held back using deadly force even when deadly force was being actively used against them. Trump/The Right is being held to a completely different standard, and they are now being censored. This will merely lead to the bifurcation of tech platforms. Rumble, MeWe, Parler - this will grow.
- CivBase 6y agoI agree. If someone calls to burn down a courthouse, they should absolutely face charges. But that's not what's happening here. In this case, someone is saying "the courthouse is bad" after someone else tried to burn it down. The person who tried to burn down the courthouse is already facing legal repercussions. But what do you do about the person still complaining about the courthouse? Are they wrong to do so?
- sremani 6y agoI am damn sure that National security apparatus in India is running around - and planning their own splinter-net. Why do you need American intermediaries whose Terms of Service that @PMOIndia have to communicate mostly with Indians. Within American set up, we can talk about SV and its biases, but people in New Delhi, Tel Aviv etc. who consider them regional powers are burning midnight oil, to avoid fate of Trump. Its either Government that regulates the Big Tech or Big Tech regulate the Government, in America - the die is cast, but others, do not want foreign national curate their culture and national dialogue. The firewalls will be up in no time.
- 3np 6y agoRight or wrong, power dynamics and censorship aside: Remember that these platforms: * have a lot of insight that we don't, even into private (generally unencrypted) messages * are most likely in some kind of talks around how to handle certain things as an industry * have bidirectional information channels with 3-letter agencies I'm thinking they have caught wind of something that they want to prevent from happening or escalating. For example, other events (terrorist attacks? coup?) are being planned, and recruiting and coordination is taking place on their platforms.
- zug_zug 6y agoI'm not sure how many more times we need to "debate" this on HN. These articles just get posted over and over, and then people hop straight into the comments to vent their feelings which aren't really unique to the article in any way. I'm not clear what the point is, the types of comments I see in these threads aren't remotely persuasive, and I imagine the people who do have more nuanced takes have little interest in participating in these little melees. It just seems like a little whirlpool for angry people to shout their frustrations into the void again.
- MrBuddyCasino 6y agoThis is unprecedented. For the first time in US history, there is active censorship towards the sitting president. Some people say the first amendment doesn't apply to "private enterprise" - but it does apply to the press, which Big Tech replaced with their platforms. Twitter & Facebook act as a) De facto spaces of prominent public debate b) De facto news content (press) De jure, they pretend they're in private tech business (to escape legal responsibility of a +b) Section 230 gives them special immunity to censor any content they like, which makes them the arbiters of truth. This is incompatible with the US constitution, at last in spirit. This is a reversion to feudalism. Roads in Europe used to be private property of Lords, you had to pay to use them. The National Republics (Nationalism) along with the Constitution (Constitutionalism) had the objective to define & uphold de jure the public space (from feudalism). Right now, you're paying (indirectly) to use the roads of discourse and information dissemination, controlled by Twitter, Facebook and Google. This cannot continue in a democracy worth its name, and it is the opposite of what the US stands for. [0] some quotes from https://twitter.com/_benoux_/status/1347155317516365826?s=21 https://twitter.com/_benoux_/status/1347155317516365826?s=21
- jankyxenon 6y agoYou said the first amendment applies to the press. What does that mean? Is a news outlet obligated to run the words of a President? I’m against the ban, but I don’t understand your reasoning.
- ausbah 6y agobig tech platforms don't produce any content, they just host / publish what others create
- MrBuddyCasino 6y agoThis is sophistry. They can and do decide what is trending or suppressed, what passes and what gets deleted. They don't have to write anything to steer the public debate - there are millions of posts being written, selection suffices.
- 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- almost_usual 6y agoThe real question is why are govt officials using public companies to communicate to the public? The shareholders who drive profits can ultimately do whatever they want to the accounts. It gives too much power to unelected officials and sets a side channel of unofficial but official communication which is confusing for citizens.
- CivBase 6y agoBecause it is the most effective means of communicating a stream of short messages with a huge audience.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- justinzollars 6y agoI'm very pessimistic about speech and Democracy in the United States and I believe the tech industry is contributing to a real witches brew in our society. The consequences will play out in unpredictable and dangerous ways. The focus is all on Trump today, but even politically distant voices are being silenced by this corporate-government alliance. For example in the most recent Ron Paul Liberty Report - they note that the Youtube censors have warned the Liberty Report and it is aggressively collecting email addresses anticipating a ban. I favor free, unregulated speech and I recognize that I am a dinosaur.
- Aerroon 6y ago>The consequences will play out in unpredictable and dangerous ways. What I'm wondering is what the impact of this will be in other countries. I could see a lot of other governments looking at the actions of US tech companies and going: "Hold on, they can do that? What if they do it over here?"
- courtf 6y agoAn unprecedented week for the tech industry! Is that what we're calling it lol? A week in which more Americans died from covid than any week prior. The day after the insurrection over 4k people died from covid, a disease that half the country thinks is a hoax. The lame duck president (who has done his very best to spread covid) whipped an armed mob into attacking the nation's capitol building during the vote to confirm his opponent. Trump accomplished that final betrayal the old fashioned way, with a stage and a podium. But yes, the industry sure is seeing some unprecedented stuff. Banning the president from Twitter is the biggest thing HN has ever seen because a large chunk of its users are trapped in the tiniest bubble in the country.
- pmarreck 6y agoI kinda think he was better off constrained. Now, we've unleashed him and his followers (80 million to be exact) onto all manner of third party social networks, almost all of which prominently feature racism. Way to expand the racism market, <insert your choice of epithet about nearsighted liberals here>
- gnusty_gnurc 6y agoThe funny side-effect is that if Twitter/Facebook/Instagram become exclusive liberal zones, they’re essentially ensuring that they have a brain-rotting, dopamine-intoxicating advertising trap all to themselves. Who’s being punished here?
- nickpp 6y agoLet’s remember WHY we must fight censorship: not for others but for our (future) selves. Once censorship becomes acceptable and free speech no longer a principle, the power moves from the speaker(s) to the censors. Today they may be good guys on our side and stop various evil leaders and hateful villains from gathering followers but someday they may be a different kind of "good" guys - guys very intent on stopping us from "undermining the security of the state" or "spreading immoral ideas" or "smearing upstanding citizens". There is no way to guarantee "good" censors (we can’t even agree what those accepted ideas are or that they will not change) so we MUST fight for freedom of speech.
- lostmsu 6y agoSurely you can then just change platform (until this hits your ISP).