5 ms·

There are legitimate business concerns: 1. What if it turns out that Facebook Groups were utilized in the effort by some in the mob to capture members of Congr

There are legitimate business concerns: 1. What if it turns out that Facebook Groups were utilized in the effort by some in the mob to capture members of Congress in the Capitol and hang the Vice President, and that some of this was explicit ahead of time? This isn't theoretical -- keep in mind that the group planning to kidnap Gov. Whitmer organized on Facebook. Did Facebook play a role in promoting people to join that group? This creates not just PR problems, but also hiring problems. Who wants to write the algorithm that recommended a hate group and play a role in radicalizing people to violence? 2. A key moment from the Congressional hearings into tech companies was when Jack Dorsey, asked if the cure for bad speech is more speech, replied: "All of our policies are focused on encouraging more speech. What we saw and what the market told us was that people would not put up with abuse, harassment, and misleading information that would cause offline harm, and they would leave our service because of it." It's hard to fault these companies for wanting growth, and kicking people out can actually encourage that growth! 3. Young people are often the most profitable audiences. And many of the key creators for those audiences are also young. It's a serious problem for YouTube if their brand becomes Rudy Giuliani instead of [whatever makeup vlogger is popular right now]. This is similar to point (2), but slightly different. Even a smaller audience can be more profitable. To the "no alternative" point, I'm sympathetic to anti-monopoly efforts. Mostly for my own left-wing reasons: https://democracyjournal.org/arguments/imagining-a-democratic-amazon/ https://democracyjournal.org/arguments/imagining-a-democrati... But also, these efforts should be broader than just the technology companies: http://concentrationcrisis.openmarketsinstitute.org http://concentrationcrisis.openmarketsinstitute.org That said, even if you took these actions, it'd be hard for any company that wasn't taking moderation seriously among people planning violent overthrows of government. (Which I think is a good thing. Companies should care if armed insurrections are openly being plotted on the merits, not just for business reasons.)

ImprobableTruth 6y ago
I don't doubt that these companies are acting in their own best interest, if I was in their position I probably would have done the same (well, actually I probably would have done it a whole lot earlier), but that doesn't mean that it's great that corporations have this power. Hell, the fact that these companies are likely actually just doing all this because it's better for their bottom line makes me actually _less_ trusting of them. Hate speech is definitely an issue, but I want the government, who are democratically elected and (should) serve the people, to take care of it. Anti-monopoly efforts are nice, but the required scale of them seems incredibly unrealistic for anything that isn't far off into the future. Especially because it seems likely that for internet companies other countries would simply step in (unless you put up some china like internet firewall...).
- elicash 6y ago
  I personally don't want government to mandate speech policies on private companies and think people should be allowed to join websites that enforce values they like and agree with. My woodworking forum should be allowed to have a "no politics" rule. A Christian dating site should be allowed to ban atheists, like me. A social media app should be allowed to ban hate speech -- I don't want government making it illegal for there to be communities without hate speech. Unless you're suggesting government should just ban hate speech? I don't favor that, either, but maybe I should ask for clarity here.
  - ImprobableTruth 6y ago
    For 'normal' companies this definitely would be absurd, but I think a good amount of these incredibly large companies should essentially be regulated as a public utility. >Unless you're suggesting government should just ban hate speech? For 'published' speech that is, essentially like libel. I know that censorship laws can be dangerous, but it realistically just strikes me as the lesser evil. You evidently can't just let that stuff openly fester, but I simply can't imagine a situation where the government would suppress 'good' speech but a company with equal power wouldn't.
n00bsaretheb3st 6y ago
I suppose you used the same logic with arab spring, hong kong, belarus... They are literally doing/did an insurrection and even killed their leader in some cases (Gaddafi).
- elicash 6y ago
  You're comparing Gaddafi, who was a dictator committing genocide against his own people -- including with chemical weapons -- to the election of Joe Biden? You've lost it...
  - n00bsaretheb3st 6y ago
    And who decides which leader is "good enough"? Zucc?

ImprobableTruth 6y ago

I don't doubt that these companies are acting in their own best interest, if I was in their position I probably would have done the same (well, actually I probably would have done it a whole lot earlier), but that doesn't mean that it's great that corporations have this power. Hell, the fact that these companies are likely actually just doing all this because it's better for their bottom line makes me actually _less_ trusting of them. Hate speech is definitely an issue, but I want the government, who are democratically elected and (should) serve the people, to take care of it. Anti-monopoly efforts are nice, but the required scale of them seems incredibly unrealistic for anything that isn't far off into the future. Especially because it seems likely that for internet companies other countries would simply step in (unless you put up some china like internet firewall...).

elicash 6y ago
I personally don't want government to mandate speech policies on private companies and think people should be allowed to join websites that enforce values they like and agree with. My woodworking forum should be allowed to have a "no politics" rule. A Christian dating site should be allowed to ban atheists, like me. A social media app should be allowed to ban hate speech -- I don't want government making it illegal for there to be communities without hate speech. Unless you're suggesting government should just ban hate speech? I don't favor that, either, but maybe I should ask for clarity here.
- ImprobableTruth 6y ago
  For 'normal' companies this definitely would be absurd, but I think a good amount of these incredibly large companies should essentially be regulated as a public utility. >Unless you're suggesting government should just ban hate speech? For 'published' speech that is, essentially like libel. I know that censorship laws can be dangerous, but it realistically just strikes me as the lesser evil. You evidently can't just let that stuff openly fester, but I simply can't imagine a situation where the government would suppress 'good' speech but a company with equal power wouldn't.

n00bsaretheb3st 6y ago

I suppose you used the same logic with arab spring, hong kong, belarus... They are literally doing/did an insurrection and even killed their leader in some cases (Gaddafi).

elicash 6y ago
You're comparing Gaddafi, who was a dictator committing genocide against his own people -- including with chemical weapons -- to the election of Joe Biden? You've lost it...
- n00bsaretheb3st 6y ago
  And who decides which leader is "good enough"? Zucc?