7 ms·

Your point about the 'invisible line' is astute. We're in a crisis of perception and reality right now, and this has caused many to lose sight of the very real

by npunt 6y ago

Your point about the 'invisible line' is astute. We're in a crisis of perception and reality right now, and this has caused many to lose sight of the very real lines that we have agreed upon to preserve society and democracy. I think the other important factor here is we are in a very vulnerable moment right now because we are in the midst of a transition of power. It takes time to transfer the apparatus and operations of state, and during this time there is a power vacuum that can be taken advantage of by adversaries foreign and domestic. Every state throughout history has struggled in these times. The failure to secure the Capitol was in no small part due to how the President has run the state in the waning months of his term. His cabinet and administration are running a skeleton crew, he's acting erratically, and he's making false claims about election results and inciting crowds in a bid to stay in power. Whether one supports his policies or not, it should be abundantly clear right now that his actions and rhetoric put the country in further danger during this vulnerable time, and that perhaps he need not have access to platforms that make this easier and more convenient. It should be hard to dismantle the state, to whip people into a frenzy, to cause the damage that has been caused.

systemvoltage 6y ago
I am also worried. It feels like Big Tech flourished in last 4 years with advertisement revenue while staying hush about these issues, but all of a sudden they have an epiphany now. Big Tech leaders are selfish, cowards, clueless and just as vulnerable as the government leaders. They were interested in milking billions in Ads from these hate speech, particularly Twitter. If I were employees at these big companies, I would raise internal questions - why wasn't this done earlier? What changed? The US Capitol riots is the specific moment that made them all wake up? These are rhetorical questions. All big tech leaders appeared in front of Congress in last 4 years, and weasled and squeeked instead of prowl and roar. Spineless and immoral, speaking double speak to appease the board of directors and the shareholders. At some point, the world would be destroyed but we've created a lot of value for our shareholders. Reminds me of this [1]. Pardon my cynicism, open for your comments. [1] https://twitter.com/Benioff/status/549339156854214656/photo/1 https://twitter.com/Benioff/status/549339156854214656/photo/...
- plaidfuji 6y ago
  I think their hesitation was less from missing out on the trump supporter ad traffic and more from fear of retribution of the trump administration and its congressional allies. That faction has now all but lost their political power for the foreseeable future, making it much less risky to undertake the censorship measures. Remember, two things happened at once: the riots, but also the result of the Georgia runoff which indicated a complete shift in governmental control. One cleared the runway for the reaction to the other.
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    You're right, all very good points that contrast my cynicism. I am even more worried that if an authoritarian government takes hold of power, corporations would go into survival mode. Look at AliBaba/Jack-Ma situation in extreme case, not sure if that's a fair example.
    - themgt 6y ago
      Look at how the same corporations are operating in China today, as the CCP runs an authoritarian and arguably fascist (in the original sense, regardless of the commie branding) dictatorship. Are any of them denouncing Chairman Xi or taking a stand against the CCP's brutal crackdowns and internment camps bordering on ethnic cleansing? How many of them would still put Taiwan on a map? But I'm sure they have your best interests at heart.
- npunt 6y ago
  Self-preservation was certainly a part of why there was inaction, as was financial motive. I also think they were rather naïve about their roles & responsibilities and the real world consequence of their own platforms, as well as lacking in a sophisticated understanding of how to do content moderation or even politics. These topics are both very old (social organizing, radicalization, usenet), and very new (primary medium for global discussion, recommendation algorithms, etc). This is definitely a moment that will define social media specifically and tech more broadly. Before Wednesday, social media was one thing, and after, it will be another. This is also a bit of a backlog being flushed; many of these decisions were likely made months or years ago, and only accelerated by Wednesday's events. I see this a little like safety regulations - every regulation is written in blood. Perhaps soon so will every major shift in the tech landscape.
bigiain 6y ago
> no small part due to how the President has run the state in the waning months of his term. From an outside-the-US perspective, the waning 47 and a half months of his term...
canoebuilder 6y ago
Thing is you can dress it up with ideas of vulnerable moments and apparatus and operations and a uniquely challenging time and all this. But this isn't about Trump, this isn't about now, this is about precedents. If something new and extreme is being done, almost always some extenuating factor will be found to try to justify it. Trump is an unfortunate edge case and has set bad precedents that can hopefully be wisely washed away in time. We need clearer and consistent norms in the digital space that are seen to embody the fundamental civic aspects of the nation from which this digital space arose. Such as equal access to certain things, the "dumb-pipes" model for the certain baseline trappings of modern society. Whether or not that means stripe here, I'm talking about the broader moment. We don't want an escalating tit for tat of one bad thing leading to another. If the violence this summer had been dealt with more soundly, voices of leadership tamping it down instead of egging it on, it seems a good bet the recent activity at the capitol would have been more tame. Similarly, we don't want to respond to a grasping, ineffectual, quasi-autocrat in the executive branch, with more effective autocratic tendencies in the techno-social sphere.
- pm90 6y ago
  Precedents set by private companies mean absolutely nothing. Precedents set by a court of law have legal bearing, but they may also be challenged or changed (as long as they’re not judged to be unconstitutional, at least in the US). Worrying about precedent setting by private corporations is like premature optimization: there are bigger problems to focus on.

by npunt 6y ago

systemvoltage 6y ago

I am also worried. It feels like Big Tech flourished in last 4 years with advertisement revenue while staying hush about these issues, but all of a sudden they have an epiphany now. Big Tech leaders are selfish, cowards, clueless and just as vulnerable as the government leaders. They were interested in milking billions in Ads from these hate speech, particularly Twitter. If I were employees at these big companies, I would raise internal questions - why wasn't this done earlier? What changed? The US Capitol riots is the specific moment that made them all wake up? These are rhetorical questions. All big tech leaders appeared in front of Congress in last 4 years, and weasled and squeeked instead of prowl and roar. Spineless and immoral, speaking double speak to appease the board of directors and the shareholders. At some point, the world would be destroyed but we've created a lot of value for our shareholders. Reminds me of this [1]. Pardon my cynicism, open for your comments. [1] https://twitter.com/Benioff/status/549339156854214656/photo/1 https://twitter.com/Benioff/status/549339156854214656/photo/...

plaidfuji 6y ago
I think their hesitation was less from missing out on the trump supporter ad traffic and more from fear of retribution of the trump administration and its congressional allies. That faction has now all but lost their political power for the foreseeable future, making it much less risky to undertake the censorship measures. Remember, two things happened at once: the riots, but also the result of the Georgia runoff which indicated a complete shift in governmental control. One cleared the runway for the reaction to the other.
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  You're right, all very good points that contrast my cynicism. I am even more worried that if an authoritarian government takes hold of power, corporations would go into survival mode. Look at AliBaba/Jack-Ma situation in extreme case, not sure if that's a fair example.
  - themgt 6y ago
    Look at how the same corporations are operating in China today, as the CCP runs an authoritarian and arguably fascist (in the original sense, regardless of the commie branding) dictatorship. Are any of them denouncing Chairman Xi or taking a stand against the CCP's brutal crackdowns and internment camps bordering on ethnic cleansing? How many of them would still put Taiwan on a map? But I'm sure they have your best interests at heart.
npunt 6y ago
Self-preservation was certainly a part of why there was inaction, as was financial motive. I also think they were rather naïve about their roles & responsibilities and the real world consequence of their own platforms, as well as lacking in a sophisticated understanding of how to do content moderation or even politics. These topics are both very old (social organizing, radicalization, usenet), and very new (primary medium for global discussion, recommendation algorithms, etc). This is definitely a moment that will define social media specifically and tech more broadly. Before Wednesday, social media was one thing, and after, it will be another. This is also a bit of a backlog being flushed; many of these decisions were likely made months or years ago, and only accelerated by Wednesday's events. I see this a little like safety regulations - every regulation is written in blood. Perhaps soon so will every major shift in the tech landscape.

bigiain 6y ago

> no small part due to how the President has run the state in the waning months of his term. From an outside-the-US perspective, the waning 47 and a half months of his term...

canoebuilder 6y ago

Thing is you can dress it up with ideas of vulnerable moments and apparatus and operations and a uniquely challenging time and all this. But this isn't about Trump, this isn't about now, this is about precedents. If something new and extreme is being done, almost always some extenuating factor will be found to try to justify it. Trump is an unfortunate edge case and has set bad precedents that can hopefully be wisely washed away in time. We need clearer and consistent norms in the digital space that are seen to embody the fundamental civic aspects of the nation from which this digital space arose. Such as equal access to certain things, the "dumb-pipes" model for the certain baseline trappings of modern society. Whether or not that means stripe here, I'm talking about the broader moment. We don't want an escalating tit for tat of one bad thing leading to another. If the violence this summer had been dealt with more soundly, voices of leadership tamping it down instead of egging it on, it seems a good bet the recent activity at the capitol would have been more tame. Similarly, we don't want to respond to a grasping, ineffectual, quasi-autocrat in the executive branch, with more effective autocratic tendencies in the techno-social sphere.

pm90 6y ago
Precedents set by private companies mean absolutely nothing. Precedents set by a court of law have legal bearing, but they may also be challenged or changed (as long as they’re not judged to be unconstitutional, at least in the US). Worrying about precedent setting by private corporations is like premature optimization: there are bigger problems to focus on.