6 ms·

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

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.
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  In their defense, I agree with you that this is a first time when global internet connectivity + social media + hatespeech cocktail has become poisonous to our societal health. We need to deeply think about all this - allowing peaceful, objective, conservative opinions and policy (such as the Lincoln Project) while condemning hate speech, violence, white supremacy and other racist behavior. "He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee. " - Nietzsche.
  - npunt 6y ago
    100%. I’m worried we have a sort of Patriot Act overreach response to this event, rather than a recognition and diagnosis of broad institutional failure that led to this and a set of reforms of those institutions, be they private or public.
  - cwperkins 6y ago
    We really do because our discourse is being dominated by crazy voices. What do you think about this? Minority, Women-Owned Businesses Get First Bid on New PPP Loans - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-07/minority-women-owned-businesses-get-first-bid-on-new-ppp-loans https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-07/minority-... What about voices like James Lindsay and Christopher Rufo? We are doubling down on this new era where we are experimenting with the thesis that Discrimination can and will create (long-lasting) Equity. With policies in place for decades like Affirmative Action in the US and BEE in South Africa I'm not convinced in the thesis. Corporations in the US have now went further with more Corporate Affirmative Action programs like Microsofts commitment to hire more Black employees which is being looked into by the Department of Labor as Discrimination (https://abcnews.go.com/Business/department-labor-investigating-microsofts-pledge-hire-black-workers/story?id=73472488 https://abcnews.go.com/Business/department-labor-investigati...). Microsoft is 4.5% Black employees so they are underrepresented as it is. How do we have discussions on Race? Can Discrimination create Equity? “The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist.” ― Ibram X. Kendi, How to Be an Antiracist
hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
I respectfully disagree. For better or for worse, Trump was the President of the United States. Yes, Biden won the election, but nearly 47% of the vote went to Trump. How do you think the conservative (and even not-so conservative) part of the electorate would have reacted if Trump was kicked off Twitter before the election? While Trump is technically still POTUS, he is now seen as trying to undermine the rightful, peaceful transition of power to the next president, and what's important is that viewpoint is not only believed by the left, but now huge swaths of politicians and the electorate who at least gave Trump tacit support.
riffnote 6y ago
Stripe profited by the sensationalism and hate Trump generated over the last four years and now, at the end of his presidency, they finally pull the plug? I see nothing laudable here.
- NicoJuicy 6y ago
  Trump doesn't generate that much revenue for Stripe to really care that way. I don't think anyone does.
BoorishBears 6y ago
> What changed? The US Capitol riots is the specific moment that made them all wake up? Why shouldn't it be? For 4 years they said "we won't suspend a sitting president because we recognize our role in society but once Trump's not sitting he's fair game for bans" I mean POTUS threatened nuclear war on their _social media platform_ and they let it go... - It's quite simple, allowing sitting POTUS special privileges was a means to avoid limiting the reach of the American leadership to its people. Well now Trump's a lame duck, and he was abusing the sitting president loophole to turn social media into a lightning rod for groups like the one that stormed the Capitol... The math must have been very simple for them: give him 12? more days of increasing unhinged antics when he's already supposed to have started transitioning power... or don't. tl;dr: It's no conspiracy that he was deplatformed right before the end of his term, the combination of the Capitol attack being triggered by him and the fact he was already on his way out was all it took. You ascribe the timing part to greed, but it's even more easily easily ascribed to not wanting to censor the POTUS if possible while they're in power... Donald Trump didn't suddenly become less profitable to Twitter after the Capitol attack, if anything he would have been more profitable. Note his "usual" account isn't even the POTUS handle, so it wouldn't have been affected by Biden's take over.
- tasogare 6y ago
  Note that Erdogan, an actual dictator, with military offensives on record (Syria, Karabash, Libya) and war-like operations (radar illumination against French warship, violations of Greece territorial waters) is not restricted at all on Twitter while the only US president in recent times that didn’t send troops abroad or start a new war is censored. It clearly shows that it’s not dangerousity of speech or personality that is censored.
  - abiogenesis 6y ago
    The difference is Erdogan's Twitter account is simply used for press releases. He does not personally post messages that violate their community standards. Regardless of what he does or says elsewhere, it's harder for Twitter to justify closing his account.
skybrian 6y ago
It doesn’t seem so hard to understand. The election and riot provided a big, obvious Schelling point, so everyone who isn’t a Trumpist knows that the time to act is now, because everyone else is moving now.
newacct583 6y ago
> why wasn't this done earlier? What changed? The US Capitol riots is the specific moment that made them all wake up? Um... yes? Isn't that the most obvious hypothesis? Occam's razor is a good rule for a reason. Abstract concerns about propriety and truthfulness are one thing. An actual assault on the seat of government is very much another.
eecc 6y ago
Yeah, they’re cowards - a bit - but let’s be honest they’re in the business of making money, not political activism (besides boilerplate corporate facade.) Had they acted earlier they would have been punished heavily by the Trump clique, and most likely ousted by their own shareholders, to be replaced by executives that would have done precisely what they have done
- oceanplexian 6y ago
  They got into the business of political activism when they plastered Black Lives Matter on their websites, app stores, and products this summer. Twitter and Facebook did the same when they censored a NY Post story about a politician this fall. Big Tech is very much about political activism.
  - eecc 6y ago
    That’a what I meant with “besides boilerplate corporate facade”. Listen, civil rights and social justice are something to be discussed and struggled in the public sphere, which is not corporate life. You US folks have this Corporatism so deeply ingrained that you are going to drag public discourse into an authoritarian organization where everything is ultimately determined by the Board and not by you. The Board will play along, as long as their interests align and it means free advertisement and good will. But you’re still asking “daddy, can I?” You want to be political? Unions and party activism out of office hours.

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.

systemvoltage 6y ago
In their defense, I agree with you that this is a first time when global internet connectivity + social media + hatespeech cocktail has become poisonous to our societal health. We need to deeply think about all this - allowing peaceful, objective, conservative opinions and policy (such as the Lincoln Project) while condemning hate speech, violence, white supremacy and other racist behavior. "He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee. " - Nietzsche.
- npunt 6y ago
  100%. I’m worried we have a sort of Patriot Act overreach response to this event, rather than a recognition and diagnosis of broad institutional failure that led to this and a set of reforms of those institutions, be they private or public.
- cwperkins 6y ago
  We really do because our discourse is being dominated by crazy voices. What do you think about this? Minority, Women-Owned Businesses Get First Bid on New PPP Loans - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-07/minority-women-owned-businesses-get-first-bid-on-new-ppp-loans https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-07/minority-... What about voices like James Lindsay and Christopher Rufo? We are doubling down on this new era where we are experimenting with the thesis that Discrimination can and will create (long-lasting) Equity. With policies in place for decades like Affirmative Action in the US and BEE in South Africa I'm not convinced in the thesis. Corporations in the US have now went further with more Corporate Affirmative Action programs like Microsofts commitment to hire more Black employees which is being looked into by the Department of Labor as Discrimination (https://abcnews.go.com/Business/department-labor-investigating-microsofts-pledge-hire-black-workers/story?id=73472488 https://abcnews.go.com/Business/department-labor-investigati...). Microsoft is 4.5% Black employees so they are underrepresented as it is. How do we have discussions on Race? Can Discrimination create Equity? “The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist.” ― Ibram X. Kendi, How to Be an Antiracist

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

I respectfully disagree. For better or for worse, Trump was the President of the United States. Yes, Biden won the election, but nearly 47% of the vote went to Trump. How do you think the conservative (and even not-so conservative) part of the electorate would have reacted if Trump was kicked off Twitter before the election? While Trump is technically still POTUS, he is now seen as trying to undermine the rightful, peaceful transition of power to the next president, and what's important is that viewpoint is not only believed by the left, but now huge swaths of politicians and the electorate who at least gave Trump tacit support.

riffnote 6y ago

Stripe profited by the sensationalism and hate Trump generated over the last four years and now, at the end of his presidency, they finally pull the plug? I see nothing laudable here.

NicoJuicy 6y ago
Trump doesn't generate that much revenue for Stripe to really care that way. I don't think anyone does.

BoorishBears 6y ago

> What changed? The US Capitol riots is the specific moment that made them all wake up? Why shouldn't it be? For 4 years they said "we won't suspend a sitting president because we recognize our role in society but once Trump's not sitting he's fair game for bans" I mean POTUS threatened nuclear war on their _social media platform_ and they let it go... - It's quite simple, allowing sitting POTUS special privileges was a means to avoid limiting the reach of the American leadership to its people. Well now Trump's a lame duck, and he was abusing the sitting president loophole to turn social media into a lightning rod for groups like the one that stormed the Capitol... The math must have been very simple for them: give him 12? more days of increasing unhinged antics when he's already supposed to have started transitioning power... or don't. tl;dr: It's no conspiracy that he was deplatformed right before the end of his term, the combination of the Capitol attack being triggered by him and the fact he was already on his way out was all it took. You ascribe the timing part to greed, but it's even more easily easily ascribed to not wanting to censor the POTUS if possible while they're in power... Donald Trump didn't suddenly become less profitable to Twitter after the Capitol attack, if anything he would have been more profitable. Note his "usual" account isn't even the POTUS handle, so it wouldn't have been affected by Biden's take over.

tasogare 6y ago
Note that Erdogan, an actual dictator, with military offensives on record (Syria, Karabash, Libya) and war-like operations (radar illumination against French warship, violations of Greece territorial waters) is not restricted at all on Twitter while the only US president in recent times that didn’t send troops abroad or start a new war is censored. It clearly shows that it’s not dangerousity of speech or personality that is censored.
- abiogenesis 6y ago
  The difference is Erdogan's Twitter account is simply used for press releases. He does not personally post messages that violate their community standards. Regardless of what he does or says elsewhere, it's harder for Twitter to justify closing his account.

skybrian 6y ago

It doesn’t seem so hard to understand. The election and riot provided a big, obvious Schelling point, so everyone who isn’t a Trumpist knows that the time to act is now, because everyone else is moving now.

newacct583 6y ago

> why wasn't this done earlier? What changed? The US Capitol riots is the specific moment that made them all wake up? Um... yes? Isn't that the most obvious hypothesis? Occam's razor is a good rule for a reason. Abstract concerns about propriety and truthfulness are one thing. An actual assault on the seat of government is very much another.

eecc 6y ago

Yeah, they’re cowards - a bit - but let’s be honest they’re in the business of making money, not political activism (besides boilerplate corporate facade.) Had they acted earlier they would have been punished heavily by the Trump clique, and most likely ousted by their own shareholders, to be replaced by executives that would have done precisely what they have done

oceanplexian 6y ago
They got into the business of political activism when they plastered Black Lives Matter on their websites, app stores, and products this summer. Twitter and Facebook did the same when they censored a NY Post story about a politician this fall. Big Tech is very much about political activism.
- eecc 6y ago
  That’a what I meant with “besides boilerplate corporate facade”. Listen, civil rights and social justice are something to be discussed and struggled in the public sphere, which is not corporate life. You US folks have this Corporatism so deeply ingrained that you are going to drag public discourse into an authoritarian organization where everything is ultimately determined by the Board and not by you. The Board will play along, as long as their interests align and it means free advertisement and good will. But you’re still asking “daddy, can I?” You want to be political? Unions and party activism out of office hours.