4 ms·

As someone who works in “big tech”, I don’t think we should have this power, especially when so selectively and reactively applied. We’ve all already heard all

by rzz3 6y ago

As someone who works in “big tech”, I don’t think we should have this power, especially when so selectively and reactively applied. We’ve all already heard all of the debates and I don’t wish to rehash it all. I’ve heard a lot of great arguments on all sides of the issue (and there are more than two), but the purpose of my comment is just to say that opinions within our community are not uniform. Not many of us speak our minds about it, unless we agree with the mainstream perspective of “this is fine ”. I’d like to see more of a constitutional framework establishing some type of due process and equal access, personally. We’re currently the sole arbitrators of who is allowed to speak to the world and who is not. And for all those who say “they’re welcome to go use a different platform”, well they did, and look what happens. Apple, Google, and Amazon can simply destroy a community within minutes, and we all applaud because we detest this particular community.

shripadk 6y ago
Thank you for speaking out in this charged climate. You could have chosen to keep silent but you chose not to. So thank you.
peytn 6y ago
It’s no secret that we have this power. Furthermore, there are people who know that we have this power who are also experts in drumming up hate.
greatgirl 6y ago
So what's your solution then? Would you be in favour of democratising the workplace so the workers own and have a say in the company?
- rzz3 6y ago
  I’m not sure that would be a solution. And frankly, if we did that, I’m sure the majority of people would want to quickly ban the things they don’t like. And that’s certainly not what I want to do (the deplatforming), so I don’t see it as a solution. I imagine my views are probably in the minority, though we do have a lot of free expression (the concept, not just the amendment) proponents in our industry as well.
traveler01 6y ago
> As someone who works in “big tech”, I don’t think we should have this power, especially when so selectively and reactively applied. We’ve all already heard all of the debates and I don’t wish to rehash it all. I’ve heard a lot of great arguments on all sides of the issue (and there are more than two), but the purpose of my comment is just to say that opinions within our community are not uniform. Not many of us speak our minds about it, unless we agree with the mainstream perspective of “this is fine ”. I'm not a Trump supporter but all this ban wave seems very selective. Specially since I've seen so many things considered as "hate speech" on these platforms that were not filtered.
- fakedang 6y ago
  Exactly. If such a ban were to have been placed on Trump, it should have come through at least Congressional vote. Not by unilateral BigTech action.
  - JustResign 6y ago
    Really? So Congress can force a private company to publish the President's content against their will?
    - crmrc114 6y ago
      I think a better statement would be if you want to syndicate the POTUS or VPOTUS or SCOTUS justices then like any broadcaster (who, let's be honest, is profiting from ads on top of what they are selling as a partial public service.) They should be bound by a contract subject to some form of arbitration. At this point those platforms have become the defacto public square imho. They can't lash out on a banning spree and subject public political figures to the memoryhole without some form of legitimate debate. Again, Facebook has carried multiple live streams of shootings- YouTube has carried plenty of abusive videos and videos supporting violence and terrorism. From a political perspective they are setting themselves up for attack with this response. Like, still waiting on details but Ron Paul got kicked off of Facebook. How in the heck did that goofy little ol dude incite this? I also am beginning to notice that with every major act of terrorism in the past couple of years, may God help you if the lunitics used your platform and you were not Google/Facebook/Twitter. If you were one of those three you will just claim oopsie and move on. If you were a small platform then the entire weight of the corporate oligarchy will come down on you while never picking up a mirror. I also think Fox news and CNN should be held accountable for their radicalization of both sides- hear me out. You have one half of this country that is convinced Trump was literally Hitler, not only that he also was elected by election manipulation via Russia. You have the other half of the country, that lives in a reality where the election has been stolen from them and they're being censored on all major forms of media. They believe the election was stolen by the Chinese. At some point the media has to be held accountable. Fear porn may sell, but it has a damned high cost. Please understand I love this community, hacker news is one of the few places I can make a statement like this and expect reasonable and civil responses. And a no way should anyone take what I'm saying personally, I feel the system is broken- I don't think we can survive as a nation with a fractured worldview perpetuated by a 24/7 news cycle amplified by short-sighted memes and microblogs.
Bakary 6y ago
Does it bother you that your professional life is centered around making those companies stronger and more powerful? (asking non-sarcastically)
- rzz3 6y ago
  In a way it does bother me. To be honest, it’s often lost on me. I get caught up in the day to day aspects of work, and only when things like this pop up do I really think about the societal implications. But I do truly care about these larger societal issues that my industry and company are at the center of. I’m not a decision maker on what gets deplatformed and what doesn’t of course, but since I care, I guess I am glad to be here where I can potentially influence things in a good direction.

by rzz3 6y ago

shripadk 6y ago

Thank you for speaking out in this charged climate. You could have chosen to keep silent but you chose not to. So thank you.

peytn 6y ago

It’s no secret that we have this power. Furthermore, there are people who know that we have this power who are also experts in drumming up hate.

greatgirl 6y ago

So what's your solution then? Would you be in favour of democratising the workplace so the workers own and have a say in the company?

rzz3 6y ago
I’m not sure that would be a solution. And frankly, if we did that, I’m sure the majority of people would want to quickly ban the things they don’t like. And that’s certainly not what I want to do (the deplatforming), so I don’t see it as a solution. I imagine my views are probably in the minority, though we do have a lot of free expression (the concept, not just the amendment) proponents in our industry as well.

traveler01 6y ago

> As someone who works in “big tech”, I don’t think we should have this power, especially when so selectively and reactively applied. We’ve all already heard all of the debates and I don’t wish to rehash it all. I’ve heard a lot of great arguments on all sides of the issue (and there are more than two), but the purpose of my comment is just to say that opinions within our community are not uniform. Not many of us speak our minds about it, unless we agree with the mainstream perspective of “this is fine ”. I'm not a Trump supporter but all this ban wave seems very selective. Specially since I've seen so many things considered as "hate speech" on these platforms that were not filtered.

fakedang 6y ago
Exactly. If such a ban were to have been placed on Trump, it should have come through at least Congressional vote. Not by unilateral BigTech action.
- JustResign 6y ago
  Really? So Congress can force a private company to publish the President's content against their will?
  - crmrc114 6y ago
    I think a better statement would be if you want to syndicate the POTUS or VPOTUS or SCOTUS justices then like any broadcaster (who, let's be honest, is profiting from ads on top of what they are selling as a partial public service.) They should be bound by a contract subject to some form of arbitration. At this point those platforms have become the defacto public square imho. They can't lash out on a banning spree and subject public political figures to the memoryhole without some form of legitimate debate. Again, Facebook has carried multiple live streams of shootings- YouTube has carried plenty of abusive videos and videos supporting violence and terrorism. From a political perspective they are setting themselves up for attack with this response. Like, still waiting on details but Ron Paul got kicked off of Facebook. How in the heck did that goofy little ol dude incite this? I also am beginning to notice that with every major act of terrorism in the past couple of years, may God help you if the lunitics used your platform and you were not Google/Facebook/Twitter. If you were one of those three you will just claim oopsie and move on. If you were a small platform then the entire weight of the corporate oligarchy will come down on you while never picking up a mirror. I also think Fox news and CNN should be held accountable for their radicalization of both sides- hear me out. You have one half of this country that is convinced Trump was literally Hitler, not only that he also was elected by election manipulation via Russia. You have the other half of the country, that lives in a reality where the election has been stolen from them and they're being censored on all major forms of media. They believe the election was stolen by the Chinese. At some point the media has to be held accountable. Fear porn may sell, but it has a damned high cost. Please understand I love this community, hacker news is one of the few places I can make a statement like this and expect reasonable and civil responses. And a no way should anyone take what I'm saying personally, I feel the system is broken- I don't think we can survive as a nation with a fractured worldview perpetuated by a 24/7 news cycle amplified by short-sighted memes and microblogs.

Bakary 6y ago

Does it bother you that your professional life is centered around making those companies stronger and more powerful? (asking non-sarcastically)

rzz3 6y ago
In a way it does bother me. To be honest, it’s often lost on me. I get caught up in the day to day aspects of work, and only when things like this pop up do I really think about the societal implications. But I do truly care about these larger societal issues that my industry and company are at the center of. I’m not a decision maker on what gets deplatformed and what doesn’t of course, but since I care, I guess I am glad to be here where I can potentially influence things in a good direction.