14 ms·

Someone really needs to give the New Yorker some serious credit for publishing what can genuinely be described as a thoughtful, well written, and objective arti

Someone really needs to give the New Yorker some serious credit for publishing what can genuinely be described as a thoughtful, well written, and objective article on social media and big tech. Bravo. I'm honestly convinced that at some point this kind of big tech social media witch burning will eventually lead to private lawsuits aimed at non-combatants like Signal and Wickr. Please leave a comment if you disagree - down votes don't help sow discussion.

fortran77 6y ago
The best sources of news seem to be the ones I pay for: New Yorker, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post
- flyinglizard 6y ago
  Do these newspapers provide thought provoking articles, or just fuel confirmation bias for their readers? I was a subscriber of NYT for a few years, and the one time there was a dissenting opinion - that of Tom Cotton - it led to editors being fired. WSJ seems better, maybe because business reporting tends to be somewhat less opinionated.
  - tedunangst 6y ago
    Pretty sure NY Times has published more than one dissenting opinion over the years.
  - theplague42 6y ago
    Was the editor fired because of a "dissenting opinion" or because Cotton was effectively calling for martial law against protestors? The NYTimes op-ed section has plenty of dissenting opinions and/or conservatives... just not ones calling for violence.
    - flyinglizard 6y ago
      There was absolutely nothing outrageous in Cotton's op-ed. Mind, the same National Guard that Cotton was calling for was now sent to the Capitol, and I don't think NYT was up in arms. That aside, he's a public representative of the highest order (a Senator). He needs to be heard whether we like it or not. I've not seen any public representative being censored in the country I'm from, that including opinion pieces from extremist parliament members on both sides. This is clearly a US thing.
      - d1zzy 6y ago
        > That aside, he's a public representative of the highest order (a Senator). He needs to be heard whether we like it or not. And to achieve that you're going to force businesses to host content that hurts their bottom line (the loss of income from the advertisers that will pull out from working with a company that hosts such content). > This is clearly a US thing. In the country where you live all news organizations are forced to publish everything a politician says?
        flyinglizard 6y ago
        >> And to achieve that you're going to force businesses to host content that hurts their bottom line (the loss of income from the advertisers that will pull out from working with a company that hosts such content). NYT makes more money from subscriptions than from ads (60% vs 30%), and as a (formerly) paying subscriber I'd like to think it lends them some independence. That aside, many other news sources would find Sen. Cotton's opinions pretty mainstream (certainly these opinions may have even had majority across the general public) and publish such views just fine, without advertisers pulling out. >> In the country where you live all news organizations are forced to publish everything a politician says? Of course not. They publish on their own accord, and extremists get an outsized exposure because they are interesting to read (just like click baits, right?). It's how I'd have expected most news organizations to work, you know: reporting on the unusual and unexpected. For me, NYT stopped being a news organization the moment it decided some opinions are forbidden from being published: not because they are fringe (a significant part of the American public agreed with Cotton), not because they come from fringe sources (he's a Senator after all), but because they are contrarian.
    - rhino369 6y ago
      >Was the editor fired because of a "dissenting opinion" or because Cotton was effectively calling for martial law against protestors? Cotton was just 7 months too early.
    - Chris2048 6y ago
      "martial law against protestors" suggests violence against protest. What was actually suggested: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers If lawbreaker = protestors in your book, then maybe we differ in what constitutes valid protest. Also, Cotton pre-emptively disagrees with your characterisation also: This [law] doesn’t amount to “martial law” or the end of democracy, as some excitable critics, ignorant of both the law and our history, have comically suggested
      - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
        I thought that’s what local police were already doing? An overwhelming show of force against peaceful protesters in an attempt to deter lawbreakers.
  - bmarquez 6y ago
    > thought provoking articles, or just fuel confirmation bias for their readers? I'd argue that NYT has fallen into the latter, with dissenting voices stifled internally, example Bari Weiss: https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2020/breaking-down-the-controversial-resignation-of-new-york-times-opinion-writer-bari-weiss/ https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2020/breaking-down-the-c... https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2020/07/14/bari-weiss-resigns-new-york-times/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2020/07/14/bari-weiss-r...
    - fortran77 6y ago
      Agreed. And it was disgusting what they did to her.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > I was a subscriber of NYT for a few years, and the one time there was a dissenting opinion - that of Tom Cotton - it led to editors being fired. If that was the “one time there was a dissenting opinion” in the NY Times, what do you call Ross Douthat’s and Brett Stephen’s columns about that incident that the NY Times also ran?
- Animats 6y ago
  They have actual reporters. The number of US news sources with a sizable reporting staff is rather small. Weirdly, Fox News recently exited primetime news. Their 7 PM news hour is being replaced with another opinion show.[1] This was before the riot; it was a decision based on ratings. It's a concern in that it disconnects a sizable fraction of the US population from any source of information about real-world events. Fox will still have a hard news show, but at 3 PM. [1] https://keyt.com/news/money-and-business/2021/01/11/fox-news-removes-one-of-its-only-nighttime-hours-of-news-coverage/ https://keyt.com/news/money-and-business/2021/01/11/fox-news...
cm2187 6y ago
Though the article doesn’t mention the coordinated and active censoring of the NY Post story, even in private conversations, which was already a heavy stroke of interference in the elections. It’s a lot of precedents. And there is nothing that suggests the temperature will cool down in the short term. I agree that big tech companies may do a lot more collateral damage but in my opinion they also already painted themselves with a bull eye on their back. Republicans will get back to power sooner or later and I think we should expect a regulatory backlash.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  I think it’s exceedingly unlikely they will get back into power in anything like their current form. We will now see a democratic government that is fully aligned, and has deep ties with, silicon valley. The big tech industrial complex has infinitely more control over our thoughts and proclivities than any previous power center.
  - cm2187 6y ago
    True but I still think there is a limit to how much one can influence a population’s opinion. My favorite example is Poland which after 60 years of communism, is the most conservative catholic country in Europe. Elections are often won at the margin (and this one was particularly tight in the key states), and therefore a marginal influence may be enough to tip the outcome. But I think it will do nothing to a broad base movement.
    - Grustaf 6y ago
      Ah but a modern welfare state combined with the power of all the social networks, and much of the internet infrastructure, that combo can exert much more power than the soviet communists ever could.
  - majormajor 6y ago
    > We will now see a democratic government that is fully aligned, and has deep ties with, silicon valley. The big tech industrial complex has infinitely more control over our thoughts and proclivities than any previous power center. Nope. Huge swaths of the democratic party are opposed to these SV companies because they see Twitter, FB, etc, as having played a huge part in Trump gaining the influence he did and the conspiracy nutjobs evangelizing their craziness as well. I expect pushes for regulation, just a different sort than Trump would've pushed for. Here we have people dying because a President who was afraid of losing spent months preemptively setting up a fraud excuse. An excuse that was enabled and amplified by social media platforms that also helped people spread conspiracies about the supposed non-existence of a global pandemic, and thus the need for different behaviors. Even if you end up saying Trump himself shouldn't have been banned, you have a huge echo chamber problem that has now passed the point where we can dismiss it with stuff like "they just need to feel heard." Lots of people listened, and it led to lots of violence, and is the way we're currently (not) regulating social media sufficient? All of these nutjob theories have gotten MORE prevalent in the past 4 years DESPITE their candidate winning the 2016 election and DESPITE their candidate completely failing to expose any national pedophile conspiracy or any of the other nonsense they spout... The ultimate influence of the big social media platforms has been anything but left-leaning.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
I completely agree with you regarding Signal. The main knock against Parker, at least at the beginning, was that it was used to plan violence, and that is too dangerous and public safety trumps “free speech”. I can foresee a lot of the people who were on Parker before going to signal. I am sure there is close to a 100% chance that there will be messages advocating violence like death threats on there. Some enterprising investigative journalist will gain access to a private group and publish screenshots with vile threats. Of course, Signal is unable to do any moderation, and the calls will come for it to be de-platforms as well. Their hosting cut, their domain registration removed, their GitHub account locked, etc.
ghaff 6y ago
One can simultaneously roll their eyes about slippery slopes, argue that this is simply banning obvious illegal activities, etc.--and be at least a little bit discomfited that a bunch of private companies can basically disappear someone from public discourse if they want to. Mind you. Historically most people didn't have access to a platform anyway. And the record from at least some players like AWS is that their ban bar is pretty high. But it certainly suggests that big tech can decide to cut off some slices of discourse if they feel it's convenient.
- potta_coffee 6y ago
  Platforms are like nuclear weapons. Nobody had them before, now the countries that have them are more powerful than everybody else. I think the analogy admittedly falls apart if you carry it too far.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  Well, people didn’t use to have a lot of things, it’s still a big problem if you ban certain people from a platform but not others. Those that are allowed gain a huge advantage. It’s especially problematic if these de facto monopolies take sides in elections.
  - bobmaxup 6y ago
    How is it any different than if I was banned from HN or an IRC channel? These "platforms" are just large message boards.
    - xpe 6y ago
      Both AWS and payment processors are substantially different from message boards.
      - koolk3ychain 6y ago
        Cannot agree more, what Obama started in regards to politically weaponizing payment processors (both VISA and companies that interact directly with their networks) against certain industries and individuals in the wake of Sandy Hook is legitimately concerning. AWS creating DNS and routing features is equally concerning, personally I don't want to live in a world where platforms start to build, control and ultimately monopolize the infrastructure they rely on to exist.
ahurmazda 6y ago
Couldn’t one argue that we have had a (gnarly) A/B test in the past few years— Twitter, FB mostly let different groups use the platform as the latter see fit. End result is (mind you not theoretical): erosion of civil discourse, platforms being used to organize illegal activities, proliferation of misinformation (during a pandemic) etc. We are kinda beyond what we could happen if company X did not allow Y to begin with. It has already happened. I am more worried about where are we heading as a society? Why the heck is a regular joe (me) lying awake at night about armed unrest in the most powerful country in the world. Just beyond depressing.
- LudwigNagasena 6y ago
  > erosion of civil discourse What erosion of civil discourse are you talking about? 10 years ago half or more Americans were against gay marriage, today 30% of the US is against that, except nowadays they are also called neonazis and are being deplatformed from major platforms. Do you think 50 years ago there could be civil discourse on legalizing rape or celebrating Holocaust? No, these people would get the same treatment. Or, as a non-imaginary example, just remember McCarthyism. What changed is the level of discrepancy of Overton windows between rural and urban America. That’s all. > platforms being used to organize illegal activities Hah, but when they are used to organize illegal activities in countries like Egypt or Belarus it was not an issue. > proliferation of misinformation (during a pandemic) If you think that an average citizen is too stupid to think for themselves, we might as well just abolish voting rights. And surely there is a better way to combat misinformation than giving censorship powers to private technocrats.
  - ahurmazda 6y ago
    >If you think that an average citizen is too stupid to think for themselves, ... I sincerely have no such intent. Apologies if it came out that way. >> erosion of civil discourse Maybe my naivete but it seems that online discussions are much less nuanced compared to face to face discussions we had when growing up. Sure I disagreed with relatives but it certainly feels a lot more intense now a days (quite possible that its just the nature of the medium). >>level of discrepancy of Overton windows between rural and urban America Do you have any recommendation on how to lessen this gap? I live in a major metropolis. But I keep getting a feeling that such a widening chasm can not be good for the society.
darepublic 6y ago
Eventually the browser itself might be held accountable. How dare chrome display child's pornography or allowing users to send http requests filled with hate. Chrome should be able to filter that stuff out
- Viliam1234 6y ago
  When that day comes, Google will fix this problem in Chrome with artificial intelligence, and logging everything on their servers. But the free browsers will be gone.
sliken 6y ago
Dunno, they claim it's technology and demoncracy. Seems more like inciting people to break the law and kill people. Does it really matter if it was twitter, facebook, a new paper, a radio station, a tv station, or really anything that can communicate. If it was 100 years ago and the same events happened (invasion of the Capitol building and 5 people died) because of an op-ed piece in the NYTimes (printed on paper of course) would cause the same "deplatforming".
pseudalopex 6y ago
Comments about witch burning don't help sow discussion.
rdiddly 6y ago
I found it a bit rambly and got annoyed at the "wow these are tough questions no one can ever answer" sentiment. Glenn Greenwald a.k.a. "the guy who helped Snowden get the word out" and could be described as a disillusioned liberal, seems to have clearer principles and hence wrote a clearer article: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-show-of-monopolistic https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-sho... One of the takeaways that nobody's really talking about is that Parler itself didn't really deserve this. If a bunch of Nazis walk over and stand near me, am I suddenly a Nazi? It's guilt by association, and if we're going with that... if we're going to, in the secret little court in each of our minds, "hold Parler liable for its moderation decisions" despite the fact that Section 230 won't allow that in a real court, then every outlet that has given Trump a voice for the past 4-5 years is just as guilty, starting with network news shows in 2016 putting his phone calls "from the campaign trail" on the air, knowing his wisecracks would draw more viewers. The profit motive accounts for 4 years of your never being able to escape Trump. And I believe the change of administrations (i.e. kissing up to the new one), not the Capitol thing, accounts for the sudden and belated change of heart. It's not Hanlon's razor but yeah never assume "ideology" as an explanation where "greed" will suffice.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Glenn Greenwald a.k.a. “the guy who helped Snowden get the word out” and could be described as a disillusioned liberal, Greenwald might be a disillusioned Leftist (not liberal), but then, so the original neoconservatives were disillusioned Trotskyites. Disillusionment is what spawns radical conversion and radical converts are often the least-open-minded, most most fact-averse, ideological crusaders. > if we’re going to, in the secret little court in each of our minds, “hold Parler liable for its moderation decisions” despite the fact that Section 230 won’t allow that in a real court, Other than civil liability of the types which are specifically dependent on status as a “publisher or speaker”, Section 230 doesn’t prevent them from being held liable. Criminal liability, or civil liability not dependent on status as a publisher (though some courts have, controversially, extended Section 230 to liability as a “distributor”) is generally outside of the scope of Section 230 protection.
  - 6y ago

fortran77 6y ago

The best sources of news seem to be the ones I pay for: New Yorker, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post

flyinglizard 6y ago
Do these newspapers provide thought provoking articles, or just fuel confirmation bias for their readers? I was a subscriber of NYT for a few years, and the one time there was a dissenting opinion - that of Tom Cotton - it led to editors being fired. WSJ seems better, maybe because business reporting tends to be somewhat less opinionated.
- tedunangst 6y ago
  Pretty sure NY Times has published more than one dissenting opinion over the years.
- theplague42 6y ago
  Was the editor fired because of a "dissenting opinion" or because Cotton was effectively calling for martial law against protestors? The NYTimes op-ed section has plenty of dissenting opinions and/or conservatives... just not ones calling for violence.
  - flyinglizard 6y ago
    There was absolutely nothing outrageous in Cotton's op-ed. Mind, the same National Guard that Cotton was calling for was now sent to the Capitol, and I don't think NYT was up in arms. That aside, he's a public representative of the highest order (a Senator). He needs to be heard whether we like it or not. I've not seen any public representative being censored in the country I'm from, that including opinion pieces from extremist parliament members on both sides. This is clearly a US thing.
    - d1zzy 6y ago
      > That aside, he's a public representative of the highest order (a Senator). He needs to be heard whether we like it or not. And to achieve that you're going to force businesses to host content that hurts their bottom line (the loss of income from the advertisers that will pull out from working with a company that hosts such content). > This is clearly a US thing. In the country where you live all news organizations are forced to publish everything a politician says?
      - flyinglizard 6y ago
        >> And to achieve that you're going to force businesses to host content that hurts their bottom line (the loss of income from the advertisers that will pull out from working with a company that hosts such content). NYT makes more money from subscriptions than from ads (60% vs 30%), and as a (formerly) paying subscriber I'd like to think it lends them some independence. That aside, many other news sources would find Sen. Cotton's opinions pretty mainstream (certainly these opinions may have even had majority across the general public) and publish such views just fine, without advertisers pulling out. >> In the country where you live all news organizations are forced to publish everything a politician says? Of course not. They publish on their own accord, and extremists get an outsized exposure because they are interesting to read (just like click baits, right?). It's how I'd have expected most news organizations to work, you know: reporting on the unusual and unexpected. For me, NYT stopped being a news organization the moment it decided some opinions are forbidden from being published: not because they are fringe (a significant part of the American public agreed with Cotton), not because they come from fringe sources (he's a Senator after all), but because they are contrarian.
  - rhino369 6y ago
    >Was the editor fired because of a "dissenting opinion" or because Cotton was effectively calling for martial law against protestors? Cotton was just 7 months too early.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    "martial law against protestors" suggests violence against protest. What was actually suggested: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers If lawbreaker = protestors in your book, then maybe we differ in what constitutes valid protest. Also, Cotton pre-emptively disagrees with your characterisation also: This [law] doesn’t amount to “martial law” or the end of democracy, as some excitable critics, ignorant of both the law and our history, have comically suggested
    - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
      I thought that’s what local police were already doing? An overwhelming show of force against peaceful protesters in an attempt to deter lawbreakers.
- bmarquez 6y ago
  > thought provoking articles, or just fuel confirmation bias for their readers? I'd argue that NYT has fallen into the latter, with dissenting voices stifled internally, example Bari Weiss: https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2020/breaking-down-the-controversial-resignation-of-new-york-times-opinion-writer-bari-weiss/ https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2020/breaking-down-the-c... https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2020/07/14/bari-weiss-resigns-new-york-times/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2020/07/14/bari-weiss-r...
  - fortran77 6y ago
    Agreed. And it was disgusting what they did to her.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > I was a subscriber of NYT for a few years, and the one time there was a dissenting opinion - that of Tom Cotton - it led to editors being fired. If that was the “one time there was a dissenting opinion” in the NY Times, what do you call Ross Douthat’s and Brett Stephen’s columns about that incident that the NY Times also ran?
Animats 6y ago
They have actual reporters. The number of US news sources with a sizable reporting staff is rather small. Weirdly, Fox News recently exited primetime news. Their 7 PM news hour is being replaced with another opinion show.[1] This was before the riot; it was a decision based on ratings. It's a concern in that it disconnects a sizable fraction of the US population from any source of information about real-world events. Fox will still have a hard news show, but at 3 PM. [1] https://keyt.com/news/money-and-business/2021/01/11/fox-news-removes-one-of-its-only-nighttime-hours-of-news-coverage/ https://keyt.com/news/money-and-business/2021/01/11/fox-news...

cm2187 6y ago

Though the article doesn’t mention the coordinated and active censoring of the NY Post story, even in private conversations, which was already a heavy stroke of interference in the elections. It’s a lot of precedents. And there is nothing that suggests the temperature will cool down in the short term. I agree that big tech companies may do a lot more collateral damage but in my opinion they also already painted themselves with a bull eye on their back. Republicans will get back to power sooner or later and I think we should expect a regulatory backlash.

Grustaf 6y ago
I think it’s exceedingly unlikely they will get back into power in anything like their current form. We will now see a democratic government that is fully aligned, and has deep ties with, silicon valley. The big tech industrial complex has infinitely more control over our thoughts and proclivities than any previous power center.
- cm2187 6y ago
  True but I still think there is a limit to how much one can influence a population’s opinion. My favorite example is Poland which after 60 years of communism, is the most conservative catholic country in Europe. Elections are often won at the margin (and this one was particularly tight in the key states), and therefore a marginal influence may be enough to tip the outcome. But I think it will do nothing to a broad base movement.
  - Grustaf 6y ago
    Ah but a modern welfare state combined with the power of all the social networks, and much of the internet infrastructure, that combo can exert much more power than the soviet communists ever could.
- majormajor 6y ago
  > We will now see a democratic government that is fully aligned, and has deep ties with, silicon valley. The big tech industrial complex has infinitely more control over our thoughts and proclivities than any previous power center. Nope. Huge swaths of the democratic party are opposed to these SV companies because they see Twitter, FB, etc, as having played a huge part in Trump gaining the influence he did and the conspiracy nutjobs evangelizing their craziness as well. I expect pushes for regulation, just a different sort than Trump would've pushed for. Here we have people dying because a President who was afraid of losing spent months preemptively setting up a fraud excuse. An excuse that was enabled and amplified by social media platforms that also helped people spread conspiracies about the supposed non-existence of a global pandemic, and thus the need for different behaviors. Even if you end up saying Trump himself shouldn't have been banned, you have a huge echo chamber problem that has now passed the point where we can dismiss it with stuff like "they just need to feel heard." Lots of people listened, and it led to lots of violence, and is the way we're currently (not) regulating social media sufficient? All of these nutjob theories have gotten MORE prevalent in the past 4 years DESPITE their candidate winning the 2016 election and DESPITE their candidate completely failing to expose any national pedophile conspiracy or any of the other nonsense they spout... The ultimate influence of the big social media platforms has been anything but left-leaning.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago

I completely agree with you regarding Signal. The main knock against Parker, at least at the beginning, was that it was used to plan violence, and that is too dangerous and public safety trumps “free speech”. I can foresee a lot of the people who were on Parker before going to signal. I am sure there is close to a 100% chance that there will be messages advocating violence like death threats on there. Some enterprising investigative journalist will gain access to a private group and publish screenshots with vile threats. Of course, Signal is unable to do any moderation, and the calls will come for it to be de-platforms as well. Their hosting cut, their domain registration removed, their GitHub account locked, etc.

ghaff 6y ago

One can simultaneously roll their eyes about slippery slopes, argue that this is simply banning obvious illegal activities, etc.--and be at least a little bit discomfited that a bunch of private companies can basically disappear someone from public discourse if they want to. Mind you. Historically most people didn't have access to a platform anyway. And the record from at least some players like AWS is that their ban bar is pretty high. But it certainly suggests that big tech can decide to cut off some slices of discourse if they feel it's convenient.

potta_coffee 6y ago
Platforms are like nuclear weapons. Nobody had them before, now the countries that have them are more powerful than everybody else. I think the analogy admittedly falls apart if you carry it too far.
Grustaf 6y ago
Well, people didn’t use to have a lot of things, it’s still a big problem if you ban certain people from a platform but not others. Those that are allowed gain a huge advantage. It’s especially problematic if these de facto monopolies take sides in elections.
- bobmaxup 6y ago
  How is it any different than if I was banned from HN or an IRC channel? These "platforms" are just large message boards.
  - xpe 6y ago
    Both AWS and payment processors are substantially different from message boards.
    - koolk3ychain 6y ago
      Cannot agree more, what Obama started in regards to politically weaponizing payment processors (both VISA and companies that interact directly with their networks) against certain industries and individuals in the wake of Sandy Hook is legitimately concerning. AWS creating DNS and routing features is equally concerning, personally I don't want to live in a world where platforms start to build, control and ultimately monopolize the infrastructure they rely on to exist.

ahurmazda 6y ago

Couldn’t one argue that we have had a (gnarly) A/B test in the past few years— Twitter, FB mostly let different groups use the platform as the latter see fit. End result is (mind you not theoretical): erosion of civil discourse, platforms being used to organize illegal activities, proliferation of misinformation (during a pandemic) etc. We are kinda beyond what we could happen if company X did not allow Y to begin with. It has already happened. I am more worried about where are we heading as a society? Why the heck is a regular joe (me) lying awake at night about armed unrest in the most powerful country in the world. Just beyond depressing.

LudwigNagasena 6y ago
> erosion of civil discourse What erosion of civil discourse are you talking about? 10 years ago half or more Americans were against gay marriage, today 30% of the US is against that, except nowadays they are also called neonazis and are being deplatformed from major platforms. Do you think 50 years ago there could be civil discourse on legalizing rape or celebrating Holocaust? No, these people would get the same treatment. Or, as a non-imaginary example, just remember McCarthyism. What changed is the level of discrepancy of Overton windows between rural and urban America. That’s all. > platforms being used to organize illegal activities Hah, but when they are used to organize illegal activities in countries like Egypt or Belarus it was not an issue. > proliferation of misinformation (during a pandemic) If you think that an average citizen is too stupid to think for themselves, we might as well just abolish voting rights. And surely there is a better way to combat misinformation than giving censorship powers to private technocrats.
- ahurmazda 6y ago
  >If you think that an average citizen is too stupid to think for themselves, ... I sincerely have no such intent. Apologies if it came out that way. >> erosion of civil discourse Maybe my naivete but it seems that online discussions are much less nuanced compared to face to face discussions we had when growing up. Sure I disagreed with relatives but it certainly feels a lot more intense now a days (quite possible that its just the nature of the medium). >>level of discrepancy of Overton windows between rural and urban America Do you have any recommendation on how to lessen this gap? I live in a major metropolis. But I keep getting a feeling that such a widening chasm can not be good for the society.

darepublic 6y ago

Eventually the browser itself might be held accountable. How dare chrome display child's pornography or allowing users to send http requests filled with hate. Chrome should be able to filter that stuff out

Viliam1234 6y ago
When that day comes, Google will fix this problem in Chrome with artificial intelligence, and logging everything on their servers. But the free browsers will be gone.

sliken 6y ago

Dunno, they claim it's technology and demoncracy. Seems more like inciting people to break the law and kill people. Does it really matter if it was twitter, facebook, a new paper, a radio station, a tv station, or really anything that can communicate. If it was 100 years ago and the same events happened (invasion of the Capitol building and 5 people died) because of an op-ed piece in the NYTimes (printed on paper of course) would cause the same "deplatforming".

pseudalopex 6y ago

Comments about witch burning don't help sow discussion.

rdiddly 6y ago

I found it a bit rambly and got annoyed at the "wow these are tough questions no one can ever answer" sentiment. Glenn Greenwald a.k.a. "the guy who helped Snowden get the word out" and could be described as a disillusioned liberal, seems to have clearer principles and hence wrote a clearer article: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-show-of-monopolistic https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-sho... One of the takeaways that nobody's really talking about is that Parler itself didn't really deserve this. If a bunch of Nazis walk over and stand near me, am I suddenly a Nazi? It's guilt by association, and if we're going with that... if we're going to, in the secret little court in each of our minds, "hold Parler liable for its moderation decisions" despite the fact that Section 230 won't allow that in a real court, then every outlet that has given Trump a voice for the past 4-5 years is just as guilty, starting with network news shows in 2016 putting his phone calls "from the campaign trail" on the air, knowing his wisecracks would draw more viewers. The profit motive accounts for 4 years of your never being able to escape Trump. And I believe the change of administrations (i.e. kissing up to the new one), not the Capitol thing, accounts for the sudden and belated change of heart. It's not Hanlon's razor but yeah never assume "ideology" as an explanation where "greed" will suffice.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Glenn Greenwald a.k.a. “the guy who helped Snowden get the word out” and could be described as a disillusioned liberal, Greenwald might be a disillusioned Leftist (not liberal), but then, so the original neoconservatives were disillusioned Trotskyites. Disillusionment is what spawns radical conversion and radical converts are often the least-open-minded, most most fact-averse, ideological crusaders. > if we’re going to, in the secret little court in each of our minds, “hold Parler liable for its moderation decisions” despite the fact that Section 230 won’t allow that in a real court, Other than civil liability of the types which are specifically dependent on status as a “publisher or speaker”, Section 230 doesn’t prevent them from being held liable. Criminal liability, or civil liability not dependent on status as a publisher (though some courts have, controversially, extended Section 230 to liability as a “distributor”) is generally outside of the scope of Section 230 protection.
- 6y ago