4 ms·

IMO tech overplayed their hand. If there's one thing lawmakers don't like, it is being shown their power is limited. This time it was the right, but the left k

IMO tech overplayed their hand. If there's one thing lawmakers don't like, it is being shown their power is limited. This time it was the right, but the left knows it can happen to them next. I feel congress has realized tech has too much power now. The ball has started rolling. Expect heavy anti-trust enforcement, regulations and forced interoperability to erode their power.

giancarlostoro 6y ago
Today its the voice of those you hate, tomorrow it will be your voice. Fascism is bad period and it exists in either direction. We have talked about why big tech censoring is bad on HN for years now the rest of the world is catching up.
option 6y ago
I think this (anti-trust enforcement) is much overdue. Social networks need to be regulated in regards to free speech, children and youth usage and advertising, etc., etc.
- still_grokking 6y ago
  The source of initiative needs to be drained. Regulation of internet advertising is the most important area where regulation is long overdue. Because it's in the end of the day ad-tech's money that drives that whole evil machinery. Not only that ad-tech created a surveillance infrastructure Big Brother would envy, also ad-tech wants to engage people with their data-acquisition tools as much as possible. All of the widely used free online services build by "big tech" aren't there to serve the users in the first place. They're there to harvest data from the users. Data that can be than used to manipulate the users. This data is than sold (directly, or indirectly in the form "manipulation as a service") to the actual paying customers of those companies. And those paying customers create the initiative for that whole madness. As long as it stays legal to create, run and / or use "large scale people manipulation tools" nothing will substantially change. But here lies the problem: Politicians are actually interested in "people manipulation machines". Only that they will make sure they are the ones that control this machine. What we see here now is just the battle over control. Not a battle against the root cause.
onetimemanytime 6y ago
I am 100% certain that we would have had another rebellion, with guns this time, if a certain megaphone was not removed and certain networks not disrupted. (yeah, they can reorg but it takes time) I am not happy with this but what's the alternative? A personal censor? OK: "Dear supporters of mine. We love you! On January xxth something horrible will be done to our country, our country is being taken away from us. Let's show them that USA still has patriots ready to defend it. Let's march! Please do not brings your guns with, no violence but let's gather in Was DC on to show them the real America. Once again, no guns, bulletproof vests or extra rounds of ammo. We are not violent. Protesting is our legal right, use it. March! See you on January xxth, Washington DC!" what would you do with message in today's climate?
- kcartlidge 6y ago
  You may (or may not, I've no interest in expressing an opinion on it) be right in that things could have been worse if the megaphone were not removed. However from the original article's viewpoint, if Section 230 weren't there then the situation may not have arisen in the first place as the months/years of build-up commentary, articles, posts, etc would have been regulated as they were published. In other words (to apply the article's logic) if the 'censorship' is applied beforehand by standard journalistic practices (lawyers, editors, etc) then the need for 'censorship' (and deplatforming) afterwards is notably diminished.

giancarlostoro 6y ago

Today its the voice of those you hate, tomorrow it will be your voice. Fascism is bad period and it exists in either direction. We have talked about why big tech censoring is bad on HN for years now the rest of the world is catching up.

option 6y ago

I think this (anti-trust enforcement) is much overdue. Social networks need to be regulated in regards to free speech, children and youth usage and advertising, etc., etc.

still_grokking 6y ago
The source of initiative needs to be drained. Regulation of internet advertising is the most important area where regulation is long overdue. Because it's in the end of the day ad-tech's money that drives that whole evil machinery. Not only that ad-tech created a surveillance infrastructure Big Brother would envy, also ad-tech wants to engage people with their data-acquisition tools as much as possible. All of the widely used free online services build by "big tech" aren't there to serve the users in the first place. They're there to harvest data from the users. Data that can be than used to manipulate the users. This data is than sold (directly, or indirectly in the form "manipulation as a service") to the actual paying customers of those companies. And those paying customers create the initiative for that whole madness. As long as it stays legal to create, run and / or use "large scale people manipulation tools" nothing will substantially change. But here lies the problem: Politicians are actually interested in "people manipulation machines". Only that they will make sure they are the ones that control this machine. What we see here now is just the battle over control. Not a battle against the root cause.

onetimemanytime 6y ago

I am 100% certain that we would have had another rebellion, with guns this time, if a certain megaphone was not removed and certain networks not disrupted. (yeah, they can reorg but it takes time) I am not happy with this but what's the alternative? A personal censor? OK: "Dear supporters of mine. We love you! On January xxth something horrible will be done to our country, our country is being taken away from us. Let's show them that USA still has patriots ready to defend it. Let's march! Please do not brings your guns with, no violence but let's gather in Was DC on to show them the real America. Once again, no guns, bulletproof vests or extra rounds of ammo. We are not violent. Protesting is our legal right, use it. March! See you on January xxth, Washington DC!" what would you do with message in today's climate?

kcartlidge 6y ago
You may (or may not, I've no interest in expressing an opinion on it) be right in that things could have been worse if the megaphone were not removed. However from the original article's viewpoint, if Section 230 weren't there then the situation may not have arisen in the first place as the months/years of build-up commentary, articles, posts, etc would have been regulated as they were published. In other words (to apply the article's logic) if the 'censorship' is applied beforehand by standard journalistic practices (lawyers, editors, etc) then the need for 'censorship' (and deplatforming) afterwards is notably diminished.