3 ms·

There's so many MAGA supporters on HN, it's hard to imagine this won't be flagged, but when I look at the pics of the people invading the Capitol, I honestly be

There's so many MAGA supporters on HN, it's hard to imagine this won't be flagged, but when I look at the pics of the people invading the Capitol, I honestly believe that not a single one of them deserves the technology that's been given them. Millions of man hours dedicated to solving amazing technical problems which allow greater access to information than ever before in human history, and these useless idiots use it to spread lies, disinformation and foment insurrection. We require licenses for operating machinery like cars, and I truly, honestly, and without hyperbole think it's time we do the same for information technology. Spreading misinformation and disinformation has cost the U.S. nearly 400,000 lives and counting. That's worse than the number of car deaths by an order of magnitude. Time for us to act accordingly. Kara wants to blame Big Tech, but I don't. I blame the jerks who abuse and misuse the tech for personal gain, and the idiots who are their willing followers. I loathe Facebook, but it wasn't Zuckerberg inciting people to insurrection. Big tech has been restrained, all things considered. Think about it. Can you imagine if the head of, say, Microsoft, Apple or Google was as mentally ill as Trump? Serious, serious damage could result. You want to drive a car? You go take a test that shows you understand the law, and respect others on the road. You want to use a smartphone to share news about politics? You should have to take a test that shows you understand the law and respect others as well.

the-dude 6y ago
I am glad you are such a respectful commenter.
- russellbeattie 6y ago
  Huh, I detect sarcasm. Did the words "jerks" and "idiots" really upset your sensitive nature that much? Or was it the labeling the outgoing president who tried to cause an insurrection as "mentally ill"? I'm going to have to say, that's about as respectful as one can get on this topic without ignoring reality. Unless you think the rioters were "wonderful and intelligent" and that the president's obvious sociopathic narcissism isn't a sign of severe mental illness.
  - the-dude 6y ago
    This kind of polarisation has manifested itself in NL too, where 'progressives' paint 'the other side' as uneducated, stupid, backwards or mentally ill. This really took off in the mid-80s after the left abandonded labor. These people are citizens too, and if you got to know each other, you would probably find you are not so different. Might disagree on some topics. So I find your post utterly disrespectful. But you are a citizen too, and have every right to hold your opinions. In the end the proof is in the pudding ( elections ).
AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
> We require licenses for operating machinery like cars, and I truly, honestly, and without hyperbole think it's time we do the same for information technology. That's a wildly more anti-freedom stance than anything even the big social media companies have done. At least they are just private companies exercising their right to control what goes on on their own platform, you're actually advocating for the modern equivalent of requiring all typewriters to be registered.
- russellbeattie 6y ago
  Isn't that the slippery slope argument? No one tells you where you can drive once you get your driver's license, we just don't allow incompetent people behind the wheel. No one at the DMV checks to see which party you belong to before giving you a license. Same thing for an "infotech license". Once someone has demonstrated basic critical thinking, and an understanding of the law, they can say whatever they want to.
notacoward 6y ago
I don't agree with your prescription, but your diagnosis is correct. Big Tech (which in context is practically shorthand for "Facebook and Twitter" excluding all the rest) didn't write the content. They didn't even create the groups or channels through which that content is distributed. As the moniker implies, they provided only the tech. In what other context do we blame the tech itself or its makers for how it's used? The only example I can think of is guns. Before someone tries to make more of that analogy than it deserves, guns are fairly unique in that their only purpose is to destroy things (even if it's for a good reason). Social media clearly have purposes beyond the political (hint: it's in the name), let alone beyond the toxic miasma that defines politics today. There are far more examples of not blaming the maker for the use - microphones, TVs, hypodermic needles, cars, etc. Why do we make an exception for one kind of tech? There are answers that are worth discussing and which might inform our responses, but Swisher doesn't even try to make one and nor do most who just rush to "solutions" that won't actually work. Users create the problematic content. They were creating it before "big tech" and will quite likely continue creating it even if they're disallowed from using "big tech" products and services. What is achieved, for example, by moving Donald Trump's content from Twitter to trumpmaga.com where there's no moderation or terms of service to enforce? Would his reach really be reduced that much, at this point? We'd just get to have the same debate about whether his host or DNS provider or CDN should deplatform him, with even dimmer prospects of an affirmative answer. I'm not saying tech companies are blameless, by any means, but let's blame them for things they themselves do and not for the mere presence of users who create problematic content. That lets the kinds of people who organized the January 6 insurrection attempt off the hook too much, along with many other kinds of miscreants. Going only after the platform providers seems a bit too much like looking for the keys under the lamp-post.

the-dude 6y ago

I am glad you are such a respectful commenter.

russellbeattie 6y ago
Huh, I detect sarcasm. Did the words "jerks" and "idiots" really upset your sensitive nature that much? Or was it the labeling the outgoing president who tried to cause an insurrection as "mentally ill"? I'm going to have to say, that's about as respectful as one can get on this topic without ignoring reality. Unless you think the rioters were "wonderful and intelligent" and that the president's obvious sociopathic narcissism isn't a sign of severe mental illness.
- the-dude 6y ago
  This kind of polarisation has manifested itself in NL too, where 'progressives' paint 'the other side' as uneducated, stupid, backwards or mentally ill. This really took off in the mid-80s after the left abandonded labor. These people are citizens too, and if you got to know each other, you would probably find you are not so different. Might disagree on some topics. So I find your post utterly disrespectful. But you are a citizen too, and have every right to hold your opinions. In the end the proof is in the pudding ( elections ).

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

> We require licenses for operating machinery like cars, and I truly, honestly, and without hyperbole think it's time we do the same for information technology. That's a wildly more anti-freedom stance than anything even the big social media companies have done. At least they are just private companies exercising their right to control what goes on on their own platform, you're actually advocating for the modern equivalent of requiring all typewriters to be registered.

russellbeattie 6y ago
Isn't that the slippery slope argument? No one tells you where you can drive once you get your driver's license, we just don't allow incompetent people behind the wheel. No one at the DMV checks to see which party you belong to before giving you a license. Same thing for an "infotech license". Once someone has demonstrated basic critical thinking, and an understanding of the law, they can say whatever they want to.

notacoward 6y ago

I don't agree with your prescription, but your diagnosis is correct. Big Tech (which in context is practically shorthand for "Facebook and Twitter" excluding all the rest) didn't write the content. They didn't even create the groups or channels through which that content is distributed. As the moniker implies, they provided only the tech. In what other context do we blame the tech itself or its makers for how it's used? The only example I can think of is guns. Before someone tries to make more of that analogy than it deserves, guns are fairly unique in that their only purpose is to destroy things (even if it's for a good reason). Social media clearly have purposes beyond the political (hint: it's in the name), let alone beyond the toxic miasma that defines politics today. There are far more examples of not blaming the maker for the use - microphones, TVs, hypodermic needles, cars, etc. Why do we make an exception for one kind of tech? There are answers that are worth discussing and which might inform our responses, but Swisher doesn't even try to make one and nor do most who just rush to "solutions" that won't actually work. Users create the problematic content. They were creating it before "big tech" and will quite likely continue creating it even if they're disallowed from using "big tech" products and services. What is achieved, for example, by moving Donald Trump's content from Twitter to trumpmaga.com where there's no moderation or terms of service to enforce? Would his reach really be reduced that much, at this point? We'd just get to have the same debate about whether his host or DNS provider or CDN should deplatform him, with even dimmer prospects of an affirmative answer. I'm not saying tech companies are blameless, by any means, but let's blame them for things they themselves do and not for the mere presence of users who create problematic content. That lets the kinds of people who organized the January 6 insurrection attempt off the hook too much, along with many other kinds of miscreants. Going only after the platform providers seems a bit too much like looking for the keys under the lamp-post.