3 ms·
This part stood out to me, and might be more relevant to the HN crowd: > But the broader context for the bill is the one most interesting and the one on which
by paganel 6y ago
This part stood out to me, and might be more relevant to the HN crowd:
> But the broader context for the bill is the one most interesting and the one on which I focused in my opening statement and testimony: namely, the relationship between social media and tech giants on the one hand, and the news media industry on the other. Contrary to the popular narrative propagated by news outlets — in which they are cast as the victims of the supremely powerful Silicon Valley giants — that narrative is sometimes (not always, but sometimes) the opposite of reality: much if not most Silicon Valley censorship of political speech emanates from pressure campaigns led by corporate media outlets and their journalists, demanding that more and more of their competitors and ideological adversaries be silenced. Big media, in other words, is coopting the power of Big Tech for their own purposes.
If it matters, I learned about this link/post via /r/stupidpol.
- addicted 6y agoThis excerpt makes little sense to me. It says that “sometimes” it’s news media that’s driving SV censorship. It’s quite pointless having this discussion until there is more evidence as to how large “sometimes” is. If the corporate media outlets are doing it 1%, social media companies 80% and Random YouTube influencer 15%, then spending time discussing corporate media outlets’ influence seems more than a little pointless. If it’s up at 70% or the times, then yes, it becomes urgent to discuss this.