11 ms·

Congress demands tech CEOs censor the internet even more aggressively

103 points by kodisha 6y ago

db48x 6y ago
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks our congress–critters are mostly jack–booted thugs.
_Understated_ 6y ago
I'd be more than happy to see the likes of Facebook and Twitter go down the drain: I think they have had a negative effect on society. However, this display of authoritarianism by the gov is chilling and should not be allowed: this is the start of fascism, plan and simple.
- loopz 6y ago
  It's an overreaction to a failed coup. The problem is the power itself, who can wield it or foresee the consequences? As another poster says here. It's the design of these social platforms that pose risks and harm, both to individuals and society. After all, people become depressed and upset using social media. So something's amiss.
  - kukx 6y ago
    I do not think there was a coup. Yes people trespassed and vandalized, but that is about it. There was no plan or effort to take power, as far as I know. Of course any vandalism is bad and we have seen too much of it recently. The praise of censorship on the Dems side is not new. And it will only get worse, especially as the govt abuses economy by giving away massive amounts of money and getting into even bigger debt.
    - loopz 6y ago
      The organisation was abysmal, people were led astray and lied to. But the threat and originating intent to forcibly change the election outcome was real.
      - concordDance 6y ago
        They did think they were affirming the correct outcome rather than changing it. Whatever else you can say, most of those people genuinely believed Trump won the election.
        loopz 6y ago
        Yes, after months of grooming, even before the election was conducted. If people knew there were problems beforehand, why did the people in charge fail to do preventative measures? Merits of that leadership: Failing to improve the election process, even attempting sabotaging Postal Services, and then crying crocodile tears after grooming millions to a false attack.
    - tim333 6y ago
      Trump seemed fairly determined to change the election outcome, presumably by getting some votes overturned. The fact that the plan was kind of disorganised and hopeless doesn't mean it didn't exist. >"The vice-president has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors,” Mr Trump wrote on Twitter. > “I hope that our great vice-president . . . comes through for us,” Mr Trump told the rally. (https://www.ft.com/content/6ff4a677-eb2e-438e-ac48-bb5da5a0e588 https://www.ft.com/content/6ff4a677-eb2e-438e-ac48-bb5da5a0e...) Sounded like he wanted to use the rally to pressure Pence to "reject fraudulently chosen electors" and hence change the election outcome. Not sure if you call that a coup attempt or not but some people don't really buy the fraudulently chosen electors bit.
    - shlant 6y ago
      I think you could make the argument it wasn't a coup, but you'd have a hard time making any meaningful points. To say that "people trespassed and vandalized, but that is about it" however, is a gross mischaracterization. Here are some things that constitute WAY more than what you described: - Planting of explosive devises - Proud Boys in organized and coordinated groups with zip ties and walkie talkies (charged with conspiracy for allegedly staging planned missions in the Capitol) - The general goal of preventing a democratic process from taking place in order to overturn an election - 5 people dead including a police officer - SEVERAL Secret‑level laptops were stolen I don't think you are providing a good-faith interpretation of the events.
      - ThomPete 6y ago
        thats not a coup, thats obstruction of procedure and didny have a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding. Calling it a coup is bad-faith interpretation of the event.
        8b16380d 6y ago
        Careful, you’re committing wrongthink
        BrianOnHN 6y ago
        > wrongthink What is this, the new "fake news" battle cry of the degenerates? I realize software devs make for an interesting, and even intellectual sort of degenerate, but still degenerate.
        danaris 6y ago
        When the "procedure" involved is the certification of votes for the new President, then yeah, that's an attempted coup. And something doesn't have to have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding at its illegal and seditious aims to remain illegal and seditious.
        ThomPete 6y ago
  - yonaguska 6y ago
    This has been going on all last year, much longer than the sixth. Congress is just shaking down social media for lobbying bucks again. And the social media companies actually want the regulatory capture. It's all a show. Eventually big social will write some legislation for congress to pass, congress-critters get paid and get to say they did something while big social media gets further entrenched. Meanwhile, Biden's DHS announces that they will be working closely with technology and social media companies to preemptively snatch up potential "domestic terrorists". I think the consequences are clear. I think many people are in denial however.
  - glandberg 6y ago
    How was that a coup? It was a disorganized powerless group of people who happened to make it into the capitol because of lax security. At best this is something like the Reichstagsbrand. Rationally a completely inconsequential event, but politically exploited for another round of increasing totalitarianism.
    - danjac 6y ago
      It's more in common with Guy Fawkes' attempt to blow up parliament, or the failed Beer Hall putsch in 1923. Both were attempted but poorly organized coups to overthrow the government of the day. Yes it failed, yes it was poorly organized, but that doesn't matter. If I try to hold up a bank using a water pistol instead of a gun while dressed as a clown I'm still attempting a bank robbery.
      - roenxi 6y ago
        The obituary would read "danjac, village idiot" rather than "danjac, bank robber". At some point, possibly the moment you draw the water pistol, you aren't making a serious go of it. If the standard is that low then the US has coups semi-regularly. As in, maybe annually. It should realistically be more often than that, except most violent protesters protest government actions by targeting random businesses rather than the government (eg, Occupy Wall-street as opposed to Occupy the Offices of the People Handing Out The Bailouts).
        loopz 6y ago
        Not when it concerns top leaders in charge and failure to act responsibly and constitutionally.
    - MrMan 6y ago
      Organized dry run by paramilitaries, also accurately describes it.
    - ben_w 6y ago
      """Approximately two thousand Nazis marched on the [building] in the city centre, but were confronted by a police cordon, which resulted in the deaths of 16 Nazi Party members and four police officers.""" That’s a description of the Beer Hall Putsch, just for comparison to the events in Washington. There is plenty of evidence that the people who invaded congress wanted to overthrow the election results and keep Trump as President, that many refused to believe that Trump had even lost, and some appeared to be “heavily armed” (though given America’s gun fetish, I don’t know what that means): https://apnews.com/article/us-capitol-trump-supporters-1806ea8dc15a2c04f2a68acd6b55cace https://apnews.com/article/us-capitol-trump-supporters-1806e...
alexmingoia 6y ago
Summoning these CEOs to Congress multiple times to be asked the same questions and to berate them, is criminal harassment. Their testimony is sought not as part of an investigation, not as expert advice, but as an opportunity to publicly berate them.
- skohan 6y ago
  Congressional hearings are and have always been theater before anything else
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ThrustVectoring 6y ago
  Pressuring CEOs and executives by compelling testimony is not confined to Congress. Civil court - including small-claims court - has the power to compel the testimony of relevant parties, regardless of how many billions of dollars they happen to have.
frongpik 6y ago
I see the first two amendments have become too much of a burden for the modern government?
- sokoloff 6y ago
  It’s convenient that they’re dismantling our rights in sequential order. When they get around to the fourth and fifth, people will wish they’d acted while they were dismantling the first and second.
  - MrMan 6y ago
    That's right we need to act!
  - smolder 6y ago
    They aren't doing them in order, the fourth amendment stopped being meaningful when dragnet spying on the entire citizenry became the norm.
fredgrott 6y ago
by whose definition? Let me explain the purpose of section 230 and it's right in the US Congress bill pre-amble(intro). section 230 set's up liability protection for communication companies that accept user content IF THEY VOLUNTEER to moderate non private speech. IE the public speech that occurs in what be called semi-private commons. Tis is not censorship claimed by title baiting it's protection of the public commons from delving into a huge mess not-safe for anyone to speak into
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  the question, as always, is whose speech gets moderated? What ideas are so terrible that you are not allowed to mention them on the internet? And who gets to decide that? Up until now, we've been drawing the line at child pornography. Now it seems we're moving the line somewhere else. Who gets to decide where that line is drawn?
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    In the US, it’s whoever owns the platform. Congress can’t do it, per the constitution.
    - marcus_holmes 6y ago
      and yet that's exactly what is happening here, isn't it?
  - mewse 6y ago
    Intuitively (though I don’t know enough to talk about this from a legal standpoint), it seems fairly obvious to me that social media platforms are a kind of “shared speech” system. You write something as a user, and the social media platform repeats it later to other visitors to the platform. In effect, both you and the platform are “speaking” whatever you write. The platform can’t compel you to say something, and you can’t compel them to say something either. Conceptually it’s a bit like slogans on vehicle license plates in the US, where it’s legal for you to mask out the slogan on a license plate (though illegal to mask the functional parts of the plate, such as the registration number), and it’s also legal for the state to refuse to put your requested message on a license plate. It’s shared speech, and neither side can be compelled to engage in speech that they object to. I don’t see a problem, personally, from this perspective. You don’t get to compel someone else to say what you want them to say; whoever you’re asking to repeat your words always gets an opportunity to refuse. And of course, there can then be consequences for that refusal or non-refusal.
skohan 6y ago
Social media doesn't have a content problem, it has a design problem. Nobody would care about QAnon if it was just some random chat room somewhere with 100 members, but the problem is that Facebook basically endorses this type of content and puts it in front of your aging relatives' eyeballs. Censoring specific content doesn't solve the design problem - social media will still be an engine for driving social divisions, aggressive behavior, and a general escalation of the level of alarm in society. All it will accomplish will be to give certain groups an ability to bias the direction the toxic impact on society tilts. I think there are ways you could try to resolve the design problem, for instance: 1. Anti-trust regulation/interoperability requirements to make it harder for a few players to own so much of the online discourse. 2. Regulation on algorithmically generated content feeds, and the use of ML to drive engagement.
- Closi 6y ago
  Agreed with a third addition: limits to how much content can be shared. The constant encouragement to share / retweet / recycle any content does not help. If people only posted their own unique content, and only people they were directly friends with could see it, half the battle would be solved. Instead if my aunt ‘likes’ a post that one of her own friends ‘shared’ then suddenly it’s in my feed. Screw that, I don’t need to see it. This stuff isn’t viral because it’s good content, it’s mostly viral because facebook is designed to encourage ‘virality’ to increase the amount of new content you see to make you revisit the app. Censorship is not the answer, but legislation is required to cut down on the incentive these companies have to design their apps to spread crap and make things viral.
  - skohan 6y ago
    Yes exactly - and I think it's compounded by the somewhat greedy approach that these organizations take in terms of trying to manage content delivery with the least amount of human hands possible in deciding what you should see. This kind of blind algorithmic delivery is what led to this really strange, anti-social content appearing on "children's" youtube a few years ago. These platforms are literally designed to command your attention as much as possible. We have a history of regulating things which are unreasonably effective at hijacking the human reward system - like gambling, and narcotics. Sometimes I feel like we're an equivalent period to when you could buy cocaine or heroin over the counter at the chemist because society hasn't yet recognized the cost of failing to put some controls on it yet.
snicksnak 6y ago
That the government is trying to expand censorship and remove things it doesn't like is something I expect, of course, even if the extent of it surprises and deeply appals me. For me personally, however, it's the members of the cathedral, who are fomenting this wave of censorship and making it their mission to slander and de-platform things they don't like, who I deeply detest and think are the real villains here.
DocTomoe 6y ago
Maybe the first people tech CEOs should censor is Members of Congress.
mch82 6y ago
I’m disappointed by the lack of quotations in this article. The headline, tone, and conclusions of the author call for a higher level of direct citation. Here’s the C-SPAN archive of the hearing with searchable text transcripts. https://www.c-span.org/video/?510053-1/facebook-google-twitter-ceos-testify-combating-online-misinformation-disinformation https://www.c-span.org/video/?510053-1/facebook-google-twitt...
matthewmacleod 6y ago
Genuinely baffled what value anybody sees in this article. Regulation of social media is a serious issue that deserves serious attention. There's a huge amount of nuance, with lots of deep questions about what publishing and freedom of speech look like in a world where everybody has access to an algorithmically-controlled global platform. In contrast to that, Greenwald just presents an absolute mash of ridiculous clickbait, dogwhistle phrases, and vague insinuations. It contributes precisely nothing to answering any of those questions.
- kristopolous 6y ago
  It's a shame how much Assange and Greenwald have fallen.
  - cutler 6y ago
    Care to elaborate?
    - DJBunnies 6y ago
      Don't feed the trolls.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - kristopolous 6y ago
        I'm not trolling, see my response to the op. I thought the stuff I put in there was common knowledge. Sorry if it wasn't
    - kristopolous 6y ago
      Assange was pedaling weird assertions in the far right Seth Rich conspiracies making completely baseless claims that have since proven absolutely false, it was him just fabricating stuff. It harmed both the Rich family and fueled the online conspiracy machines. He's followed it up with satanist cabal and earpiece nonsense. He's done rhetorical acrobatics to stand his ground instead of owning his own bs. Go to the "conspiracies" section on their wikipedia page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks That happened right before the 2016 election. Greenwald has gone from groundbreaking reporting to political theater and shock jock punditry, palling around with bullshit merchants like Tucker Carlson. He quit the intercept which refused to publish him making clearly incorrect claims about major candidates shortly before the 2020 election https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-the-intercept/ https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-... . Essentially a repeat of 2016 was primed but the rest of the intercept told him to screw off. They've both gone from the gold standard to completely unreliable political ops. It's almost like the con artists in the red pilling bullshit machines targeted both of them, it's pretty bad.
mjgs 6y ago
It all sounds very bad, I like that Dorsey took the call from his kitchen, and that he pushed back against the interrogation, the description of Zuckerberg’s testimony is kind of classic and amusing, but weirdly I don’t think it makes him look bad, maybe robot Zuck is his way of pushing back, strange to see the generational gap so evident and in public, I’m interested to read some other angles on these hearings.
sokoloff 6y ago
How does this square with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” I believe that political speech is the category of speech which demands the greatest amount of protection and freedom from government meddling, even (perhaps especially) political speech that I disagree with, find inconvenient, or even abhor. Government overreach by actors that I’m politically aligned with is to be rejected just as much as by actors I’m not aligned with. Don’t think of all the great things a government controlled by “your side” can do with all this power. Think of all the terrible things the “other side” can do with this power when they’re in control.
- NeverFade 6y ago
  > How does this square with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The whole play here is that congress will not make a law to limit free speech. The tech giants will limit free speech on their own, out of fear that congress will make other laws, such as laws to hurt them and break them down. They're basically being extorted by congress into doing dirty work (limiting free speech) that congress is forbidden from doing by the constitution.
  - Aerroon 6y ago
    It turns out that the ability regulate interstate commerce in practice allows you to regulate everything else.
- mch82 6y ago
  I’m watching the hearing on C-SPAN. Congress is asking better questions. Congress allows the content can be posted. They’re asking why algorithms recommend the content to users. For example, at 1:14:11 Frank Pallone asks if Facebook is aware that 64% of people in extremist groups joined after Facebook recommended the groups, not because those people actively looked for the groups. Facebook recommending a group (to make money by increasing time on site) is a separate issue from Facebook allowing a group (free speech).
smeej 6y ago
Why is autism one of the few conditions it's OK to condemn people for? Are people under the impression that Zuckerberg _deliberately_ keeps his affect flat? That he's proud he has difficulty responding to social cues? That he likes having to think before responding to make sure he isn't unintentionally crossing a line? Calling someone non-human because of neuroatypicality is just as cruel as making fun of anyone with any other condition, and it needs to stop.
- blfr 6y ago
  I completely agree with your premise. It is unprincipled that you can make fun of some races, disabilities, and traits but not others. But I completely disagree with your conclusion. The debate was much healthier with fewer limitations. The limits didn't make it more nuanced and interesting, quite the opposite. Instead of making a point, people just squabble over who offended whom. Unbelievably boring. Since this is from Glenn Greenwald, here's an interview with him where the interviewer straight up calls him a "pinko faggot" and the thing is easily the best interview I saw this year. https://niccolo.substack.com/p/the-kinshasa-interviews-glenn-greenwald https://niccolo.substack.com/p/the-kinshasa-interviews-glenn...
- tome 6y ago
  There's a difference between condemning him as a person and making an assessment that his character might lead to certain drawbacks if he is in charge of one of the world's most powerful media companies.
  - TheCraiggers 6y ago
    I agree. However, this article crosses the line IMHO. With some lines as: > Zuckerberg in particular has minimal capacity to communicate the way human beings naturally do. > For every question directed to him, he paused for several seconds, had his internal algorithms search for the relevant place in the metaphorical cassette inserted in a hidden box in his back, uttered the word “Congressman” or “Congresswoman,” stopped for several more seconds to search for the next applicable spot in the spine-cassette, and then proceeded unblinkingly to recite the words slowly transmitted into his neurons. And so on. That's not critiquing his character. That's ad hominem at best and bullying behavior that you'd find in grade school at worst.
djoldman 6y ago
One thing Greenwald misses in this article is related to: >Zuckerberg in particular has minimal capacity to communicate the way human beings naturally do. The Facebook CEO was obviously instructed by a team of public speaking consultants that it is customary to address members of the Committee as “Congressman” or “Congresswoman.” ... For every question directed to him, he paused for several seconds, had his internal algorithms search for the relevant place in the metaphorical cassette inserted in a hidden box in his back, uttered the word “Congressman” or “Congresswoman,” stopped for several more seconds to search for the next applicable spot in the spine-cassette, and then proceeded unblinkingly to recite the words slowly transmitted into his neurons. Anyone even superficially prepared by a lawyer for a deposition (and testifying before Congress may be the most serious deposition possible) is instructed to lengthen all responses to just before the line of "obstructing the questioning." In this game of modern "congressional investigation," where congresspeople are incentivized to advertise their agenda as opposed to acquire new information (investigate), it is in the best interest of the testifier, as in most depositions, to say as little as possible. Who knows what Zuckerberg is really like personality-wise. It is likely that how he is in front of Congress is not how he is in a relaxed setting. This fact doesn't generate the clicks that calling him a robot does though...
- roenxi 6y ago
  Mmm, yes. There is a fun game to play of "what else could have happened?". I've watched enough politically charged interviews. The only people who come out ahead by being genuine either face a sympathetic questioner, or are experienced barristers. There are more pitfalls than people realise. Honesty gets a bad outcome for the speaker. Lies get bad outcomes for the speakers. Reasonableness gets a bad outcome. Hysterics gets a really bad outcome. The best outcome is boring, forgettable, and managing to not actually say anything that isn't pre-prepared and vetted by a legal professional. It doesn't look good then it goes away after a few days.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Yeah, it is pretty obvious that he is trading legal consequences in exchange for reputation loss. The way he speaks didn't surprise me at all. The court case against that GME investor was also filled with robots. The Robinhood CEO was the most robotic of them all, because he had a lot to hide.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
djoldman 6y ago
Reading Greenwald (at least lately) means to almost constantly run into phrases like: "Words cannot convey..." "one of the most stunning displays" "truly despotic hearings" It is tiresome.
- domnomnom 6y ago
  I actually don't mind this. Isn't it much more annoying when someone is pushing an agenda and pretends to be objective? At least I can relax and not get trojan-horsed by opinions.
  - djoldman 6y ago
    I think a question that journalism is trying to answer is: is pursuit of objective reporting possible and/or worth it? The dean of the Columbia Journalism School basically said it needs to be re-examined [0]. I think one can push an agenda without the over-the-top inflammatory phrases. This is probably just a pet peeve of mine. [0]https://journalism.columbia.edu/message-j-school-community https://journalism.columbia.edu/message-j-school-community
concordDance 6y ago
While the main point about government censorship being cause for concern is important, this is a remarkably poor article on the subject. With offputting digressions such as critique of Zuckerberg's manner of speaking and it not really attempting to address the arguments of the pro-censorship crowd. He doesn't have to refute them in the article itself, but should at least acknowledge their existance and point at a decent attempt at a refutation (likely a book or blog series).
decasteve 6y ago
These companies are not "the Internet". Why don't members of congress lead by example and delete their accounts/memberships with these social media companies? And stop spending their campaign money on social media. Boycott them, as individuals. Then stop these companies from stalking everyone around the Internet by passing legislation to call it as such. Pass real privacy legislation. Go after their advertising business model with anti-trust. Prevent tech monopolies from continuing to acquire and conglomerate. Censorship becomes an unwinnable game of whack-a-mole without addressing the root causes.
knorker 6y ago
> Recall that Parler, at the time it was the most-downloaded app in the country, was removed in January from the Apple and Google Play Stores and then denied internet service by Amazon, only after two very prominent Democratic House members publicly demanded this. Uh, correlation does not imply causation. You think maybe that an attempted insurrection caused both the demands and the action completely independently? They are both effects. One did not cause the other. But it's interesting that politicians are demanding censorship be done by private companies, because they know the constitution prevents it being done by the government. The legislative threats they imply or state cannot be censorship directly, and they know it.
- intended 6y ago
  Honestly the level of discussion on HN when it comes to these issues (speech and tech) drops fast. However it is a question that is pretty open to objective analysis, provided you don’t start at ideological positions. Right now around the world, in autocracies and democracies, nations are working to manage tech and speech. 1) Media (social/new/cable) and Democracies have been having a falling out. 2) Tech simply accelerates that process, and creates its own new patterns. Define the problem further, break it down and then solve.
intended 6y ago
No... people want govt to censor tech and social media. Every country in the world is doing this.
Cypher 6y ago
funny how the site talks about freedom of expression and then puts a paywall up for it's comments. Bravo
xfitm3 6y ago
Censorship must not be tolerated: free speech is a cornerstone of the US.
- lamp987 6y ago
  hate speech is not free speech & freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. some level of censorship is necessary to stop nazis and such from spreading their dangerous ideas, which result in mass shootings. censorship doesnt automatically mean totalitarian state. every country in the world has some limitations on speech, its working perfectly well in europe.
  - chrismcb 6y ago
    Why is censorship needed to stop nazis? You can't have a free society if you have this kind of censorship.
threatofrain 6y ago
Whether right or not, Glenn Greenwood has gone all-in on conspiracy. Now it is either win or die, but there is no middle way anymore. Here is Glenn on the CIA, NSA, DOJ, and the FBI infiltrating the news industry: https://youtu.be/l8pkCZBjgrk?t=252 https://youtu.be/l8pkCZBjgrk?t=252 Here’s Tucker Carlson on the Biden story that Greenwald has gone all in on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXgO7L0rcAQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXgO7L0rcAQ Unfortunately when people go all in on exciting conspiracies of scale, I’m inclined to believe they are making a self immolating bet. It’s notable that to mitigate liability, Tucker Carlson’s lawyers have characterized him as a mere entertainer, and that no reasonable person would believe his entertainment show.
Black101 6y ago
Fuck Biden.... I guess no presidents have respect for the constitution nowadays but the current one should get more heat.
sershe 6y ago
I am really fond of Dorsey's attitude (the words too, as quoted at least). Myself having very little respect for most congresscritters from either party, it is really refreshing to see this displayed so brazenly. "You are stupid and this meeting is useless, I'm going to go on my phone."

103 points by kodisha 6y ago

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks our congress–critters are mostly jack–booted thugs.

I'd be more than happy to see the likes of Facebook and Twitter go down the drain: I think they have had a negative effect on society. However, this display of authoritarianism by the gov is chilling and should not be allowed: this is the start of fascism, plan and simple.

loopz 6y ago
It's an overreaction to a failed coup. The problem is the power itself, who can wield it or foresee the consequences? As another poster says here. It's the design of these social platforms that pose risks and harm, both to individuals and society. After all, people become depressed and upset using social media. So something's amiss.
- kukx 6y ago
  I do not think there was a coup. Yes people trespassed and vandalized, but that is about it. There was no plan or effort to take power, as far as I know. Of course any vandalism is bad and we have seen too much of it recently. The praise of censorship on the Dems side is not new. And it will only get worse, especially as the govt abuses economy by giving away massive amounts of money and getting into even bigger debt.
  - loopz 6y ago
    The organisation was abysmal, people were led astray and lied to. But the threat and originating intent to forcibly change the election outcome was real.
    - concordDance 6y ago
      They did think they were affirming the correct outcome rather than changing it. Whatever else you can say, most of those people genuinely believed Trump won the election.
      - loopz 6y ago
        Yes, after months of grooming, even before the election was conducted. If people knew there were problems beforehand, why did the people in charge fail to do preventative measures? Merits of that leadership: Failing to improve the election process, even attempting sabotaging Postal Services, and then crying crocodile tears after grooming millions to a false attack.
  - tim333 6y ago
    Trump seemed fairly determined to change the election outcome, presumably by getting some votes overturned. The fact that the plan was kind of disorganised and hopeless doesn't mean it didn't exist. >"The vice-president has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors,” Mr Trump wrote on Twitter. > “I hope that our great vice-president . . . comes through for us,” Mr Trump told the rally. (https://www.ft.com/content/6ff4a677-eb2e-438e-ac48-bb5da5a0e588 https://www.ft.com/content/6ff4a677-eb2e-438e-ac48-bb5da5a0e...) Sounded like he wanted to use the rally to pressure Pence to "reject fraudulently chosen electors" and hence change the election outcome. Not sure if you call that a coup attempt or not but some people don't really buy the fraudulently chosen electors bit.
  - shlant 6y ago
    I think you could make the argument it wasn't a coup, but you'd have a hard time making any meaningful points. To say that "people trespassed and vandalized, but that is about it" however, is a gross mischaracterization. Here are some things that constitute WAY more than what you described: - Planting of explosive devises - Proud Boys in organized and coordinated groups with zip ties and walkie talkies (charged with conspiracy for allegedly staging planned missions in the Capitol) - The general goal of preventing a democratic process from taking place in order to overturn an election - 5 people dead including a police officer - SEVERAL Secret‑level laptops were stolen I don't think you are providing a good-faith interpretation of the events.
    - ThomPete 6y ago
      thats not a coup, thats obstruction of procedure and didny have a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding. Calling it a coup is bad-faith interpretation of the event.
      - 8b16380d 6y ago
        Careful, you’re committing wrongthink
        BrianOnHN 6y ago
        > wrongthink What is this, the new "fake news" battle cry of the degenerates? I realize software devs make for an interesting, and even intellectual sort of degenerate, but still degenerate.
      - danaris 6y ago
        When the "procedure" involved is the certification of votes for the new President, then yeah, that's an attempted coup. And something doesn't have to have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding at its illegal and seditious aims to remain illegal and seditious.
        ThomPete 6y ago
- yonaguska 6y ago
  This has been going on all last year, much longer than the sixth. Congress is just shaking down social media for lobbying bucks again. And the social media companies actually want the regulatory capture. It's all a show. Eventually big social will write some legislation for congress to pass, congress-critters get paid and get to say they did something while big social media gets further entrenched. Meanwhile, Biden's DHS announces that they will be working closely with technology and social media companies to preemptively snatch up potential "domestic terrorists". I think the consequences are clear. I think many people are in denial however.
- glandberg 6y ago
  How was that a coup? It was a disorganized powerless group of people who happened to make it into the capitol because of lax security. At best this is something like the Reichstagsbrand. Rationally a completely inconsequential event, but politically exploited for another round of increasing totalitarianism.
  - danjac 6y ago
    It's more in common with Guy Fawkes' attempt to blow up parliament, or the failed Beer Hall putsch in 1923. Both were attempted but poorly organized coups to overthrow the government of the day. Yes it failed, yes it was poorly organized, but that doesn't matter. If I try to hold up a bank using a water pistol instead of a gun while dressed as a clown I'm still attempting a bank robbery.
    - roenxi 6y ago
      The obituary would read "danjac, village idiot" rather than "danjac, bank robber". At some point, possibly the moment you draw the water pistol, you aren't making a serious go of it. If the standard is that low then the US has coups semi-regularly. As in, maybe annually. It should realistically be more often than that, except most violent protesters protest government actions by targeting random businesses rather than the government (eg, Occupy Wall-street as opposed to Occupy the Offices of the People Handing Out The Bailouts).
      - loopz 6y ago
        Not when it concerns top leaders in charge and failure to act responsibly and constitutionally.
  - MrMan 6y ago
    Organized dry run by paramilitaries, also accurately describes it.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    """Approximately two thousand Nazis marched on the [building] in the city centre, but were confronted by a police cordon, which resulted in the deaths of 16 Nazi Party members and four police officers.""" That’s a description of the Beer Hall Putsch, just for comparison to the events in Washington. There is plenty of evidence that the people who invaded congress wanted to overthrow the election results and keep Trump as President, that many refused to believe that Trump had even lost, and some appeared to be “heavily armed” (though given America’s gun fetish, I don’t know what that means): https://apnews.com/article/us-capitol-trump-supporters-1806ea8dc15a2c04f2a68acd6b55cace https://apnews.com/article/us-capitol-trump-supporters-1806e...

alexmingoia 6y ago

Summoning these CEOs to Congress multiple times to be asked the same questions and to berate them, is criminal harassment. Their testimony is sought not as part of an investigation, not as expert advice, but as an opportunity to publicly berate them.

skohan 6y ago
Congressional hearings are and have always been theater before anything else
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ThrustVectoring 6y ago
Pressuring CEOs and executives by compelling testimony is not confined to Congress. Civil court - including small-claims court - has the power to compel the testimony of relevant parties, regardless of how many billions of dollars they happen to have.

frongpik 6y ago

I see the first two amendments have become too much of a burden for the modern government?

sokoloff 6y ago
It’s convenient that they’re dismantling our rights in sequential order. When they get around to the fourth and fifth, people will wish they’d acted while they were dismantling the first and second.
- MrMan 6y ago
  That's right we need to act!
- smolder 6y ago
  They aren't doing them in order, the fourth amendment stopped being meaningful when dragnet spying on the entire citizenry became the norm.

fredgrott 6y ago

by whose definition? Let me explain the purpose of section 230 and it's right in the US Congress bill pre-amble(intro). section 230 set's up liability protection for communication companies that accept user content IF THEY VOLUNTEER to moderate non private speech. IE the public speech that occurs in what be called semi-private commons. Tis is not censorship claimed by title baiting it's protection of the public commons from delving into a huge mess not-safe for anyone to speak into

marcus_holmes 6y ago
the question, as always, is whose speech gets moderated? What ideas are so terrible that you are not allowed to mention them on the internet? And who gets to decide that? Up until now, we've been drawing the line at child pornography. Now it seems we're moving the line somewhere else. Who gets to decide where that line is drawn?
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  In the US, it’s whoever owns the platform. Congress can’t do it, per the constitution.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    and yet that's exactly what is happening here, isn't it?
- mewse 6y ago
  Intuitively (though I don’t know enough to talk about this from a legal standpoint), it seems fairly obvious to me that social media platforms are a kind of “shared speech” system. You write something as a user, and the social media platform repeats it later to other visitors to the platform. In effect, both you and the platform are “speaking” whatever you write. The platform can’t compel you to say something, and you can’t compel them to say something either. Conceptually it’s a bit like slogans on vehicle license plates in the US, where it’s legal for you to mask out the slogan on a license plate (though illegal to mask the functional parts of the plate, such as the registration number), and it’s also legal for the state to refuse to put your requested message on a license plate. It’s shared speech, and neither side can be compelled to engage in speech that they object to. I don’t see a problem, personally, from this perspective. You don’t get to compel someone else to say what you want them to say; whoever you’re asking to repeat your words always gets an opportunity to refuse. And of course, there can then be consequences for that refusal or non-refusal.

skohan 6y ago

Social media doesn't have a content problem, it has a design problem. Nobody would care about QAnon if it was just some random chat room somewhere with 100 members, but the problem is that Facebook basically endorses this type of content and puts it in front of your aging relatives' eyeballs. Censoring specific content doesn't solve the design problem - social media will still be an engine for driving social divisions, aggressive behavior, and a general escalation of the level of alarm in society. All it will accomplish will be to give certain groups an ability to bias the direction the toxic impact on society tilts. I think there are ways you could try to resolve the design problem, for instance: 1. Anti-trust regulation/interoperability requirements to make it harder for a few players to own so much of the online discourse. 2. Regulation on algorithmically generated content feeds, and the use of ML to drive engagement.

Closi 6y ago
Agreed with a third addition: limits to how much content can be shared. The constant encouragement to share / retweet / recycle any content does not help. If people only posted their own unique content, and only people they were directly friends with could see it, half the battle would be solved. Instead if my aunt ‘likes’ a post that one of her own friends ‘shared’ then suddenly it’s in my feed. Screw that, I don’t need to see it. This stuff isn’t viral because it’s good content, it’s mostly viral because facebook is designed to encourage ‘virality’ to increase the amount of new content you see to make you revisit the app. Censorship is not the answer, but legislation is required to cut down on the incentive these companies have to design their apps to spread crap and make things viral.
- skohan 6y ago
  Yes exactly - and I think it's compounded by the somewhat greedy approach that these organizations take in terms of trying to manage content delivery with the least amount of human hands possible in deciding what you should see. This kind of blind algorithmic delivery is what led to this really strange, anti-social content appearing on "children's" youtube a few years ago. These platforms are literally designed to command your attention as much as possible. We have a history of regulating things which are unreasonably effective at hijacking the human reward system - like gambling, and narcotics. Sometimes I feel like we're an equivalent period to when you could buy cocaine or heroin over the counter at the chemist because society hasn't yet recognized the cost of failing to put some controls on it yet.

snicksnak 6y ago

That the government is trying to expand censorship and remove things it doesn't like is something I expect, of course, even if the extent of it surprises and deeply appals me. For me personally, however, it's the members of the cathedral, who are fomenting this wave of censorship and making it their mission to slander and de-platform things they don't like, who I deeply detest and think are the real villains here.

DocTomoe 6y ago

Maybe the first people tech CEOs should censor is Members of Congress.

mch82 6y ago

I’m disappointed by the lack of quotations in this article. The headline, tone, and conclusions of the author call for a higher level of direct citation. Here’s the C-SPAN archive of the hearing with searchable text transcripts. https://www.c-span.org/video/?510053-1/facebook-google-twitter-ceos-testify-combating-online-misinformation-disinformation https://www.c-span.org/video/?510053-1/facebook-google-twitt...

matthewmacleod 6y ago

Genuinely baffled what value anybody sees in this article. Regulation of social media is a serious issue that deserves serious attention. There's a huge amount of nuance, with lots of deep questions about what publishing and freedom of speech look like in a world where everybody has access to an algorithmically-controlled global platform. In contrast to that, Greenwald just presents an absolute mash of ridiculous clickbait, dogwhistle phrases, and vague insinuations. It contributes precisely nothing to answering any of those questions.

kristopolous 6y ago
It's a shame how much Assange and Greenwald have fallen.
- cutler 6y ago
  Care to elaborate?
  - DJBunnies 6y ago
    Don't feed the trolls.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - kristopolous 6y ago
      I'm not trolling, see my response to the op. I thought the stuff I put in there was common knowledge. Sorry if it wasn't
  - kristopolous 6y ago
    Assange was pedaling weird assertions in the far right Seth Rich conspiracies making completely baseless claims that have since proven absolutely false, it was him just fabricating stuff. It harmed both the Rich family and fueled the online conspiracy machines. He's followed it up with satanist cabal and earpiece nonsense. He's done rhetorical acrobatics to stand his ground instead of owning his own bs. Go to the "conspiracies" section on their wikipedia page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks That happened right before the 2016 election. Greenwald has gone from groundbreaking reporting to political theater and shock jock punditry, palling around with bullshit merchants like Tucker Carlson. He quit the intercept which refused to publish him making clearly incorrect claims about major candidates shortly before the 2020 election https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-the-intercept/ https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-... . Essentially a repeat of 2016 was primed but the rest of the intercept told him to screw off. They've both gone from the gold standard to completely unreliable political ops. It's almost like the con artists in the red pilling bullshit machines targeted both of them, it's pretty bad.

mjgs 6y ago

It all sounds very bad, I like that Dorsey took the call from his kitchen, and that he pushed back against the interrogation, the description of Zuckerberg’s testimony is kind of classic and amusing, but weirdly I don’t think it makes him look bad, maybe robot Zuck is his way of pushing back, strange to see the generational gap so evident and in public, I’m interested to read some other angles on these hearings.

sokoloff 6y ago

How does this square with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” I believe that political speech is the category of speech which demands the greatest amount of protection and freedom from government meddling, even (perhaps especially) political speech that I disagree with, find inconvenient, or even abhor. Government overreach by actors that I’m politically aligned with is to be rejected just as much as by actors I’m not aligned with. Don’t think of all the great things a government controlled by “your side” can do with all this power. Think of all the terrible things the “other side” can do with this power when they’re in control.

NeverFade 6y ago
> How does this square with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The whole play here is that congress will not make a law to limit free speech. The tech giants will limit free speech on their own, out of fear that congress will make other laws, such as laws to hurt them and break them down. They're basically being extorted by congress into doing dirty work (limiting free speech) that congress is forbidden from doing by the constitution.
- Aerroon 6y ago
  It turns out that the ability regulate interstate commerce in practice allows you to regulate everything else.
mch82 6y ago
I’m watching the hearing on C-SPAN. Congress is asking better questions. Congress allows the content can be posted. They’re asking why algorithms recommend the content to users. For example, at 1:14:11 Frank Pallone asks if Facebook is aware that 64% of people in extremist groups joined after Facebook recommended the groups, not because those people actively looked for the groups. Facebook recommending a group (to make money by increasing time on site) is a separate issue from Facebook allowing a group (free speech).

smeej 6y ago

Why is autism one of the few conditions it's OK to condemn people for? Are people under the impression that Zuckerberg _deliberately_ keeps his affect flat? That he's proud he has difficulty responding to social cues? That he likes having to think before responding to make sure he isn't unintentionally crossing a line? Calling someone non-human because of neuroatypicality is just as cruel as making fun of anyone with any other condition, and it needs to stop.

blfr 6y ago
I completely agree with your premise. It is unprincipled that you can make fun of some races, disabilities, and traits but not others. But I completely disagree with your conclusion. The debate was much healthier with fewer limitations. The limits didn't make it more nuanced and interesting, quite the opposite. Instead of making a point, people just squabble over who offended whom. Unbelievably boring. Since this is from Glenn Greenwald, here's an interview with him where the interviewer straight up calls him a "pinko faggot" and the thing is easily the best interview I saw this year. https://niccolo.substack.com/p/the-kinshasa-interviews-glenn-greenwald https://niccolo.substack.com/p/the-kinshasa-interviews-glenn...
tome 6y ago
There's a difference between condemning him as a person and making an assessment that his character might lead to certain drawbacks if he is in charge of one of the world's most powerful media companies.
- TheCraiggers 6y ago
  I agree. However, this article crosses the line IMHO. With some lines as: > Zuckerberg in particular has minimal capacity to communicate the way human beings naturally do. > For every question directed to him, he paused for several seconds, had his internal algorithms search for the relevant place in the metaphorical cassette inserted in a hidden box in his back, uttered the word “Congressman” or “Congresswoman,” stopped for several more seconds to search for the next applicable spot in the spine-cassette, and then proceeded unblinkingly to recite the words slowly transmitted into his neurons. And so on. That's not critiquing his character. That's ad hominem at best and bullying behavior that you'd find in grade school at worst.

djoldman 6y ago

One thing Greenwald misses in this article is related to: >Zuckerberg in particular has minimal capacity to communicate the way human beings naturally do. The Facebook CEO was obviously instructed by a team of public speaking consultants that it is customary to address members of the Committee as “Congressman” or “Congresswoman.” ... For every question directed to him, he paused for several seconds, had his internal algorithms search for the relevant place in the metaphorical cassette inserted in a hidden box in his back, uttered the word “Congressman” or “Congresswoman,” stopped for several more seconds to search for the next applicable spot in the spine-cassette, and then proceeded unblinkingly to recite the words slowly transmitted into his neurons. Anyone even superficially prepared by a lawyer for a deposition (and testifying before Congress may be the most serious deposition possible) is instructed to lengthen all responses to just before the line of "obstructing the questioning." In this game of modern "congressional investigation," where congresspeople are incentivized to advertise their agenda as opposed to acquire new information (investigate), it is in the best interest of the testifier, as in most depositions, to say as little as possible. Who knows what Zuckerberg is really like personality-wise. It is likely that how he is in front of Congress is not how he is in a relaxed setting. This fact doesn't generate the clicks that calling him a robot does though...

roenxi 6y ago
Mmm, yes. There is a fun game to play of "what else could have happened?". I've watched enough politically charged interviews. The only people who come out ahead by being genuine either face a sympathetic questioner, or are experienced barristers. There are more pitfalls than people realise. Honesty gets a bad outcome for the speaker. Lies get bad outcomes for the speakers. Reasonableness gets a bad outcome. Hysterics gets a really bad outcome. The best outcome is boring, forgettable, and managing to not actually say anything that isn't pre-prepared and vetted by a legal professional. It doesn't look good then it goes away after a few days.
- imtringued 6y ago
  Yeah, it is pretty obvious that he is trading legal consequences in exchange for reputation loss. The way he speaks didn't surprise me at all. The court case against that GME investor was also filled with robots. The Robinhood CEO was the most robotic of them all, because he had a lot to hide.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

djoldman 6y ago

Reading Greenwald (at least lately) means to almost constantly run into phrases like: "Words cannot convey..." "one of the most stunning displays" "truly despotic hearings" It is tiresome.

domnomnom 6y ago
I actually don't mind this. Isn't it much more annoying when someone is pushing an agenda and pretends to be objective? At least I can relax and not get trojan-horsed by opinions.
- djoldman 6y ago
  I think a question that journalism is trying to answer is: is pursuit of objective reporting possible and/or worth it? The dean of the Columbia Journalism School basically said it needs to be re-examined [0]. I think one can push an agenda without the over-the-top inflammatory phrases. This is probably just a pet peeve of mine. [0]https://journalism.columbia.edu/message-j-school-community https://journalism.columbia.edu/message-j-school-community

concordDance 6y ago

While the main point about government censorship being cause for concern is important, this is a remarkably poor article on the subject. With offputting digressions such as critique of Zuckerberg's manner of speaking and it not really attempting to address the arguments of the pro-censorship crowd. He doesn't have to refute them in the article itself, but should at least acknowledge their existance and point at a decent attempt at a refutation (likely a book or blog series).

decasteve 6y ago

These companies are not "the Internet". Why don't members of congress lead by example and delete their accounts/memberships with these social media companies? And stop spending their campaign money on social media. Boycott them, as individuals. Then stop these companies from stalking everyone around the Internet by passing legislation to call it as such. Pass real privacy legislation. Go after their advertising business model with anti-trust. Prevent tech monopolies from continuing to acquire and conglomerate. Censorship becomes an unwinnable game of whack-a-mole without addressing the root causes.

knorker 6y ago

> Recall that Parler, at the time it was the most-downloaded app in the country, was removed in January from the Apple and Google Play Stores and then denied internet service by Amazon, only after two very prominent Democratic House members publicly demanded this. Uh, correlation does not imply causation. You think maybe that an attempted insurrection caused both the demands and the action completely independently? They are both effects. One did not cause the other. But it's interesting that politicians are demanding censorship be done by private companies, because they know the constitution prevents it being done by the government. The legislative threats they imply or state cannot be censorship directly, and they know it.

intended 6y ago
Honestly the level of discussion on HN when it comes to these issues (speech and tech) drops fast. However it is a question that is pretty open to objective analysis, provided you don’t start at ideological positions. Right now around the world, in autocracies and democracies, nations are working to manage tech and speech. 1) Media (social/new/cable) and Democracies have been having a falling out. 2) Tech simply accelerates that process, and creates its own new patterns. Define the problem further, break it down and then solve.

intended 6y ago

No... people want govt to censor tech and social media. Every country in the world is doing this.

Cypher 6y ago

funny how the site talks about freedom of expression and then puts a paywall up for it's comments. Bravo

xfitm3 6y ago

Censorship must not be tolerated: free speech is a cornerstone of the US.

lamp987 6y ago
hate speech is not free speech & freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. some level of censorship is necessary to stop nazis and such from spreading their dangerous ideas, which result in mass shootings. censorship doesnt automatically mean totalitarian state. every country in the world has some limitations on speech, its working perfectly well in europe.
- chrismcb 6y ago
  Why is censorship needed to stop nazis? You can't have a free society if you have this kind of censorship.

threatofrain 6y ago

Whether right or not, Glenn Greenwood has gone all-in on conspiracy. Now it is either win or die, but there is no middle way anymore. Here is Glenn on the CIA, NSA, DOJ, and the FBI infiltrating the news industry: https://youtu.be/l8pkCZBjgrk?t=252 https://youtu.be/l8pkCZBjgrk?t=252 Here’s Tucker Carlson on the Biden story that Greenwald has gone all in on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXgO7L0rcAQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXgO7L0rcAQ Unfortunately when people go all in on exciting conspiracies of scale, I’m inclined to believe they are making a self immolating bet. It’s notable that to mitigate liability, Tucker Carlson’s lawyers have characterized him as a mere entertainer, and that no reasonable person would believe his entertainment show.

Black101 6y ago

Fuck Biden.... I guess no presidents have respect for the constitution nowadays but the current one should get more heat.

sershe 6y ago

I am really fond of Dorsey's attitude (the words too, as quoted at least). Myself having very little respect for most congresscritters from either party, it is really refreshing to see this displayed so brazenly. "You are stupid and this meeting is useless, I'm going to go on my phone."