5 ms·

Network vs nation-state update: the network is a charade, as the messages passing over it are filtered and 'boosted', distorting information beyond any humanly

Network vs nation-state update: the network is a charade, as the messages passing over it are filtered and 'boosted', distorting information beyond any humanly recognizable form. It turns out that the people who moderate the network wield unimaginable power. If you can memory-hole a president of the United States, is there anyone on earth that you cannot completely dominate, in whatever channel or manner you chose to manipulate?

loceng 5y ago
And you can just charge a fee to make a thriving business and let others do the same, whether political or other manipulation you're looking to do.
pmoriarty 5y ago
"If you can memory-hole a president of the United States, is there anyone on earth that you cannot completely dominate, in whatever channel or manner you chose to manipulate?" With the possible exception of 9/11, the Trump administration is probably the most significant political event of the 21st Century so-far. Nobody and nothing can memory-hole that, no matter how much power they have. Trump is at no risk of being forgotten.
enumjorge 5y ago
I worry about the power companies like FB wield, but I find this a tad exaggerated. FB and Twitter =\= the network. I don’t see how kicking someone off FB and Twitter means they’re effectively “memory-holed”. Almost all past presidents had no access to them and did ok.
- Covzire 5y ago
  Facebook is the defacto public square of the US, at least during a pandemic where social media is the only socializing many are going to do. This is an extremely pernicious situation for American freedoms, if it's this easy to prevent a politician from speaking, especially someone so prominent then what hope do western freedoms have against rising oppressive forces like China?
khuey 5y ago
Trump hasn't been "memory-hole"d. You can post on Facebook about Trump as much as you want.
- koolba 5y ago
  Maybe on Facebook but Twitter will suspend your account if you post verbatim statements from Trump as they consider it circumventing their ban: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/04/trump-website-facebook-485370 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/04/trump-website-faceb... > A Twitter spokesperson told POLITICO in a statement Tuesday that sharing content from Trump's new site — "From the Desk of Donald J. Trump" — generally "is permitted as long as the material does not otherwise violate the Twitter Rules." > But, the spokesperson said, sharing posts from the site will break Twitter's rules against ban evasions if users try to imitate Trump's account and their "sole intent is to replace a suspended account." So they're effectively saying you can only link to it if you disagree with it.
  - hnnameblah365 5y ago
    I think they are only moderating against bots that solely retweet everything posted to the site. A real user can post the statements and pundit in whatever direction they want.
KaiserPro 5y ago
> If you can memory-hole a president of the United States So whilst I understand your point of view, I think there is wider context that needs to be factored in here. That aside, A network provider needs to enforce its own terms of services equally. In practice nobody does this, but Twitter and facebooks inaction for clear violations of their terms of service undermines their points operating fairly. Facebook failed to act when Trump and others (of all political styles) decided to lie about voting, the mechanics of voting, and validity of voting. That is a clear violation of its community guidelines. It turns out that there are secret rules for politicians (basically they can do what they like.) This is wrong Twitter failed to uphold it's ToS when allowing trump to issue threats to use nuclear weapons on north korea. Had the ToS been applied equally, lots of politicians and pundits would have been kicked off years ago. The issue is fairness. We accept the law, because on the face of it, its applied equally. As soon as that facade drops, people begin to reject it. > It turns out that the people who moderate the network wield unimaginable power. Yes, and this is nothing new. Just look at the power that news barons had. before that pamphleteers. In reality freedom of speech in the broadcast sense only applies to the rich, or the friends of the rich.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  > Facebook failed to act when Trump and others (of all political styles) decided to lie about voting, the mechanics of voting, and validity of voting. Just like members of another political party did 4 years earlier, but they weren't given any warnings or badges or anything. I wonder if it has something to do with that company management is more closely aligned with that party. /s I don't have a horse in this race, but the lack of objectivity in Trump haters is striking even from the other side of the ocean. Hatred can cloud reasoning, I guess.
  - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
    You're adopting a very dismissive tone for what seems like a reasonable position. If you believe Trump is uniquely dangerous (disclosure: I do), why couldn't you have a reasoned, objective belief that social media companies need the tools to keep him off their platform? If someone comes to me with an undisputable argument that suchandsuch principle means he has to be allowed on Facebook again, I consider that to be an argument against the principle, in much the same way as I'd reject a principle that proves we can't enforce laws or can't block spam.
gumby 5y ago
They are hardly sending him down the memory hole (there are plenty of records of his statements and assertions etc). Newspapers have chosen to report, or not report on issues since time immemorial. There is no shortage of reasons to criticize FB and to consider network effects such as you raise. But I am specifically disagreeing with the “memory hole” point, and in particular of a public figure.
throwawaysea 5y ago
> If you can memory-hole a president of the United States, is there anyone on earth that you cannot completely dominate, in whatever channel or manner you chose to manipulate? Exactly. The power to make someone invisible to others feels like something out of Black Mirror. Everyone claiming that Presidents (or others) did just fine before the Internet and social media is missing the point. Relevance, visibility, and existence are all concepts that are only meaningful in a relative sense. In a world where the vast majority of information seen by humans comes from large digital platforms, being banned in cyberspace but visible in meatspace effectively means you are blocked from society, since attention is largely given only to information on these giant tech platforms. This is why large tech platforms are public accommodations, as SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas eloquently described in his recent opinion (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-197_5ie6.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-197_5ie6.pdf). For those short on time, summaries of his arguments can be found at various news sites (Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/06/technology-202-clarence-thomas-takes-social-media-companies-power/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/06/technolog... or Daily Wire: https://www.dailywire.com/news/clarence-thomas-hints-that-congress-could-strip-social-media-giants-of-first-amendment-protections-comparing-them-to-public-accommodations https://www.dailywire.com/news/clarence-thomas-hints-that-co...). Glenn Greenwald also had a great write-up on the incredible power these platforms wield, which is far greater than most governments even (https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congressional-testimony-the-leading https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congressional-testimony-the...). In this article, under subsection #2, Glenn reviews the various world leaders who responded publicly to American social media banning Trump as an unacceptable and ominous event.

loceng 5y ago

And you can just charge a fee to make a thriving business and let others do the same, whether political or other manipulation you're looking to do.

pmoriarty 5y ago

"If you can memory-hole a president of the United States, is there anyone on earth that you cannot completely dominate, in whatever channel or manner you chose to manipulate?" With the possible exception of 9/11, the Trump administration is probably the most significant political event of the 21st Century so-far. Nobody and nothing can memory-hole that, no matter how much power they have. Trump is at no risk of being forgotten.

enumjorge 5y ago

I worry about the power companies like FB wield, but I find this a tad exaggerated. FB and Twitter =\= the network. I don’t see how kicking someone off FB and Twitter means they’re effectively “memory-holed”. Almost all past presidents had no access to them and did ok.

Covzire 5y ago
Facebook is the defacto public square of the US, at least during a pandemic where social media is the only socializing many are going to do. This is an extremely pernicious situation for American freedoms, if it's this easy to prevent a politician from speaking, especially someone so prominent then what hope do western freedoms have against rising oppressive forces like China?

khuey 5y ago

Trump hasn't been "memory-hole"d. You can post on Facebook about Trump as much as you want.

koolba 5y ago
Maybe on Facebook but Twitter will suspend your account if you post verbatim statements from Trump as they consider it circumventing their ban: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/04/trump-website-facebook-485370 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/04/trump-website-faceb... > A Twitter spokesperson told POLITICO in a statement Tuesday that sharing content from Trump's new site — "From the Desk of Donald J. Trump" — generally "is permitted as long as the material does not otherwise violate the Twitter Rules." > But, the spokesperson said, sharing posts from the site will break Twitter's rules against ban evasions if users try to imitate Trump's account and their "sole intent is to replace a suspended account." So they're effectively saying you can only link to it if you disagree with it.
- hnnameblah365 5y ago
  I think they are only moderating against bots that solely retweet everything posted to the site. A real user can post the statements and pundit in whatever direction they want.

KaiserPro 5y ago

> If you can memory-hole a president of the United States So whilst I understand your point of view, I think there is wider context that needs to be factored in here. That aside, A network provider needs to enforce its own terms of services equally. In practice nobody does this, but Twitter and facebooks inaction for clear violations of their terms of service undermines their points operating fairly. Facebook failed to act when Trump and others (of all political styles) decided to lie about voting, the mechanics of voting, and validity of voting. That is a clear violation of its community guidelines. It turns out that there are secret rules for politicians (basically they can do what they like.) This is wrong Twitter failed to uphold it's ToS when allowing trump to issue threats to use nuclear weapons on north korea. Had the ToS been applied equally, lots of politicians and pundits would have been kicked off years ago. The issue is fairness. We accept the law, because on the face of it, its applied equally. As soon as that facade drops, people begin to reject it. > It turns out that the people who moderate the network wield unimaginable power. Yes, and this is nothing new. Just look at the power that news barons had. before that pamphleteers. In reality freedom of speech in the broadcast sense only applies to the rich, or the friends of the rich.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
> Facebook failed to act when Trump and others (of all political styles) decided to lie about voting, the mechanics of voting, and validity of voting. Just like members of another political party did 4 years earlier, but they weren't given any warnings or badges or anything. I wonder if it has something to do with that company management is more closely aligned with that party. /s I don't have a horse in this race, but the lack of objectivity in Trump haters is striking even from the other side of the ocean. Hatred can cloud reasoning, I guess.
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  You're adopting a very dismissive tone for what seems like a reasonable position. If you believe Trump is uniquely dangerous (disclosure: I do), why couldn't you have a reasoned, objective belief that social media companies need the tools to keep him off their platform? If someone comes to me with an undisputable argument that suchandsuch principle means he has to be allowed on Facebook again, I consider that to be an argument against the principle, in much the same way as I'd reject a principle that proves we can't enforce laws or can't block spam.

gumby 5y ago

They are hardly sending him down the memory hole (there are plenty of records of his statements and assertions etc). Newspapers have chosen to report, or not report on issues since time immemorial. There is no shortage of reasons to criticize FB and to consider network effects such as you raise. But I am specifically disagreeing with the “memory hole” point, and in particular of a public figure.

throwawaysea 5y ago

> If you can memory-hole a president of the United States, is there anyone on earth that you cannot completely dominate, in whatever channel or manner you chose to manipulate? Exactly. The power to make someone invisible to others feels like something out of Black Mirror. Everyone claiming that Presidents (or others) did just fine before the Internet and social media is missing the point. Relevance, visibility, and existence are all concepts that are only meaningful in a relative sense. In a world where the vast majority of information seen by humans comes from large digital platforms, being banned in cyberspace but visible in meatspace effectively means you are blocked from society, since attention is largely given only to information on these giant tech platforms. This is why large tech platforms are public accommodations, as SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas eloquently described in his recent opinion (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-197_5ie6.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-197_5ie6.pdf). For those short on time, summaries of his arguments can be found at various news sites (Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/06/technology-202-clarence-thomas-takes-social-media-companies-power/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/06/technolog... or Daily Wire: https://www.dailywire.com/news/clarence-thomas-hints-that-congress-could-strip-social-media-giants-of-first-amendment-protections-comparing-them-to-public-accommodations https://www.dailywire.com/news/clarence-thomas-hints-that-co...). Glenn Greenwald also had a great write-up on the incredible power these platforms wield, which is far greater than most governments even (https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congressional-testimony-the-leading https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congressional-testimony-the...). In this article, under subsection #2, Glenn reviews the various world leaders who responded publicly to American social media banning Trump as an unacceptable and ominous event.