5 ms·

> Big tech has routinely suppressed conservative voices and violated consumers’ privacy,” said Rep. Gooden. “We must rein in their destructive behavior and pres

> Big tech has routinely suppressed conservative voices and violated consumers’ privacy,” said Rep. Gooden. “We must rein in their destructive behavior and preserve the constitutional rights of all Americans.” First, this whole suppressing conservatives voices thing is just totally unhinged from reality. The few tiny examples of this violate clearly defined platform rules (which pale in comparison to the giant gain of misinformation aimed at the right that’s free flowed). These companies and their products aren’t the same as a phone call, and you absolutely don’t have any constitutional rights if speech to it! They’re private platforms and anyone (eg Gab) can go and create their own. If any company violated consumer’s privacy in accordance with constitutional rights, then current day lawsuits would win without any additional amendments. This is both sides looking for a new boogie man, and will ultimately make America less competitive globally compared to a place like China where not only do their tech companies have massive integration across so many products (hello WeChat), but they have actual state support. This is just populism aimed at all of those who didn’t make money in tech over the past 20 years, many of whom are jealous their industries got outsourced and therefore mad.

zephyr1 5y ago
I thought you meant banning speech of your political enemies is unhinged from reality until I realised you meant the opposite
- azinman2 5y ago
  https://cyber.harvard.edu/node/99982 https://cyber.harvard.edu/node/99982 Just one of many analyses that have showed how the right in the US has majorly gained from being able to share misinformation and live in filter bubbles by platforms like Facebook and Twitter. The idea that Twitter/FB have political enemies is not supported by how they’ve been used, and is inviting an over-politicization of American life. They’re private businesses… not political affiliates.
- jayd16 5y ago
  It is though. Imagine if every online forum was forced to promote government propaganda. That's not free speech. So to some degree, forum discretion is speech.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    Just imagine if every telephone companies was prevented from discriminating on the basis of the speech.... Oh wait, that is literally how common carrier laws work. They are basically, forced to sell to everyone, and have to allow anyone to make speech over their network.
    - jayd16 5y ago
      Not everything is a common carrier and I don't think it should be.
      - stale2002 5y ago
        I didn't say that everything is a common carrier. Instead, I am pointing out the ridiculousness of saying that every single instance of the governement "enforcing" speech, in the context of powerful platforms, is somehow some huge infringement on free speech. Because clearly, we are OK with the government requiring phone companies, which are platforms, into allow most people to make phone calls. Therefore, you cannot come out, swinging very hard, with this free speech stuff, when, if I were to guess, you are totally OK with phone companies being covered under common carrier laws. So you need to either chill with this whole "free speech" argument, or you need to instead come out and say that common carriers are some horrible, really evil thing. Pick one.
mavelikara 5y ago
> where not only do their tech companies have massive integration across so many products Why can't tech products have integration across each other, without tech giants buying up every small startup that comes across their way?
- azinman2 5y ago
  Because integration is very difficult to achieve in one company (just look at Google vs Apple products), let alone across multiple. I don’t see how that has anything to do with buying small startups. However since you mentioned that, preventing M&A will not only prevent our bigger tech companies from being globally competitive by restricting their access to talent, it’ll shut off one of the main exit routes that’s made doing a startup far safer. It’ll mean failures will end up in $0 for everyone, less money in returns to a VC, which will mean less money in returns to the retirement funds and whatnot that invest in VCs (which is bad for all of our 401ks), so VCs will be even more careful about who they invest in, which means less capital going around for startups generally. That will reduce American competitiveness.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    > Because integration is very difficult to achieve in one company (just look at Google vs Apple products), let alone across multiple. This is clearly false. All sorts of industry defined standards work quite well. When companies don't create interoperability it isn't because it is too hard...
  - mavelikara 5y ago
    You seem to suggest that few giant companies are optimal. If so, why not take that to the full extend - have just one player in the market by the government nationalizing all tech companies and merging into one? (I am not suggesting that as a credible alternative).
    - dodobirdlord 5y ago
      Because competition is good, and monopolies are bad. It’s just that we don’t actually have any monopolies in the tech industry, and people who say we do are wrong and/or pursuing an agenda that has nothing to do with market competition.
neither_color 5y ago
I won't comment on your first point but I will say it's weird you argue for private companies' rights and then use a country where most of our tech companies are de facto banned(Twitter, Facebook, Google, Instagram, Reddit, Snapchat, Pinterest, Youtube, Twitch, etc), where anonymous internet usage isn't possible(must show ID for even an internet cafe), and where mass topical censorship is legally required. What we had in the US/Europe is debate over what extreme edge cases and fringe ideologies meet the minimal threshold to be considered dangerous enough to society to stamp out, and even then every instance is met with great debate and pushback. Some people make "careers" out of making hateful replies to politicians we're objectively much freer here and better off for it.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  Not to mention a country where tech moguls are under far more heat than they ever could be in this one. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27448998 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27448998
throwkeep 5y ago
I'm a liberal and it's clear that big tech is suppressing dissenting voices. It's not targeted at conservatives specifically, but it captures them in larger number because tech and corporate media is mostly liberal and progressive. As such, conservative is by default a dissenting voice. Edit: See the lab leak hypothesis where big tech was suppressing and even banning people last year for questioning the approved narrative. And here's an example just yesterday with old school progressives being silenced: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27493994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27493994
- jeffbee 5y ago
  Please give us a specific example of "big tech suppressing dissenting voices". I can certainly see how you could lay that charge on the Hearst Corporation, for example, but I have a hard time seeing how it applies to companies who will record and disseminate your writings, photos, and videos worldwide without charge and almost without regard to the content thereof.
  - SamiPerttu 5y ago
    Google Admits to Censoring the World Socialist Web Site https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/04/goog-n04.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/04/goog-n04.html Facebook Purges Left-Wing Pages and Individuals https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/01/23/pers-j23.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/01/23/pers-j23.html
    - jeffbee 5y ago
      Google returns that site as the #1 result for "world socialist", and "world socialist web site" and the Facebook accounts that were supposedly "purged" are all online, for example https://www.facebook.com/iyssesdsu https://www.facebook.com/iyssesdsu. So, again, please provide specific examples of accounts that were suppressed for dissension, and apparently also I need to ask you to think critically about whether and how such suppression was achieved.
- azinman2 5y ago
Layke1123 5y ago
Do you hear yourself? You are full of yourself. An economy that doesn't work for everyone won't work for anyone.

zephyr1 5y ago

I thought you meant banning speech of your political enemies is unhinged from reality until I realised you meant the opposite

azinman2 5y ago
https://cyber.harvard.edu/node/99982 https://cyber.harvard.edu/node/99982 Just one of many analyses that have showed how the right in the US has majorly gained from being able to share misinformation and live in filter bubbles by platforms like Facebook and Twitter. The idea that Twitter/FB have political enemies is not supported by how they’ve been used, and is inviting an over-politicization of American life. They’re private businesses… not political affiliates.
jayd16 5y ago
It is though. Imagine if every online forum was forced to promote government propaganda. That's not free speech. So to some degree, forum discretion is speech.
- stale2002 5y ago
  Just imagine if every telephone companies was prevented from discriminating on the basis of the speech.... Oh wait, that is literally how common carrier laws work. They are basically, forced to sell to everyone, and have to allow anyone to make speech over their network.
  - jayd16 5y ago
    Not everything is a common carrier and I don't think it should be.
    - stale2002 5y ago
      I didn't say that everything is a common carrier. Instead, I am pointing out the ridiculousness of saying that every single instance of the governement "enforcing" speech, in the context of powerful platforms, is somehow some huge infringement on free speech. Because clearly, we are OK with the government requiring phone companies, which are platforms, into allow most people to make phone calls. Therefore, you cannot come out, swinging very hard, with this free speech stuff, when, if I were to guess, you are totally OK with phone companies being covered under common carrier laws. So you need to either chill with this whole "free speech" argument, or you need to instead come out and say that common carriers are some horrible, really evil thing. Pick one.

mavelikara 5y ago

> where not only do their tech companies have massive integration across so many products Why can't tech products have integration across each other, without tech giants buying up every small startup that comes across their way?

azinman2 5y ago
Because integration is very difficult to achieve in one company (just look at Google vs Apple products), let alone across multiple. I don’t see how that has anything to do with buying small startups. However since you mentioned that, preventing M&A will not only prevent our bigger tech companies from being globally competitive by restricting their access to talent, it’ll shut off one of the main exit routes that’s made doing a startup far safer. It’ll mean failures will end up in $0 for everyone, less money in returns to a VC, which will mean less money in returns to the retirement funds and whatnot that invest in VCs (which is bad for all of our 401ks), so VCs will be even more careful about who they invest in, which means less capital going around for startups generally. That will reduce American competitiveness.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > Because integration is very difficult to achieve in one company (just look at Google vs Apple products), let alone across multiple. This is clearly false. All sorts of industry defined standards work quite well. When companies don't create interoperability it isn't because it is too hard...
- mavelikara 5y ago
  You seem to suggest that few giant companies are optimal. If so, why not take that to the full extend - have just one player in the market by the government nationalizing all tech companies and merging into one? (I am not suggesting that as a credible alternative).
  - dodobirdlord 5y ago
    Because competition is good, and monopolies are bad. It’s just that we don’t actually have any monopolies in the tech industry, and people who say we do are wrong and/or pursuing an agenda that has nothing to do with market competition.

neither_color 5y ago

I won't comment on your first point but I will say it's weird you argue for private companies' rights and then use a country where most of our tech companies are de facto banned(Twitter, Facebook, Google, Instagram, Reddit, Snapchat, Pinterest, Youtube, Twitch, etc), where anonymous internet usage isn't possible(must show ID for even an internet cafe), and where mass topical censorship is legally required. What we had in the US/Europe is debate over what extreme edge cases and fringe ideologies meet the minimal threshold to be considered dangerous enough to society to stamp out, and even then every instance is met with great debate and pushback. Some people make "careers" out of making hateful replies to politicians we're objectively much freer here and better off for it.

Apocryphon 5y ago
Not to mention a country where tech moguls are under far more heat than they ever could be in this one. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27448998 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27448998

throwkeep 5y ago

I'm a liberal and it's clear that big tech is suppressing dissenting voices. It's not targeted at conservatives specifically, but it captures them in larger number because tech and corporate media is mostly liberal and progressive. As such, conservative is by default a dissenting voice. Edit: See the lab leak hypothesis where big tech was suppressing and even banning people last year for questioning the approved narrative. And here's an example just yesterday with old school progressives being silenced: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27493994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27493994

jeffbee 5y ago
Please give us a specific example of "big tech suppressing dissenting voices". I can certainly see how you could lay that charge on the Hearst Corporation, for example, but I have a hard time seeing how it applies to companies who will record and disseminate your writings, photos, and videos worldwide without charge and almost without regard to the content thereof.
- SamiPerttu 5y ago
  Google Admits to Censoring the World Socialist Web Site https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/04/goog-n04.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/04/goog-n04.html Facebook Purges Left-Wing Pages and Individuals https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/01/23/pers-j23.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/01/23/pers-j23.html
  - jeffbee 5y ago
    Google returns that site as the #1 result for "world socialist", and "world socialist web site" and the Facebook accounts that were supposedly "purged" are all online, for example https://www.facebook.com/iyssesdsu https://www.facebook.com/iyssesdsu. So, again, please provide specific examples of accounts that were suppressed for dissension, and apparently also I need to ask you to think critically about whether and how such suppression was achieved.
azinman2 5y ago

Layke1123 5y ago

Do you hear yourself? You are full of yourself. An economy that doesn't work for everyone won't work for anyone.