6 ms·

Until Republicans start using Big Tech to coordinate violent anti-democratic insurrections and dissuade people from getting vaccinated against a global lethal p

by jude- 5y ago

Until Republicans start using Big Tech to coordinate violent anti-democratic insurrections and dissuade people from getting vaccinated against a global lethal pandemic. Big Tech owes them nothing -- they're not entitled to their infrastructure and distribution networks. Let them build their own.

mizzack 5y ago
Yeah! And let's have the taxpayer fund it! And subject it to common carrier regulations! Yeah?
kerkeslager 5y ago
You seem to be under the impression that building their own infrastructure will be some sort of barrier for multi-billion dollar organizations. I totally agree that many members of the Republican Party are criminals and should be in jail, but we need to prosecute the crime, not throw away free speech and start surveilling everyone. When people coordinate violent anti-democratic insurrections, we should throw them in jail along with the other terrorists. When people dissuade people from getting vaccinated, we should take away their medical licenses when they have them, and hold them responsible for manslaughter when people die from Covid based on their lies. More laws aren't going to help when Democrats don't have the spine to enforce the laws we already have.
- jude- 5y ago
  > You seem to be under the impression that building their own infrastructure will be some sort of barrier for multi-billion dollar organizations. I'm still waiting for the Republican (formerly alt-right) alternatives to YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter to get anywhere near the formers' popularity. Also, a lot of tech folks won't work for these companies in the first place. It takes more than money to build a FAANG company. > More laws aren't going to help when Democrats don't have the spine to enforce the laws we already have. I didn't say anything about creating or enforcing any laws. All I said is that Big Tech is well within its right to kick off unscrupulous users, even if they happen to be the ruling party. The alternative -- passing laws that unconditionally force private entities to host the ruling party's content, including propaganda, calls for insurrection, and vaccine misinformation -- is far more objectionable and authoritarian. Especially so if you believe that building your own infrastructure and distribution networks isn't an unreasonable barrier to entry in the first place. Of course, I'm all for prosecuting the criminals who instigated the insurrection and botched the COVID response to the fullest extent of the law (among other high crimes and misdemeanors). I agree with you that the Democratic party needs to grow a spine and take a stand on this. But, why not both? Why not retain Big Tech's power to decide who can use their platform and who cannot? Last I checked, FAANG isn't infrastructure. Like, what would a reasonable regulatory alternative be, that doesn't just devolve into regulatory capture and erect lobbyist-designed artificial barriers to entry that nominally restrain FAANG's power, but practically impose too high a burden for anyone to challenge their market position?
  - kerkeslager 5y ago
    > I'm still waiting for the Republican (formerly alt-right) alternatives to YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter to get anywhere near the formers' popularity. "In 2019, Fox News was the top-rated cable network, averaging 2.5 million viewers."[1] They've not only become as popular, but the most popular with TV. Why are you confident that this can't happen with social media? And the metrics of money and users don't really capture the whole problem. You're right that Parler never reached the popularity of similar non-insane services, but they didn't need to have the majority of money and users for a mob to come less than 100 yards from lynching members of congress. Reaching a majority is a barrier for peaceful democratic movements, not violent totalitarian movements. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News
    - jude- 5y ago
      > "In 2019, Fox News was the top-rated cable network, averaging 2.5 million viewers."[1] Be that as it may, cable is also on the way out [1], and 2.5 million viewers is just over 1% of the voting population in the US. By contrast, Facebook has 258 million MAU in the US and Canada [2]. > They've not only become as popular, but the most popular with TV. Why are you confident that this can't happen with social media? It totally can. However, as awful as Fox "News" programming can be, they neither call for nor coordinate violent insurrection. The minute they do is the minute they lose their FCC license. > You're right that Parler never reached the popularity of similar non-insane services, but they didn't need to have the majority of money and users for a mob to come less than 100 yards from lynching members of congress. Parler has since been forced off of AWS, and has been forced to block hate speech as a condition of being added back to the Apple app store [3]. I don't think Google has added it back to the Play Store. This was possible because there are no laws on the books requiring AWS, Apple, and Google to unconditionally do business with Parler, as long as their decision isn't based on discriminating against a person in one or more protected classes (and political affiliation is not a protected class). I'm not saying that this is an ideal solution -- I don't think Big Tech acted swiftly enough, and I'm not convinced yet that they've learned their lesson. Ideally, platforms beyond a certain reach would be required to have a fast and effective content moderation mechanism to prevent their distribution channels from being weaponized as they were. But, I don't know how to codify this into a law that is both constitutional and not also weaponizable by big players to prevent competition from arising. Maybe the law could require a ratio of human moderators to human users, or something? [1] https://deadline.com/2021/06/cable-news-ratings-may-fox-news-1234768009/ https://deadline.com/2021/06/cable-news-ratings-may-fox-news... [2] https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/facebooks-daily-active-usage-has-stalled-in-the-us-a-sign-of-concern-for/594253/ https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/facebooks-daily-active... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler#Return_online https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler#Return_online
cratermoon 5y ago
What do you mean, "until"?
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  I'm not sure, but I kind of think that was sarcasm.
- jude- 5y ago
  Original text was > Big Tech could stop being Big Brother and then both consumers and Republicans would be happy. Emphasis mine. Consumers and Repulicans would be happy until Republicans start weaponizing Big Tech to overthrow democracy and prolong COVID. Then consumers at least would cease to be happy.
Covzire 5y ago
Retailers should start checking voting registration when selling Lego sets too!
bobthechef 5y ago
"Metadehumanization erodes democratic norms during the 2020 presidential election"[0] [0] https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/asap.12253 https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/asap.12253

by jude- 5y ago

mizzack 5y ago

Yeah! And let's have the taxpayer fund it! And subject it to common carrier regulations! Yeah?

kerkeslager 5y ago

You seem to be under the impression that building their own infrastructure will be some sort of barrier for multi-billion dollar organizations. I totally agree that many members of the Republican Party are criminals and should be in jail, but we need to prosecute the crime, not throw away free speech and start surveilling everyone. When people coordinate violent anti-democratic insurrections, we should throw them in jail along with the other terrorists. When people dissuade people from getting vaccinated, we should take away their medical licenses when they have them, and hold them responsible for manslaughter when people die from Covid based on their lies. More laws aren't going to help when Democrats don't have the spine to enforce the laws we already have.

jude- 5y ago
> You seem to be under the impression that building their own infrastructure will be some sort of barrier for multi-billion dollar organizations. I'm still waiting for the Republican (formerly alt-right) alternatives to YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter to get anywhere near the formers' popularity. Also, a lot of tech folks won't work for these companies in the first place. It takes more than money to build a FAANG company. > More laws aren't going to help when Democrats don't have the spine to enforce the laws we already have. I didn't say anything about creating or enforcing any laws. All I said is that Big Tech is well within its right to kick off unscrupulous users, even if they happen to be the ruling party. The alternative -- passing laws that unconditionally force private entities to host the ruling party's content, including propaganda, calls for insurrection, and vaccine misinformation -- is far more objectionable and authoritarian. Especially so if you believe that building your own infrastructure and distribution networks isn't an unreasonable barrier to entry in the first place. Of course, I'm all for prosecuting the criminals who instigated the insurrection and botched the COVID response to the fullest extent of the law (among other high crimes and misdemeanors). I agree with you that the Democratic party needs to grow a spine and take a stand on this. But, why not both? Why not retain Big Tech's power to decide who can use their platform and who cannot? Last I checked, FAANG isn't infrastructure. Like, what would a reasonable regulatory alternative be, that doesn't just devolve into regulatory capture and erect lobbyist-designed artificial barriers to entry that nominally restrain FAANG's power, but practically impose too high a burden for anyone to challenge their market position?
- kerkeslager 5y ago
  > I'm still waiting for the Republican (formerly alt-right) alternatives to YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter to get anywhere near the formers' popularity. "In 2019, Fox News was the top-rated cable network, averaging 2.5 million viewers."[1] They've not only become as popular, but the most popular with TV. Why are you confident that this can't happen with social media? And the metrics of money and users don't really capture the whole problem. You're right that Parler never reached the popularity of similar non-insane services, but they didn't need to have the majority of money and users for a mob to come less than 100 yards from lynching members of congress. Reaching a majority is a barrier for peaceful democratic movements, not violent totalitarian movements. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News
  - jude- 5y ago
    > "In 2019, Fox News was the top-rated cable network, averaging 2.5 million viewers."[1] Be that as it may, cable is also on the way out [1], and 2.5 million viewers is just over 1% of the voting population in the US. By contrast, Facebook has 258 million MAU in the US and Canada [2]. > They've not only become as popular, but the most popular with TV. Why are you confident that this can't happen with social media? It totally can. However, as awful as Fox "News" programming can be, they neither call for nor coordinate violent insurrection. The minute they do is the minute they lose their FCC license. > You're right that Parler never reached the popularity of similar non-insane services, but they didn't need to have the majority of money and users for a mob to come less than 100 yards from lynching members of congress. Parler has since been forced off of AWS, and has been forced to block hate speech as a condition of being added back to the Apple app store [3]. I don't think Google has added it back to the Play Store. This was possible because there are no laws on the books requiring AWS, Apple, and Google to unconditionally do business with Parler, as long as their decision isn't based on discriminating against a person in one or more protected classes (and political affiliation is not a protected class). I'm not saying that this is an ideal solution -- I don't think Big Tech acted swiftly enough, and I'm not convinced yet that they've learned their lesson. Ideally, platforms beyond a certain reach would be required to have a fast and effective content moderation mechanism to prevent their distribution channels from being weaponized as they were. But, I don't know how to codify this into a law that is both constitutional and not also weaponizable by big players to prevent competition from arising. Maybe the law could require a ratio of human moderators to human users, or something? [1] https://deadline.com/2021/06/cable-news-ratings-may-fox-news-1234768009/ https://deadline.com/2021/06/cable-news-ratings-may-fox-news... [2] https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/facebooks-daily-active-usage-has-stalled-in-the-us-a-sign-of-concern-for/594253/ https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/facebooks-daily-active... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler#Return_online https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler#Return_online

cratermoon 5y ago

What do you mean, "until"?

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
I'm not sure, but I kind of think that was sarcasm.
jude- 5y ago
Original text was > Big Tech could stop being Big Brother and then both consumers and Republicans would be happy. Emphasis mine. Consumers and Repulicans would be happy until Republicans start weaponizing Big Tech to overthrow democracy and prolong COVID. Then consumers at least would cease to be happy.

Covzire 5y ago

Retailers should start checking voting registration when selling Lego sets too!

bobthechef 5y ago

"Metadehumanization erodes democratic norms during the 2020 presidential election"[0] [0] https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/asap.12253 https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/asap.12253