10 ms·

When one government/party (implicitly or explicitly) gets twitter to put content favorable to it to the detriment of its opponents, right there, twitter lost th

When one government/party (implicitly or explicitly) gets twitter to put content favorable to it to the detriment of its opponents, right there, twitter lost the script, and the moral standing. the talk of legality is nonsense, because there are jurisdictions where anything can be made legal. The vast majority of the world will be better off with a twitter/fb etc cut down to size, and the current massive power of social media networks being reduced.

burnished 5y ago
Can you point to some specific examples, instead of leaving it vague? I ask because I'm curious whether there are more pertinent framings than of a disagreement purely between political parties.
LatteLazy 5y ago
Making them smaller will make them more likely to resist government censorship how exactly?
- username90 5y ago
  Being large just makes you a large target, smaller things like HN wont get targeted since governments lack the capacity to handle that many things. And being large doesn't offer much protection to resist once targeted either, no matter how large they are they wont sacrifice significant revenue for moral reasons.
- foolinaround 5y ago
  twitter is attacked exactly because they are the only voice out there. As an example, There are several newspapers in India, which still continue to post opinions critical of the government. There is a system of courts still, sort of working, and would step in if things got too bad.
- munk-a 5y ago
  A single shut down of a platform can be written off as "for the children" or some other character assassination BS. When you start repeatedly attacking platforms that's when you get the moderates of your country to start taking umbridge. I think a good parallel might be TikTok in the US, Trump was exploring banning the platform toward the end of his term without a particularly large pushback from the general populace (though a whole bunch of pushback from tech literate folks). You can use excuses like that a time or two without raising too many eyebrows, but once it becomes a pattern people get angry. Having more smaller platforms makes it harder to effectively accomplish any censorship since your few shutdown freebies won't significantly impact the ability for political opponents to communicate with the public.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  They don't want them smaller they want their autonomy not their sized reduced. Specifically they cling to the idea that social media ought to be a common carrier as obliged to carry their views as that of their detractors. If you look at the actual speech that is being disincentivized this looks objectively terrible in our present context.
  - foolinaround 5y ago
    i dont know who you are speaking for, but agreed that the need for reduced autonomy for any agency of that size. In general, conservatives believe in markets, and if they happen to grow to a particular size with these constraints, so be it. -- > If you look at the actual speech that is being disincentivized this looks objectively terrible in our present context. I'll give one example to see what the reaction ought to be. A private citizen makes an otherwise legal speech at a political meeting - and youtube and all media wipe it out of the internet last week. Regardless of the private citizen being Trump and the party being Republicans, a liberal ( as the word used to mean before) should have been up against such censorship. 'Moderation' does not come into play in this example, but there is nothing specific to moderate really in what is essentially a semi-private meeting of free people.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      A semi private meeting would be held on hardware that you control which is entirely feasible.
jmull 5y ago
The idea that Twitter — or any other company or person — should not be able to choose or express it’s own side in any matter of political contention because one side or the other wouldn’t like it is insane to me. How does that even work? Who gets to decide which topics or points of view are off-the-table for normal social-media moderation? I guess you’re saying government figures and major political parties could decide unilaterally. We’ll have to repeal the first amendment, anyway.
- foolinaround 5y ago
  > should not be able to choose or express it’s own side in any matter of political contention It goes back to the conversations expressed elsewhere in this post about twitter being an utility, de-facto. If it is given that status, then there are some expectations that come with it. Once a company takes a political position, then it cannot appeal on 'moral' or other subjective grounds. > How does that even work? I don't know... maybe an entity like the Swiss? Not sure if it is a good example, being a country itself? The reason people seem to be ok with the presence of the country is that it is strictly neutral, and both sides protected it. > Who gets to decide which topics or points of view are off-the-table for normal social-media moderation? How about no one? > I guess you’re saying government figures and major political parties could decide unilaterally. We’ll have to repeal the first amendment, anyway. The 1st amendment is for the US exclusively. This version of the Freedom of speech is a distinctively American concept, and for that reason, twitter actually finds some tepid support from conservatives. Each country is sovereign in the laws that govern their land, unless they breach some major crimes, and thats when the UN steps in. Nothing new here.
  - yibg 5y ago
    Problem here is "favorable" and "political position" are pretty subjective. Who's to decide what is favorable to whom and what constitutes political position? Is saying wear a mask a political position? These days it seems to be. So someone still has to decide what is political and what is not right? So seems like we're back to square 1.
    - 5y ago
root_axis 5y ago
> The vast majority of the world will be better off with a twitter/fb etc cut down to size, and the current massive power of social media networks being reduced. There is no "cutting down to size", these sites are popular as the function of individual choices, short of authoritarianism you can't dictate which sites people decide to use.
- visualradio 5y ago
  Eh, governments could probably take a supply-side approach and throw money at new ARPAnet protocols for developing federated content publishing networks to grow competing networked application ecosystems without resorting to heavy handed authoritarianism.
  - root_axis 5y ago
    Another layer of federated content publishing doesn't solve any problems. The web is already federated, websites are the "nodes", these big websites are just very popular nodes, if fediverse style apps take off the problem would just move to the most popular nodes on that network.
    - visualradio 5y ago
      > Another layer of federated content publishing doesn't solve any problems. HTTP is a request-response rather than content broadcast or publish-subscribe protocol. Presumably you could develop a publish-subscribe protocol with low-latency encryption support embedded in protocol layer similar to QUIC. > if fediverse style apps take off the problem would just move to the most popular nodes on that network. So suppose the Department of Energy provides a public cloud which people can get a network address to hold files for them similar to how they can get a Post Office box number at the post office. Except when you put a file in your own PO box the PO will make free copies of the file for others on your behalf which are subscribed to your PO box without destroying the original copy. This would really just create a lower-level protocol or new number system for publish-subscribe content. It would compete with the other ARPAnet protocols such as TCP.
    - 5y ago
908B64B197 5y ago
> The vast majority of the world will be better off with a twitter/fb etc cut down to size, and the current massive power of social media networks being reduced. That's exactly what state sponsored media, dictatorships and big media conglomerates want to promote. Having layman question if social media is really good or not is great for these people. People forget so fast [0] [0] https://www.npr.org/2021/05/04/993605477/as-arab-spring-unfolded-on-twitter-social-media-gained-foothold-at-npr https://www.npr.org/2021/05/04/993605477/as-arab-spring-unfo...
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
  People keep bringing up the Arab spring as an argument for Twitter being socially beneficial. However, I am not sure the Arab Spring was a net positive. Tunisia turned out ok, but Libya is still a disaster. Egypt went from Dictator to Islamist Party to Military Dictatorship. Syria has seen massive death and destruction and Assad is still clinging to power. Yemen is involved in a nasty civil war. I think many in the West take a too rosy view of the Arab Spring. For the average Middle Easterner in those countries, the Arab Spring has been a disaster.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    It takes courage for a nation to take matters into it's own hands and march toward democracy. And it's not an easy road either.
    - nxmnxm99 5y ago
      That doesn't mean it was a good thing. Democracy isn't the only "right" way to maximize outcomes for a society, as much as western moralism might want it to be.
      - 908B64B197 5y ago
        And yet what are the alternatives?
  - 5y ago
ManBlanket 5y ago
Funny how a surge in requests of this nature coincided with proliferation of tools for managing, "misinformation". Who gets to decide what or what constitutes misinformation, anyway. Is it the Abundant Nigeria Renewal Party or African Democratic Congress? I guess for the time being rich white Californian tech executives and product managers decide what information or news stories are or are not real.

burnished 5y ago

Can you point to some specific examples, instead of leaving it vague? I ask because I'm curious whether there are more pertinent framings than of a disagreement purely between political parties.

LatteLazy 5y ago

Making them smaller will make them more likely to resist government censorship how exactly?

username90 5y ago
Being large just makes you a large target, smaller things like HN wont get targeted since governments lack the capacity to handle that many things. And being large doesn't offer much protection to resist once targeted either, no matter how large they are they wont sacrifice significant revenue for moral reasons.
foolinaround 5y ago
twitter is attacked exactly because they are the only voice out there. As an example, There are several newspapers in India, which still continue to post opinions critical of the government. There is a system of courts still, sort of working, and would step in if things got too bad.
munk-a 5y ago
A single shut down of a platform can be written off as "for the children" or some other character assassination BS. When you start repeatedly attacking platforms that's when you get the moderates of your country to start taking umbridge. I think a good parallel might be TikTok in the US, Trump was exploring banning the platform toward the end of his term without a particularly large pushback from the general populace (though a whole bunch of pushback from tech literate folks). You can use excuses like that a time or two without raising too many eyebrows, but once it becomes a pattern people get angry. Having more smaller platforms makes it harder to effectively accomplish any censorship since your few shutdown freebies won't significantly impact the ability for political opponents to communicate with the public.
michaelmrose 5y ago
They don't want them smaller they want their autonomy not their sized reduced. Specifically they cling to the idea that social media ought to be a common carrier as obliged to carry their views as that of their detractors. If you look at the actual speech that is being disincentivized this looks objectively terrible in our present context.
- foolinaround 5y ago
  i dont know who you are speaking for, but agreed that the need for reduced autonomy for any agency of that size. In general, conservatives believe in markets, and if they happen to grow to a particular size with these constraints, so be it. -- > If you look at the actual speech that is being disincentivized this looks objectively terrible in our present context. I'll give one example to see what the reaction ought to be. A private citizen makes an otherwise legal speech at a political meeting - and youtube and all media wipe it out of the internet last week. Regardless of the private citizen being Trump and the party being Republicans, a liberal ( as the word used to mean before) should have been up against such censorship. 'Moderation' does not come into play in this example, but there is nothing specific to moderate really in what is essentially a semi-private meeting of free people.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    A semi private meeting would be held on hardware that you control which is entirely feasible.

jmull 5y ago

The idea that Twitter — or any other company or person — should not be able to choose or express it’s own side in any matter of political contention because one side or the other wouldn’t like it is insane to me. How does that even work? Who gets to decide which topics or points of view are off-the-table for normal social-media moderation? I guess you’re saying government figures and major political parties could decide unilaterally. We’ll have to repeal the first amendment, anyway.

foolinaround 5y ago
> should not be able to choose or express it’s own side in any matter of political contention It goes back to the conversations expressed elsewhere in this post about twitter being an utility, de-facto. If it is given that status, then there are some expectations that come with it. Once a company takes a political position, then it cannot appeal on 'moral' or other subjective grounds. > How does that even work? I don't know... maybe an entity like the Swiss? Not sure if it is a good example, being a country itself? The reason people seem to be ok with the presence of the country is that it is strictly neutral, and both sides protected it. > Who gets to decide which topics or points of view are off-the-table for normal social-media moderation? How about no one? > I guess you’re saying government figures and major political parties could decide unilaterally. We’ll have to repeal the first amendment, anyway. The 1st amendment is for the US exclusively. This version of the Freedom of speech is a distinctively American concept, and for that reason, twitter actually finds some tepid support from conservatives. Each country is sovereign in the laws that govern their land, unless they breach some major crimes, and thats when the UN steps in. Nothing new here.
- yibg 5y ago
  Problem here is "favorable" and "political position" are pretty subjective. Who's to decide what is favorable to whom and what constitutes political position? Is saying wear a mask a political position? These days it seems to be. So someone still has to decide what is political and what is not right? So seems like we're back to square 1.
  - 5y ago

root_axis 5y ago

> The vast majority of the world will be better off with a twitter/fb etc cut down to size, and the current massive power of social media networks being reduced. There is no "cutting down to size", these sites are popular as the function of individual choices, short of authoritarianism you can't dictate which sites people decide to use.

visualradio 5y ago
Eh, governments could probably take a supply-side approach and throw money at new ARPAnet protocols for developing federated content publishing networks to grow competing networked application ecosystems without resorting to heavy handed authoritarianism.
- root_axis 5y ago
  Another layer of federated content publishing doesn't solve any problems. The web is already federated, websites are the "nodes", these big websites are just very popular nodes, if fediverse style apps take off the problem would just move to the most popular nodes on that network.
  - visualradio 5y ago
    > Another layer of federated content publishing doesn't solve any problems. HTTP is a request-response rather than content broadcast or publish-subscribe protocol. Presumably you could develop a publish-subscribe protocol with low-latency encryption support embedded in protocol layer similar to QUIC. > if fediverse style apps take off the problem would just move to the most popular nodes on that network. So suppose the Department of Energy provides a public cloud which people can get a network address to hold files for them similar to how they can get a Post Office box number at the post office. Except when you put a file in your own PO box the PO will make free copies of the file for others on your behalf which are subscribed to your PO box without destroying the original copy. This would really just create a lower-level protocol or new number system for publish-subscribe content. It would compete with the other ARPAnet protocols such as TCP.
  - 5y ago

908B64B197 5y ago

> The vast majority of the world will be better off with a twitter/fb etc cut down to size, and the current massive power of social media networks being reduced. That's exactly what state sponsored media, dictatorships and big media conglomerates want to promote. Having layman question if social media is really good or not is great for these people. People forget so fast [0] [0] https://www.npr.org/2021/05/04/993605477/as-arab-spring-unfolded-on-twitter-social-media-gained-foothold-at-npr https://www.npr.org/2021/05/04/993605477/as-arab-spring-unfo...

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
People keep bringing up the Arab spring as an argument for Twitter being socially beneficial. However, I am not sure the Arab Spring was a net positive. Tunisia turned out ok, but Libya is still a disaster. Egypt went from Dictator to Islamist Party to Military Dictatorship. Syria has seen massive death and destruction and Assad is still clinging to power. Yemen is involved in a nasty civil war. I think many in the West take a too rosy view of the Arab Spring. For the average Middle Easterner in those countries, the Arab Spring has been a disaster.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  It takes courage for a nation to take matters into it's own hands and march toward democracy. And it's not an easy road either.
  - nxmnxm99 5y ago
    That doesn't mean it was a good thing. Democracy isn't the only "right" way to maximize outcomes for a society, as much as western moralism might want it to be.
    - 908B64B197 5y ago
      And yet what are the alternatives?
- 5y ago

ManBlanket 5y ago

Funny how a surge in requests of this nature coincided with proliferation of tools for managing, "misinformation". Who gets to decide what or what constitutes misinformation, anyway. Is it the Abundant Nigeria Renewal Party or African Democratic Congress? I guess for the time being rich white Californian tech executives and product managers decide what information or news stories are or are not real.