5 ms·

How is this okay, people? Seriously, how can people turn a blind eye to this, when it's not even a secret operation or a conspiracy theory? When the administrat

How is this okay, people? Seriously, how can people turn a blind eye to this, when it's not even a secret operation or a conspiracy theory? When the administration openly describes how they're colluding with a private company to censor speech (and obviously not the kind of speech that isn't protected), without any apology or promise to correct the course, you know we're in serious trouble. Have we really forgotten the countless times this has played out in history, and where it leads? Also: mods - if this article is flagged for being "too political", I urge you to reconsider this one. I don't care which administration did this, but I certainly feel like it represents a major historical point in the conversation around free speech.

jka 5y ago
Because misinformation is rife, dangerous, and is being weaponized. Ideally any measures to control misinformation - like societal restrictions during the pandemic - are temporary and rolled back when the situation is more stable. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that climate change denial, addictive pharmaceuticals, unsustainable energy production and the potential for human suffering as a result of any and all of those are areas where malignant (and often well-funded) actors see potential opportunities. Many folks on HN here love the concept of "free speech" without restrictions because we've been drawn into a world of binary outcomes and absolutes. That's not the way the world works, and it shouldn't be used as an excuse to permit destructive behaviour for profit. I'm glad to see democratically elected representatives of the U.S. take up their responsibilities rather than pandering to corporate and oligarchical interests. I do agree with you wholeheartedly that this topic should not be flagged.
- remarkEon 5y ago
  >I'm glad to see democratically elected representatives of the U.S. take up their responsibilities rather than pandering to corporate and oligarchical interests. This isn't some noble representative getting a bill passed through Congress to stick it to Big Tech for profiting off of outrage media, click-bait, surveillance capitalism, etc etc (I wish it were thus). This is the executive branch of an administration colluding with those corporations to provide "guidance" on what the permitted narrative is. >Many folks on HN here love the concept of "free speech" without restrictions because we've been drawn into a world of binary outcomes and absolutes. That's not the way the world works, and it shouldn't be used as an excuse to permit destructive behaviour for profit. I mean, sure. But we aren't talking about the traditional restrictions on free speech, which have fairly well understood legal precedents and have laws about them. I don't even know what "permit destructive behaviour for profit" means, since one person's destruction is another person's creation (just look at the ad ecosystem on the internet). If 9/11 was the justification for an ever-expanding state surveillance/security apparatus, then the Pandemic will be the justification for ever-increasing collusion between the "democratic" government of an ostensibly free country and the massive multi-national tech companies who have the means to control what is and isn't said on the internet. The people who warned us about the PATRIOT Act turned out to be right.
  - jka 5y ago
    > This isn't some noble representative getting a bill passed through Congress to stick it to Big Tech for profiting off of outrage media, click-bait, surveillance capitalism, etc etc (I wish it were thus). This is the executive branch of an administration colluding with those corporations to provide "guidance" on what the permitted narrative is. That's a valid perspective, yes - but I can almost guarantee you that it's a team of people using evidence, data and analysis to determine what they believe is best for their population, in co-operation (rather than collusion) with a business. A business that would quite happily take the reins of power, sure, but a business that is nonetheless under the legal remit of the U.S.
    - remarkEon 5y ago
      >but I can almost guarantee you that it's a team of people using evidence, data and analysis to determine what they believe is best for their population, in co-operation (rather than collusion) with a business. That you can't guarantee this is reason enough to not permit this activity.
      - jka 5y ago
        I sorta get where you're coming from, but not sure I completely understand. What do you think this post flagging activity will lead to, and do you feel confident that those outcomes are worse than the impact of the flagged content?
        remarkEon 5y ago
        I think we're obviously coming from slightly different perspectives. I don't really have any trust, at all, in the ability of unelected bureaucrats to operate in a benevolent matter (especially in secret). While "eliminating COVID misinformation" may, to some, sound like a noble goal, there is no limiting principle for the use of this power. Either statutorily, or otherwise. What's to say that social media companies won't be pressured under the very same reasoning ("this misinformation leads to death!") to remove "misinformation" about gun violence, or climate change, or abortion? Since gun violence is a "public health issue", surly the same reasoning would apply. Psaki said yesterday if you're banned on one platform for COVID misinformation, you need to be banned on all. Where's the boundaries of what constitutes a social media platform? Does that include payment networks like Venmo? Do you see how easy this can cascade, both in terms of content and in terms of the in-scope platforms? >and do you feel confident that those outcomes are worse than the impact of the flagged content? I genuinely don't understand this question, but that's likely because I don't understand social media to be the proximate cause of vaccine skepticism, and I suspect it's an easy political target for missing vaccine goals. A much more likely explanation is upstream from media itself, and sits with political leaders who continue to act as if taking the vaccine doesn't change anything, or they explicitly told the public they wouldn't take it if it was developed under Trump.

jka 5y ago

Because misinformation is rife, dangerous, and is being weaponized. Ideally any measures to control misinformation - like societal restrictions during the pandemic - are temporary and rolled back when the situation is more stable. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that climate change denial, addictive pharmaceuticals, unsustainable energy production and the potential for human suffering as a result of any and all of those are areas where malignant (and often well-funded) actors see potential opportunities. Many folks on HN here love the concept of "free speech" without restrictions because we've been drawn into a world of binary outcomes and absolutes. That's not the way the world works, and it shouldn't be used as an excuse to permit destructive behaviour for profit. I'm glad to see democratically elected representatives of the U.S. take up their responsibilities rather than pandering to corporate and oligarchical interests. I do agree with you wholeheartedly that this topic should not be flagged.

remarkEon 5y ago
>I'm glad to see democratically elected representatives of the U.S. take up their responsibilities rather than pandering to corporate and oligarchical interests. This isn't some noble representative getting a bill passed through Congress to stick it to Big Tech for profiting off of outrage media, click-bait, surveillance capitalism, etc etc (I wish it were thus). This is the executive branch of an administration colluding with those corporations to provide "guidance" on what the permitted narrative is. >Many folks on HN here love the concept of "free speech" without restrictions because we've been drawn into a world of binary outcomes and absolutes. That's not the way the world works, and it shouldn't be used as an excuse to permit destructive behaviour for profit. I mean, sure. But we aren't talking about the traditional restrictions on free speech, which have fairly well understood legal precedents and have laws about them. I don't even know what "permit destructive behaviour for profit" means, since one person's destruction is another person's creation (just look at the ad ecosystem on the internet). If 9/11 was the justification for an ever-expanding state surveillance/security apparatus, then the Pandemic will be the justification for ever-increasing collusion between the "democratic" government of an ostensibly free country and the massive multi-national tech companies who have the means to control what is and isn't said on the internet. The people who warned us about the PATRIOT Act turned out to be right.
- jka 5y ago
  > This isn't some noble representative getting a bill passed through Congress to stick it to Big Tech for profiting off of outrage media, click-bait, surveillance capitalism, etc etc (I wish it were thus). This is the executive branch of an administration colluding with those corporations to provide "guidance" on what the permitted narrative is. That's a valid perspective, yes - but I can almost guarantee you that it's a team of people using evidence, data and analysis to determine what they believe is best for their population, in co-operation (rather than collusion) with a business. A business that would quite happily take the reins of power, sure, but a business that is nonetheless under the legal remit of the U.S.
  - remarkEon 5y ago
    >but I can almost guarantee you that it's a team of people using evidence, data and analysis to determine what they believe is best for their population, in co-operation (rather than collusion) with a business. That you can't guarantee this is reason enough to not permit this activity.
    - jka 5y ago
      I sorta get where you're coming from, but not sure I completely understand. What do you think this post flagging activity will lead to, and do you feel confident that those outcomes are worse than the impact of the flagged content?
      - remarkEon 5y ago
        I think we're obviously coming from slightly different perspectives. I don't really have any trust, at all, in the ability of unelected bureaucrats to operate in a benevolent matter (especially in secret). While "eliminating COVID misinformation" may, to some, sound like a noble goal, there is no limiting principle for the use of this power. Either statutorily, or otherwise. What's to say that social media companies won't be pressured under the very same reasoning ("this misinformation leads to death!") to remove "misinformation" about gun violence, or climate change, or abortion? Since gun violence is a "public health issue", surly the same reasoning would apply. Psaki said yesterday if you're banned on one platform for COVID misinformation, you need to be banned on all. Where's the boundaries of what constitutes a social media platform? Does that include payment networks like Venmo? Do you see how easy this can cascade, both in terms of content and in terms of the in-scope platforms? >and do you feel confident that those outcomes are worse than the impact of the flagged content? I genuinely don't understand this question, but that's likely because I don't understand social media to be the proximate cause of vaccine skepticism, and I suspect it's an easy political target for missing vaccine goals. A much more likely explanation is upstream from media itself, and sits with political leaders who continue to act as if taking the vaccine doesn't change anything, or they explicitly told the public they wouldn't take it if it was developed under Trump.