6 ms·

With you up to here, but this is jumping the shark > I bet you, after the next election in the US your device will be reporting you for spreading far right or

by gpm 5y ago

With you up to here, but this is jumping the shark > I bet you, after the next election in the US your device will be reporting you for spreading far right or deep state lies, depending on who wins. The US is becoming less stable, sure [1], but there is still a very strong culture of free speech, particularly political speech. I put the odds that your device will be reporting on that within 4 years as approximately 0. The extent that you see any interference with speech today is corporations choosing not to repeat certain speech to the public. Not them even looking to scan collections of files about it, not them reporting it to the government, and the government certainly wouldn't be interested if they tried. The odds that it's reporting other crimes than child porn though, say, copyright infringement. That strikes me as not-so-low. [1] I agree with this so much that it's part of why I just quit a job that would have required me to move to the US.

efitz 5y ago
Apple has a shitty record wrt free speech. Apple hates free speech. Apple likes “curation”. They canned Parler in a heartbeat; they also police the App Store for anything naughty.
- gpm 5y ago
  Canning Parler is Apple choosing not to advertise and send you an app they don't like, i.e. it's Apple exercising it's own right to free speech. Agree or disagree with it, it's categorically different from Apple spying on what the files you have are saying (not even to or via Apple) and reporting it to the government.
  - wyager 5y ago
    Apple also disallows you from installing things without going through them, so “choosing not to advertise and send” has a lot more significance than your wording implies. It’s not like they have a curated App Store for apps they like; there’s literally no other way to add software to the device.
    - gpm 5y ago
      Right, but the fallout that prevents you from installing it is an incidental consequence of Apple choosing not to promote it and Apple choosing to use it's monopoly on app distribution as an income channel. Speech not happening because Apple didn't go out of it's way for it to create a route for it to happen without Apple being involved, isn't really that shocking or similar to Apple scanning private files. (Apple being allowed to prevent you from installing what you want on your phone is shocking from an anti-trust perspective, but not from a speech perspective).
esyir 5y ago
>but there is still a very strong culture of free speech In my opinion, that culture has been rapidly dying, chipped away by a very sizable and growing chunk that doesn't value it at all, seeing it only as a legal technicality to be sidestepped.
- bigyikes 5y ago
  I find this varies greatly depending on location. Living in California, I was convinced of the same. Living in Texas now, I’m more optimistic.
  - esyir 5y ago
    I'm not nearly as happy to hear that as you might think. California is currently the heart of power of the US tech industry, which means they hold outsized power over the rest of the US and the world. That means illiberal values growing there are going to have similarly outsized effects
    - goldenkey 5y ago
      I think you mean liberal values. The paradox of the left includes censorship, gun control, etc..
      - colordrops 5y ago
        I think your mean liberal as in tribe, and gp means liberal as in values.
      - jacoblambda 5y ago
        FYI Illiberal values aka non-liberal values (clarifying because the I is hard to read) use the word liberal in the traditional sense. Liberal values are liberty/freedom, consent of the governed, and equality before the law. All other liberal values build off of these three as a base. This implies that Non-liberal (or illiberal) values are the opposition of liberal values through censorship, gun control, etc like you mentioned. Liberals in the modern US political sense refers to Neo-liberals. Neo-liberal and liberal are two very different things which is why the term liberal value doesn't necessarily correspond to neo-liberal beliefs. Additionally, "the left" by and large does not support neo-liberalism. "The left" is violently against the aforementioned censorship, gun control, etc. Reading any socialist or communist literature will make this abundantly clear. Examples: - George Orwell on the Right to bear Arms: "The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do, they cannot give the factory worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see it stays there." - George Orwell on Freedom of Speech: "Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen." - Karl Marx on the Right to bear Arms: "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary" - Karl Marx on Freedom of Speech: "The absence of freedom of the press makes all other freedoms illusory. One form of freedom governs another just as one limb of the body does another. Whenever a particular freedom is put in question, freedom in general is put in question" - Karl Marx on Freedom of Speech: "Censorship has outlived its time; where it still exists, it will be regarded as a hateful constraint which prohibits what is openly said from being written" - Karl Marx on Freedom of Speech: "You cannot enjoy the advantages of a free press without putting up with its inconveniences. You cannot pluck the rose without its thorns!" If you want I can dig up more quotes but those are the ones that were easy to fetch and any more risks turning this into even more of a wall of text. My point being, your issues with "the left" are misdirected and are better focused towards Neo-liberalism and/or Neo-conservatism. "The left" does and has always been one of the primary guardians of liberal ideology. Hell "the left" is where a significant portion of the liberal ideology that the United States is founded on originated from.
dannyw 5y ago
Did you literally not see a former president effectively get silenced in the public sphere by 3 corporations? How can you seriously believe that these corporations (who are not subject to the first amendment, and cannot be challenged in court) won't extend and abuse this technology to tackle "domestic extremism" but broadly covering political views?
- macintux 5y ago
  > a former president effectively get silenced in the public sphere It's laughable that a man who can call a press conference at a moment's notice and get news coverage for anything he says can be "silenced" because private companies no longer choose to promote his garbage.
  - bzha 5y ago
    This is akin to saying rich people have lots of money, so why not steal from them.
    - andy_ppp 5y ago
      Well, I prefer to think of this as redistribution rather than theft. When the government pass laws to tax rich people more I think that’s good!
  - Decker87 5y ago
    He's been completely silenced. If you don't believe me, you can hear it from him next week when he's on the largest news network talking about being silenced.
    - visarga 5y ago
      Yes, because we all trust him at this point /s
      - l33t2328 5y ago
feanaro 5y ago
> but there is still a very strong culture of free speech, particularly political speech. Free speech didn't seem so important recently when the SJW crowd started mandating to censor certain words because they're offensive.
- wpietri 5y ago
  Free speech doesn't mean the speaker is immune from criticism or social consequences. If I call you a bunch of offensive names here, I'll get downvoted for sure. The comment might be hidden from most. I might get shadowbanned or totally banned, too. That was true of private spaces long before HN existed. If you're a jerk at a party, you might get thrown out. I'm sure that's been true as long as there have been parties. The only thing "the SJW crowd" has changed is which words are now seen as offensive.
  - feanaro 5y ago
    > The only thing "the SJW crowd" has changed is which words are now seen as offensive. Well, that, and also bullying thousands of well-meaning projects into doing silly renamings they didn't want or need to spend energy on. Introducing thousands of silly little bugs and problems downstream, wasting thousands of productive hours.
    - wpietri 5y ago
      Even if that were the case, which I'm skeptical of, you're missing the other side of the productivity question. One of the major shifts in acceptable language relates to inclusion, especially in regards to gender and race. Given open source's ongoing diversity problem [1], you have to reckon with all the labor lost from excluding people. [1] e.g.: https://www.wired.com/2017/06/diversity-open-source-even-worse-tech-overall/ https://www.wired.com/2017/06/diversity-open-source-even-wor...
l33t2328 5y ago
I don’t see how the US is becoming “less stable” in any meaningful sense. Can you elaborate?
- gpm 5y ago
  Both sides of the political spectrum think the other side is stupid, and evil. The gap between the two sides is getting bigger. Politicians and people (especially on the right, but to some extent on the left) are increasingly willing to cheat to remain in power. If you want some concrete examples: - Trump's attempted coup, the range of support it received, the lack of condemnation it received. - Law's allowing things like running over protestors - Law's with the transparent goal of suppressing voters - Widespread support (not unjustified IMO) for stacking the supreme court - Police refusing to enforce certain laws as a political stance (not because they legitimately think they're unlawful, just that they don't like them) - (Justified) lack of trust in the police quickly trending higher - (Justified?) lack of trust in the military to responsibly use tools you give it, and support for a functional military - (Justified?) lack of faith in the border guards and the ability to pass reasonable immigration laws, to the point where many people are instead advocating for just not controlling the southern border. Generally these (and more) all speak towards the institutions that make the US a functional country failing. The institutions that make the rules for the country are losing credibility, the forces that enforce the rules are losing credibility. Neither of those are things that a country can survive forever.
  - l33t2328 5y ago
    Calling what Trump did an attempted coup is hyperbole beyond belief. The support for packing the supreme court is mostly at the fringes of the party, and there’s always been some support. There are almost no laws with any kind of support that have transparent goals of suppressing voters. Election security laws are clearly necessary after the doubt the democrats had it was secure in 2016, and the doubts the republicans had in 2020. Laws absolving drivers of hitting protesters don’t exist. Laws absolving drivers of driving through violent rioters do, and such laws are necessary. I saw a a riot with my own eyes where a half dozen cars were flipped and destroyed, and anyone trying to drive through the intersection had people jumping on their car and smashing the windows. These laws are good.

by gpm 5y ago

efitz 5y ago

Apple has a shitty record wrt free speech. Apple hates free speech. Apple likes “curation”. They canned Parler in a heartbeat; they also police the App Store for anything naughty.

gpm 5y ago
Canning Parler is Apple choosing not to advertise and send you an app they don't like, i.e. it's Apple exercising it's own right to free speech. Agree or disagree with it, it's categorically different from Apple spying on what the files you have are saying (not even to or via Apple) and reporting it to the government.
- wyager 5y ago
  Apple also disallows you from installing things without going through them, so “choosing not to advertise and send” has a lot more significance than your wording implies. It’s not like they have a curated App Store for apps they like; there’s literally no other way to add software to the device.
  - gpm 5y ago
    Right, but the fallout that prevents you from installing it is an incidental consequence of Apple choosing not to promote it and Apple choosing to use it's monopoly on app distribution as an income channel. Speech not happening because Apple didn't go out of it's way for it to create a route for it to happen without Apple being involved, isn't really that shocking or similar to Apple scanning private files. (Apple being allowed to prevent you from installing what you want on your phone is shocking from an anti-trust perspective, but not from a speech perspective).

esyir 5y ago

>but there is still a very strong culture of free speech In my opinion, that culture has been rapidly dying, chipped away by a very sizable and growing chunk that doesn't value it at all, seeing it only as a legal technicality to be sidestepped.

bigyikes 5y ago
I find this varies greatly depending on location. Living in California, I was convinced of the same. Living in Texas now, I’m more optimistic.
- esyir 5y ago
  I'm not nearly as happy to hear that as you might think. California is currently the heart of power of the US tech industry, which means they hold outsized power over the rest of the US and the world. That means illiberal values growing there are going to have similarly outsized effects
  - goldenkey 5y ago
    I think you mean liberal values. The paradox of the left includes censorship, gun control, etc..
    - colordrops 5y ago
      I think your mean liberal as in tribe, and gp means liberal as in values.
    - jacoblambda 5y ago
      FYI Illiberal values aka non-liberal values (clarifying because the I is hard to read) use the word liberal in the traditional sense. Liberal values are liberty/freedom, consent of the governed, and equality before the law. All other liberal values build off of these three as a base. This implies that Non-liberal (or illiberal) values are the opposition of liberal values through censorship, gun control, etc like you mentioned. Liberals in the modern US political sense refers to Neo-liberals. Neo-liberal and liberal are two very different things which is why the term liberal value doesn't necessarily correspond to neo-liberal beliefs. Additionally, "the left" by and large does not support neo-liberalism. "The left" is violently against the aforementioned censorship, gun control, etc. Reading any socialist or communist literature will make this abundantly clear. Examples: - George Orwell on the Right to bear Arms: "The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do, they cannot give the factory worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see it stays there." - George Orwell on Freedom of Speech: "Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen." - Karl Marx on the Right to bear Arms: "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary" - Karl Marx on Freedom of Speech: "The absence of freedom of the press makes all other freedoms illusory. One form of freedom governs another just as one limb of the body does another. Whenever a particular freedom is put in question, freedom in general is put in question" - Karl Marx on Freedom of Speech: "Censorship has outlived its time; where it still exists, it will be regarded as a hateful constraint which prohibits what is openly said from being written" - Karl Marx on Freedom of Speech: "You cannot enjoy the advantages of a free press without putting up with its inconveniences. You cannot pluck the rose without its thorns!" If you want I can dig up more quotes but those are the ones that were easy to fetch and any more risks turning this into even more of a wall of text. My point being, your issues with "the left" are misdirected and are better focused towards Neo-liberalism and/or Neo-conservatism. "The left" does and has always been one of the primary guardians of liberal ideology. Hell "the left" is where a significant portion of the liberal ideology that the United States is founded on originated from.

dannyw 5y ago

Did you literally not see a former president effectively get silenced in the public sphere by 3 corporations? How can you seriously believe that these corporations (who are not subject to the first amendment, and cannot be challenged in court) won't extend and abuse this technology to tackle "domestic extremism" but broadly covering political views?

macintux 5y ago
> a former president effectively get silenced in the public sphere It's laughable that a man who can call a press conference at a moment's notice and get news coverage for anything he says can be "silenced" because private companies no longer choose to promote his garbage.
- bzha 5y ago
  This is akin to saying rich people have lots of money, so why not steal from them.
  - andy_ppp 5y ago
    Well, I prefer to think of this as redistribution rather than theft. When the government pass laws to tax rich people more I think that’s good!
- Decker87 5y ago
  He's been completely silenced. If you don't believe me, you can hear it from him next week when he's on the largest news network talking about being silenced.
  - visarga 5y ago
    Yes, because we all trust him at this point /s
    - l33t2328 5y ago

feanaro 5y ago

> but there is still a very strong culture of free speech, particularly political speech. Free speech didn't seem so important recently when the SJW crowd started mandating to censor certain words because they're offensive.

wpietri 5y ago
Free speech doesn't mean the speaker is immune from criticism or social consequences. If I call you a bunch of offensive names here, I'll get downvoted for sure. The comment might be hidden from most. I might get shadowbanned or totally banned, too. That was true of private spaces long before HN existed. If you're a jerk at a party, you might get thrown out. I'm sure that's been true as long as there have been parties. The only thing "the SJW crowd" has changed is which words are now seen as offensive.
- feanaro 5y ago
  > The only thing "the SJW crowd" has changed is which words are now seen as offensive. Well, that, and also bullying thousands of well-meaning projects into doing silly renamings they didn't want or need to spend energy on. Introducing thousands of silly little bugs and problems downstream, wasting thousands of productive hours.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    Even if that were the case, which I'm skeptical of, you're missing the other side of the productivity question. One of the major shifts in acceptable language relates to inclusion, especially in regards to gender and race. Given open source's ongoing diversity problem [1], you have to reckon with all the labor lost from excluding people. [1] e.g.: https://www.wired.com/2017/06/diversity-open-source-even-worse-tech-overall/ https://www.wired.com/2017/06/diversity-open-source-even-wor...

l33t2328 5y ago

I don’t see how the US is becoming “less stable” in any meaningful sense. Can you elaborate?

gpm 5y ago
Both sides of the political spectrum think the other side is stupid, and evil. The gap between the two sides is getting bigger. Politicians and people (especially on the right, but to some extent on the left) are increasingly willing to cheat to remain in power. If you want some concrete examples: - Trump's attempted coup, the range of support it received, the lack of condemnation it received. - Law's allowing things like running over protestors - Law's with the transparent goal of suppressing voters - Widespread support (not unjustified IMO) for stacking the supreme court - Police refusing to enforce certain laws as a political stance (not because they legitimately think they're unlawful, just that they don't like them) - (Justified) lack of trust in the police quickly trending higher - (Justified?) lack of trust in the military to responsibly use tools you give it, and support for a functional military - (Justified?) lack of faith in the border guards and the ability to pass reasonable immigration laws, to the point where many people are instead advocating for just not controlling the southern border. Generally these (and more) all speak towards the institutions that make the US a functional country failing. The institutions that make the rules for the country are losing credibility, the forces that enforce the rules are losing credibility. Neither of those are things that a country can survive forever.
- l33t2328 5y ago
  Calling what Trump did an attempted coup is hyperbole beyond belief. The support for packing the supreme court is mostly at the fringes of the party, and there’s always been some support. There are almost no laws with any kind of support that have transparent goals of suppressing voters. Election security laws are clearly necessary after the doubt the democrats had it was secure in 2016, and the doubts the republicans had in 2020. Laws absolving drivers of hitting protesters don’t exist. Laws absolving drivers of driving through violent rioters do, and such laws are necessary. I saw a a riot with my own eyes where a half dozen cars were flipped and destroyed, and anyone trying to drive through the intersection had people jumping on their car and smashing the windows. These laws are good.