6 ms·

The loudest voice gets to define what things mean. In other cases, the voice that is able to silence and/or censor other voices gets to make those calls.

OrvalWintermute 5y ago
I'd contend that BigTech commissars currently get to define it, as they also define volume of a voice. They are more powerful than governments, and due to their downstream effects, they can bully even BigMedia.
- krapp 5y ago
  Literally nothing in your comment is true.
  - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
    The evidence is that a US President [1], however unpopular, and a US Senator [2], and multiple Congressmen/women have been censored [3] , and numerous other people, or messaging attached to their communications [4] . In some cases, unpopular causes, or causes contrary to a BigTech interest have been censored [5]. At the same time, certain terrorists have been permitted to distribute their messaging unhampered [6]. Although a national platform can be an issue, that hasn't stopped BigTech from stooping down to censor unpopular local govt [7] . In some cases, governments have colluded with BigTech to censor their political rivals [8] or to flag content that a state government found undesirable [9] Please provide your evidence to the contrary to disprove the truth of it. [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/twitter-censors-tweets-from-trump-on-saturday-morning/ar-BB1aMV19 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/twitter-censors-twee... [2] https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/dr-rand-paul-releases-video-slamming-youtube-censorship https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/dr-rand-paul-releases-video... [3] https://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/397047-big-techs-censorship-of-conservative-users-is-alive-and-well https://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/397047-big-techs-c... [4] https://infogalactic.com/info/List_of_people_censored_by_Twitter https://infogalactic.com/info/List_of_people_censored_by_Twi... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google [6] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/most-infamous-terrorists-twitter/333662/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/mo... [7] https://youtubecensorship.com/2021-08-12-15-times-big-tech-censored-local-government.html https://youtubecensorship.com/2021-08-12-15-times-big-tech-c... [8] https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/07/21/biden-white-house-admits-using-big-tech-to-silence-americans/ https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/07/21/biden-white-house-adm... [9] https://survivalmagazine.org/news/huge-dr-shiva-discovers-existence-of-the-secretive-long-fuse-report-exposes-twitter-government-collusion-as-momentous-discovery-as-pentagon-papers/ https://survivalmagazine.org/news/huge-dr-shiva-discovers-ex...
    - krapp 5y ago
      Your claims were as follows: 1) BigTech commissars currently get to define racism. First, "BigTech" isn't a thing. Despite what many right-wingers currently believe, there isn't a cabal or conspiracy involving all American tech companies, this is an ill defined term which only serves as a vague epithet and strawman enemy, like "the left" or "the gays." Second, there are no "commisars." The implication here is that tech companies have dictated the definition of racism to the population by fiat, like Communist dictators, but this clearly isn't the case. Rather, social media has caused movement from the ground up. None of the links you've provided demonstrate that racism is defined by an authoritarian conspiracy among tech companies. 2) BigTech companies are more powerful than governments. This is absurd on its face. The US could repeal Section 230 tomorrow and social media would collapse. The government could roll in with tanks and guns and burn Facebook to the ground. "BigTech" only exists to the degree and in the form that governments allow. Take a look at the recent controversy over OnlyFans. An entity more powerful than governments wouldn't be at the mercy of a payment processor, since governments, at least, can define the laws under which payment processors operate. None of the links you've provided demonstrate that any tech company is more powerful than governments. To the contrary, some show that tech companies are beholden to government. 3) due to their downstream effects, they can bully even BigMedia. I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. But none of your links prove it either. So we're left with your triggered logorrhea in this comment, where you've apparently forgotten your entire premise and decided to go on a rant about social media "censorship." This conversation has been had a thousand times on Hacker News, it's a turd eternally swirling around the frictionless fluid that is this forum. Feel free refer to any one of those, I don't even feel like pretending to care anymore, it's off topic anyway.
      - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
        I think you have responded to a large amount of evidence of past bigtech transgressions with a blanket dismissal. You provided no evidence really, just some conjecture and text. I never said there was a blanket conspiracy, I just used the term BigTech. If a group of companies operate out of the same coastal geography, and enforce a particular type of hegemony on the rest of us, there is no need for any type of conspiracy to occur. As BigTech are competitors, that would not make sense anyways. They are more likely to collaborate together on financial matters, anti-poaching, or bid rigging ad auctions, or, preference for each other's products in exchange for favors. https://www.wired.com/story/texas-accuses-google-facebook-illegal-conspiracy/ https://www.wired.com/story/texas-accuses-google-facebook-il... > The US could repeal Section 230 tomorrow and social media would collapse. The US is very divided on Section 230 and in the face of a narrow majority, where the political enemy is experiencing censorship, is not likely to take action. Although the house may flip shortly, divided government will make change even more unlikely. As soon as the victims of the censorship change to extend into more of the anti-establishment figures on the Left also, such as Tulsi Gabbard, then that too will change. > Take a look at the recent controversy over OnlyFans. An entity more powerful than governments wouldn't be at the mercy of a payment processor, since governments, at least, can define the laws under which payment processors operate. OnlyFans is not BigTech, it is a site mainly offering a large amount of pornographic content that was on the receiving end of an article from the NYTimes by Nicholas Kristoff, aka, BigMedia. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub-rape-trafficking.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub-ra... Nicholas Kristoff is considered an establishment media figure, of the ruling Authoritarian Elite. Whether he has a D or an R after his name matters little, because he is establishment. > So we're left with your triggered logorrhea in this comment, I think you need to be a little more diplomatic on HN.
sebow 5y ago
I would also add that sometimes the voice that "sounds the most reasonable" while requiring low cognitive reasoning.(Which in turn, turns into your 'loudest voice'). Notice that this means that that voice might not be correct, it's just that often people don't bother with good explanations of what/when/etc., they just whats something that validates their own view(which sadly often times leads to a negative outcome, especially when that view has been influenced before).
a_conservative 5y ago
There seems to be a recursive aspect to this. Accusations of racism are used to silence (censor) voices. From the article: Charges of “racism,” for instance, are primarily deployed against the political opponents of upwardly-mobile, highly-educated progressive white people. Even to the point of branding prominent black or brown dissenters as race-traitors (despite the reality that, on average, blacks and Hispanics tend to be significantly more socially conservative and religious than whites).
- avereveard 5y ago
  > Charges of “racism,” for instance, are primarily deployed against the political opponents of upwardly-mobile, highly-educated progressive white people. Yep. Black people get to define our vocabulary. Internet throws a fit if someone squints their eyes and talk with a Asian accent. But go "bippity boppity mamma mia" gesticulating heavily, and everyone laughs.
adamrezich 5y ago
actually it's the loudest voice with the best appeal to emotion that gets to define what things mean.
kleer001 5y ago
I would say the loudest voices and it doesn't have to be very many of them at that.

OrvalWintermute 5y ago

I'd contend that BigTech commissars currently get to define it, as they also define volume of a voice. They are more powerful than governments, and due to their downstream effects, they can bully even BigMedia.

krapp 5y ago
Literally nothing in your comment is true.
- OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  The evidence is that a US President [1], however unpopular, and a US Senator [2], and multiple Congressmen/women have been censored [3] , and numerous other people, or messaging attached to their communications [4] . In some cases, unpopular causes, or causes contrary to a BigTech interest have been censored [5]. At the same time, certain terrorists have been permitted to distribute their messaging unhampered [6]. Although a national platform can be an issue, that hasn't stopped BigTech from stooping down to censor unpopular local govt [7] . In some cases, governments have colluded with BigTech to censor their political rivals [8] or to flag content that a state government found undesirable [9] Please provide your evidence to the contrary to disprove the truth of it. [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/twitter-censors-tweets-from-trump-on-saturday-morning/ar-BB1aMV19 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/twitter-censors-twee... [2] https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/dr-rand-paul-releases-video-slamming-youtube-censorship https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/dr-rand-paul-releases-video... [3] https://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/397047-big-techs-censorship-of-conservative-users-is-alive-and-well https://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/397047-big-techs-c... [4] https://infogalactic.com/info/List_of_people_censored_by_Twitter https://infogalactic.com/info/List_of_people_censored_by_Twi... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google [6] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/most-infamous-terrorists-twitter/333662/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/mo... [7] https://youtubecensorship.com/2021-08-12-15-times-big-tech-censored-local-government.html https://youtubecensorship.com/2021-08-12-15-times-big-tech-c... [8] https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/07/21/biden-white-house-admits-using-big-tech-to-silence-americans/ https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/07/21/biden-white-house-adm... [9] https://survivalmagazine.org/news/huge-dr-shiva-discovers-existence-of-the-secretive-long-fuse-report-exposes-twitter-government-collusion-as-momentous-discovery-as-pentagon-papers/ https://survivalmagazine.org/news/huge-dr-shiva-discovers-ex...
  - krapp 5y ago
    Your claims were as follows: 1) BigTech commissars currently get to define racism. First, "BigTech" isn't a thing. Despite what many right-wingers currently believe, there isn't a cabal or conspiracy involving all American tech companies, this is an ill defined term which only serves as a vague epithet and strawman enemy, like "the left" or "the gays." Second, there are no "commisars." The implication here is that tech companies have dictated the definition of racism to the population by fiat, like Communist dictators, but this clearly isn't the case. Rather, social media has caused movement from the ground up. None of the links you've provided demonstrate that racism is defined by an authoritarian conspiracy among tech companies. 2) BigTech companies are more powerful than governments. This is absurd on its face. The US could repeal Section 230 tomorrow and social media would collapse. The government could roll in with tanks and guns and burn Facebook to the ground. "BigTech" only exists to the degree and in the form that governments allow. Take a look at the recent controversy over OnlyFans. An entity more powerful than governments wouldn't be at the mercy of a payment processor, since governments, at least, can define the laws under which payment processors operate. None of the links you've provided demonstrate that any tech company is more powerful than governments. To the contrary, some show that tech companies are beholden to government. 3) due to their downstream effects, they can bully even BigMedia. I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. But none of your links prove it either. So we're left with your triggered logorrhea in this comment, where you've apparently forgotten your entire premise and decided to go on a rant about social media "censorship." This conversation has been had a thousand times on Hacker News, it's a turd eternally swirling around the frictionless fluid that is this forum. Feel free refer to any one of those, I don't even feel like pretending to care anymore, it's off topic anyway.
    - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
      I think you have responded to a large amount of evidence of past bigtech transgressions with a blanket dismissal. You provided no evidence really, just some conjecture and text. I never said there was a blanket conspiracy, I just used the term BigTech. If a group of companies operate out of the same coastal geography, and enforce a particular type of hegemony on the rest of us, there is no need for any type of conspiracy to occur. As BigTech are competitors, that would not make sense anyways. They are more likely to collaborate together on financial matters, anti-poaching, or bid rigging ad auctions, or, preference for each other's products in exchange for favors. https://www.wired.com/story/texas-accuses-google-facebook-illegal-conspiracy/ https://www.wired.com/story/texas-accuses-google-facebook-il... > The US could repeal Section 230 tomorrow and social media would collapse. The US is very divided on Section 230 and in the face of a narrow majority, where the political enemy is experiencing censorship, is not likely to take action. Although the house may flip shortly, divided government will make change even more unlikely. As soon as the victims of the censorship change to extend into more of the anti-establishment figures on the Left also, such as Tulsi Gabbard, then that too will change. > Take a look at the recent controversy over OnlyFans. An entity more powerful than governments wouldn't be at the mercy of a payment processor, since governments, at least, can define the laws under which payment processors operate. OnlyFans is not BigTech, it is a site mainly offering a large amount of pornographic content that was on the receiving end of an article from the NYTimes by Nicholas Kristoff, aka, BigMedia. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub-rape-trafficking.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub-ra... Nicholas Kristoff is considered an establishment media figure, of the ruling Authoritarian Elite. Whether he has a D or an R after his name matters little, because he is establishment. > So we're left with your triggered logorrhea in this comment, I think you need to be a little more diplomatic on HN.

sebow 5y ago

I would also add that sometimes the voice that "sounds the most reasonable" while requiring low cognitive reasoning.(Which in turn, turns into your 'loudest voice'). Notice that this means that that voice might not be correct, it's just that often people don't bother with good explanations of what/when/etc., they just whats something that validates their own view(which sadly often times leads to a negative outcome, especially when that view has been influenced before).

a_conservative 5y ago

There seems to be a recursive aspect to this. Accusations of racism are used to silence (censor) voices. From the article: Charges of “racism,” for instance, are primarily deployed against the political opponents of upwardly-mobile, highly-educated progressive white people. Even to the point of branding prominent black or brown dissenters as race-traitors (despite the reality that, on average, blacks and Hispanics tend to be significantly more socially conservative and religious than whites).

avereveard 5y ago
> Charges of “racism,” for instance, are primarily deployed against the political opponents of upwardly-mobile, highly-educated progressive white people. Yep. Black people get to define our vocabulary. Internet throws a fit if someone squints their eyes and talk with a Asian accent. But go "bippity boppity mamma mia" gesticulating heavily, and everyone laughs.

adamrezich 5y ago

actually it's the loudest voice with the best appeal to emotion that gets to define what things mean.

kleer001 5y ago

I would say the loudest voices and it doesn't have to be very many of them at that.