3 ms·

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 peo

• 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.
    • dang 5y ago
      Please don't use HN in the flamewar style. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  • dang 5y ago