3 ms·

Our legal system (fortunately) hasn’t accepted the theory that the penalty for being popular is that you get to be nationalized. How would you feel if you threw

Our legal system (fortunately) hasn’t accepted the theory that the penalty for being popular is that you get to be nationalized. How would you feel if you threw a lot of parties in your house, and then one day the government came to you and said you now have to allow everyone to party at your house?

romwell 5y ago
Why does it matter? You can't argue by an analogy, because first you need need to argue why running a social network with 1B+ users is the same thing as throwing a house party. With great power comes great responsibility. You don't get to be "popular" for free. And if you don't like it — you don't have to pay that game.
- otterley 5y ago
  > You can't argue by an analogy Sure I can. I’m doing it right now. Of course, analogies are imperfect, but they make good teaching and argumentative tools. > You don't get to be "popular" for free. Fortunately for society, the law disagrees with you. (Also, your way has been tried in the past, and was not especially popular - to the point of revolution in certain Eastern European countries in the 1960s-1980s.)
systemvoltage 5y ago
You're making an interesting point which I resonate with - but I want to elaborate and crystalize my thoughts a bit more. I am a staunch supporter of civil rights and we should examine the extremes. Extrema 1: Social network with everyone on the planet addicted to it, it becomes impossible to avoid. Even if one doesn't want to use it, it will become a necessity to communicate to others. Twitter is an example where it is official source of information from Government agencies to local fire department, embassies, and many politicians, etc. Recently they're requiring an account (and phone number) to access what seems to be the official channels of information for many nations. With milions if not billions of users, it is a significant chunk of the entire world's population. Just like any other industry (big oil, big tobacco), big social media and big tech need to be regulated. There is a spectrum between a private forum of 10k users and a megacorp able to control election outcomes even. What's even more eggregious is that the algorithms that govern the engagement of 1B+ users is developed by people of Silicon Valley (probably 0.000001% of US population or around ~300 people give or take). In private. Closed doors. We oughta see how this is terrifying (even if I agree with their stance and moral principles). Extrema 2: Big tech merges with Gov in the business of law enforcement. A small party where government has absolutely no business gets interrupted by cops who were alerted by the "thought algorithms". These thought algorithms were developed by Gov + Big Tech by fusing various channels of information and it was deemed that this party is too pick-your-fav-niche-topic and cannot be tolerated. It is my business, my party, my friends and my agenda. No one should have the right to interrupt unless I am violating laws and I am granted due process. Obviously both extremes are encroaching civil rights of people to have privacy and access to information.
- otterley 5y ago
  Sorry, I don’t understand. Why should we engage in intellectual masturbation over hypotheticals instead of analyzing the immediate problem we have in front of our very noses? Both of these situations are largely fictional and over simplified characterizations of what’s going on. Are engagement algorithms worrisome and a problem? Sure, I’ll stipulate to that. They’re largely responsible for the tightening of social and thought circles and then amplification of racism and scientific illiteracy. Are they preventing the circulation of information outside their boundaries? No. They don’t have that kind of power. And the channels that they don’t control remain numerous and varied. There is a difference between being the default or the easiest mechanism by which information is disseminated, and being the only mechanism by which it is disseminated. This distinction matters.
tekknik 5y ago
Because I didn’t throw a party every night for multiple years in a row that invited everybody in the country then once it started getting super popular I only allowed in those that talked like me. Free speech was so important is the first amendment. It’s valued even hire than protection.
- otterley 5y ago
  The Constitution constrains what the Government can do. It doesn’t constrain what private actors like Facebook can do. It never has. Also your analogy is flawed. Facebook doesn’t do what you suggest today (“only allow in those who talk like me”). They allow almost all speech, with opposing viewpoints, different policy perspectives, different cultures, etc. Arguments happen there all the time.
  - tekknik 5y ago
    > The Constitution constrains what the Government can do. Yes, thanks for the reminder. That’s why this isn’t the gov doing and instead is the left via their means of control. That’s why there’s pending FOIA requests for this very thing. > Also your analogy is flawed. Facebook doesn’t do what you suggest today (“only allow in those who talk like me”). Only if you take it quite literally. Otherwise are you saying they don’t censor anybody that doesn’t reiterate the same thing the left is saying?
    - otterley 5y ago
      > are you saying they don’t censor anybody that doesn’t reiterate the same thing the left is saying? Yes, and there are plenty of examples of it, too. Republican governors and politicians, and right-leaning people of all levels of fame, with very few exceptions, continue to have a presence on Facebook and communicate there with their followers. Pick any Republican governor or Senator: they will be there.
      - tekknik 5y ago
        So if I go on and post “misinformation”, which is defined by the left as anything antinarative (see all the “you ain’t black” claims) then what?

romwell 5y ago

Why does it matter? You can't argue by an analogy, because first you need need to argue why running a social network with 1B+ users is the same thing as throwing a house party. With great power comes great responsibility. You don't get to be "popular" for free. And if you don't like it — you don't have to pay that game.

otterley 5y ago
> You can't argue by an analogy Sure I can. I’m doing it right now. Of course, analogies are imperfect, but they make good teaching and argumentative tools. > You don't get to be "popular" for free. Fortunately for society, the law disagrees with you. (Also, your way has been tried in the past, and was not especially popular - to the point of revolution in certain Eastern European countries in the 1960s-1980s.)

systemvoltage 5y ago

You're making an interesting point which I resonate with - but I want to elaborate and crystalize my thoughts a bit more. I am a staunch supporter of civil rights and we should examine the extremes. Extrema 1: Social network with everyone on the planet addicted to it, it becomes impossible to avoid. Even if one doesn't want to use it, it will become a necessity to communicate to others. Twitter is an example where it is official source of information from Government agencies to local fire department, embassies, and many politicians, etc. Recently they're requiring an account (and phone number) to access what seems to be the official channels of information for many nations. With milions if not billions of users, it is a significant chunk of the entire world's population. Just like any other industry (big oil, big tobacco), big social media and big tech need to be regulated. There is a spectrum between a private forum of 10k users and a megacorp able to control election outcomes even. What's even more eggregious is that the algorithms that govern the engagement of 1B+ users is developed by people of Silicon Valley (probably 0.000001% of US population or around ~300 people give or take). In private. Closed doors. We oughta see how this is terrifying (even if I agree with their stance and moral principles). Extrema 2: Big tech merges with Gov in the business of law enforcement. A small party where government has absolutely no business gets interrupted by cops who were alerted by the "thought algorithms". These thought algorithms were developed by Gov + Big Tech by fusing various channels of information and it was deemed that this party is too pick-your-fav-niche-topic and cannot be tolerated. It is my business, my party, my friends and my agenda. No one should have the right to interrupt unless I am violating laws and I am granted due process. Obviously both extremes are encroaching civil rights of people to have privacy and access to information.

otterley 5y ago
Sorry, I don’t understand. Why should we engage in intellectual masturbation over hypotheticals instead of analyzing the immediate problem we have in front of our very noses? Both of these situations are largely fictional and over simplified characterizations of what’s going on. Are engagement algorithms worrisome and a problem? Sure, I’ll stipulate to that. They’re largely responsible for the tightening of social and thought circles and then amplification of racism and scientific illiteracy. Are they preventing the circulation of information outside their boundaries? No. They don’t have that kind of power. And the channels that they don’t control remain numerous and varied. There is a difference between being the default or the easiest mechanism by which information is disseminated, and being the only mechanism by which it is disseminated. This distinction matters.

tekknik 5y ago

Because I didn’t throw a party every night for multiple years in a row that invited everybody in the country then once it started getting super popular I only allowed in those that talked like me. Free speech was so important is the first amendment. It’s valued even hire than protection.

otterley 5y ago
The Constitution constrains what the Government can do. It doesn’t constrain what private actors like Facebook can do. It never has. Also your analogy is flawed. Facebook doesn’t do what you suggest today (“only allow in those who talk like me”). They allow almost all speech, with opposing viewpoints, different policy perspectives, different cultures, etc. Arguments happen there all the time.
- tekknik 5y ago
  > The Constitution constrains what the Government can do. Yes, thanks for the reminder. That’s why this isn’t the gov doing and instead is the left via their means of control. That’s why there’s pending FOIA requests for this very thing. > Also your analogy is flawed. Facebook doesn’t do what you suggest today (“only allow in those who talk like me”). Only if you take it quite literally. Otherwise are you saying they don’t censor anybody that doesn’t reiterate the same thing the left is saying?
  - otterley 5y ago
    > are you saying they don’t censor anybody that doesn’t reiterate the same thing the left is saying? Yes, and there are plenty of examples of it, too. Republican governors and politicians, and right-leaning people of all levels of fame, with very few exceptions, continue to have a presence on Facebook and communicate there with their followers. Pick any Republican governor or Senator: they will be there.
    - tekknik 5y ago
      So if I go on and post “misinformation”, which is defined by the left as anything antinarative (see all the “you ain’t black” claims) then what?