4 ms·

Reputational cost to whom? The platforms? Due to network effects they are quasi-monopolies. The FAANGs have moved in recent years to cement their monopolies via

by ctrlp 5y ago

Reputational cost to whom? The platforms? Due to network effects they are quasi-monopolies. The FAANGs have moved in recent years to cement their monopolies via government influence. What did they have to offer in return? Political donations and censorship-on-demand. Or do you mean the bad actors are the ones initiating censoring on behalf of the platforms (via scurrilous flagging of wrongthink, or by mobbing down heterodox opinion). The platforms are taking their cues from politics (government and tech culture) and don't need the reporting system to censor people. I assume you don't mean there's a lack of reputational cost to bad actors and the bad actors are those who are being censored, as that wouldn't make sense.

bitwize 5y ago
They mean the bad actors who put Trump in office by spreading misinformation, which spread is still ongoing.
- ctrlp 5y ago
  That's quite contemptuous of half the U.S. voting population. The 75 million people who voted for Trump in 2016 might beg to differ about who/what put Trump in office. Are you equally sure no misinformation was spread to elect Biden in 2020?
  - midev 5y ago
    > That's quite contemptuous of half the U.S. voting population. Both here and worldwide, anyone that didn't vote for Trump likely has a contemptuous view of Trump and his supporters. He's arguably the stupidest person to ever hold office. He accomplished nothing but insult and denigrate people and institutions. His insecurities were pathetic, even modifying a NOAA map so he wouldn't be wrong. He's a well known con man, and the opposite of "family values". Of course people hold his supporters in contempt. > Are you equally sure no misinformation was spread to elect Biden in 2020? Of course it was.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - MaysonL 5y ago
    That's actually 2020, when he lost. In 2016 he got less than 63 million votes.
  - bitwize 5y ago
    Half the U.S. voting population also believes the Earth was created in six days, 6000 years ago. Appeal to a large segment of the population doesn't work when you're as fucked as the USA is. Trump would've gotten nowhere without the troll campaign and troll culture spawned by GamerGate. When you boil it down to its essence, the darkest period in recent American history happened because some internet people were assmad that a woman wrote a fucking video game. As for Biden, the rest of us could just look to the horrors Trump wrought and vote for the other guy in 2020. No misinformation necessary.
    - krageon 5y ago
      > American history Arguably all American (assuming you mean to refer to the US here) history is recent. In that sense, I would say their history of slavery (and more recently blatant and publicly endorsed racism) is probably a little darker than their trend of putting increasingly confused old men in power.
    - ctrlp 5y ago
      Without minimizing the cultural importance of Gamergate, you are vastly overstating its influence on the 2016 election. If you want to understand Trump in 2016, you'd be better off looking at the Tea Party and the rise of populism contra the ossified Republican establishment.
- BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
  If you see the world in such a simple view, you’re likely trapped in a misinformation bubble too.
seventytwo 5y ago
In America,the first amendment protects you from government censorship. It doesn’t protect you from censorship that occurs naturally in society or the marketplace. Freedom of speech means you have freedom from the government. It does not mean you have freedom from societal consequences or that you’re entitled to a platform or audience. There are many forms of speech which society has decided to censor. We have decided to outlaw libel, slander, perjury, dissemination of child porn or classified info, etc., and we are familiar with many which cause immediate social or business repercussions (generally being an asshole, berating waitstaff, yelling at the top of your lungs in a quiet place, any kind of unwanted speech PN private property, etc.).
- ctrlp 5y ago
  What is your opinion of public/private partnerships? What would you say if the government pressures private organizations to censor individuals? Is that still 'private' censorship? What if partisan government officials take board seats or top management positions at these platforms, and vice versus? Your depiction of First Amendment protections seems incomplete if you don't account for the reality of government by proxy. It's no surprise that the state would externalize its censorship to circumvent civil liberties protections.
  - seventytwo 5y ago
    There’s an infinite number of non-ideal permutations you could bring up. Those can be hammered out by the court system and legal precedent, or any issues can be worked by legislature or put back to the voters.
    - iammisc 5y ago
      Except the courts have failed to hammer them out due to apparently no one having standing. Even the government itself is apparently no longer allowed to bring anti trust complaints. Legislatures have been ignored recently with executive departments overriding even the federal supreme court in their attempts to exert control. And we all know how large swaths of goo voters and a surprisingly high number of democrat voters feel about the integrity of elections. Regardless of your views, this is a slow motion trainwreck

by ctrlp 5y ago

bitwize 5y ago

They mean the bad actors who put Trump in office by spreading misinformation, which spread is still ongoing.

ctrlp 5y ago
That's quite contemptuous of half the U.S. voting population. The 75 million people who voted for Trump in 2016 might beg to differ about who/what put Trump in office. Are you equally sure no misinformation was spread to elect Biden in 2020?
- midev 5y ago
  > That's quite contemptuous of half the U.S. voting population. Both here and worldwide, anyone that didn't vote for Trump likely has a contemptuous view of Trump and his supporters. He's arguably the stupidest person to ever hold office. He accomplished nothing but insult and denigrate people and institutions. His insecurities were pathetic, even modifying a NOAA map so he wouldn't be wrong. He's a well known con man, and the opposite of "family values". Of course people hold his supporters in contempt. > Are you equally sure no misinformation was spread to elect Biden in 2020? Of course it was.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- MaysonL 5y ago
  That's actually 2020, when he lost. In 2016 he got less than 63 million votes.
- bitwize 5y ago
  Half the U.S. voting population also believes the Earth was created in six days, 6000 years ago. Appeal to a large segment of the population doesn't work when you're as fucked as the USA is. Trump would've gotten nowhere without the troll campaign and troll culture spawned by GamerGate. When you boil it down to its essence, the darkest period in recent American history happened because some internet people were assmad that a woman wrote a fucking video game. As for Biden, the rest of us could just look to the horrors Trump wrought and vote for the other guy in 2020. No misinformation necessary.
  - krageon 5y ago
    > American history Arguably all American (assuming you mean to refer to the US here) history is recent. In that sense, I would say their history of slavery (and more recently blatant and publicly endorsed racism) is probably a little darker than their trend of putting increasingly confused old men in power.
  - ctrlp 5y ago
    Without minimizing the cultural importance of Gamergate, you are vastly overstating its influence on the 2016 election. If you want to understand Trump in 2016, you'd be better off looking at the Tea Party and the rise of populism contra the ossified Republican establishment.
BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
If you see the world in such a simple view, you’re likely trapped in a misinformation bubble too.

seventytwo 5y ago

In America,the first amendment protects you from government censorship. It doesn’t protect you from censorship that occurs naturally in society or the marketplace. Freedom of speech means you have freedom from the government. It does not mean you have freedom from societal consequences or that you’re entitled to a platform or audience. There are many forms of speech which society has decided to censor. We have decided to outlaw libel, slander, perjury, dissemination of child porn or classified info, etc., and we are familiar with many which cause immediate social or business repercussions (generally being an asshole, berating waitstaff, yelling at the top of your lungs in a quiet place, any kind of unwanted speech PN private property, etc.).

ctrlp 5y ago
What is your opinion of public/private partnerships? What would you say if the government pressures private organizations to censor individuals? Is that still 'private' censorship? What if partisan government officials take board seats or top management positions at these platforms, and vice versus? Your depiction of First Amendment protections seems incomplete if you don't account for the reality of government by proxy. It's no surprise that the state would externalize its censorship to circumvent civil liberties protections.
- seventytwo 5y ago
  There’s an infinite number of non-ideal permutations you could bring up. Those can be hammered out by the court system and legal precedent, or any issues can be worked by legislature or put back to the voters.
  - iammisc 5y ago
    Except the courts have failed to hammer them out due to apparently no one having standing. Even the government itself is apparently no longer allowed to bring anti trust complaints. Legislatures have been ignored recently with executive departments overriding even the federal supreme court in their attempts to exert control. And we all know how large swaths of goo voters and a surprisingly high number of democrat voters feel about the integrity of elections. Regardless of your views, this is a slow motion trainwreck