4 ms·

I am completely exhausted by these large private monopolies becoming arbiters of speech. They have too much power and play too big a role in controlling our pol

I am completely exhausted by these large private monopolies becoming arbiters of speech. They have too much power and play too big a role in controlling our politics. Democracy isn't just the act of voting - it also involves everything that comes before it, and if you have massive platforms that bias their audiences through algorithmic/policy interference, it ultimately amounts to interference in our democracy. In a world where most of society's speech takes place on these platforms, we need to treat them for the common carriers they are, as UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh put it (https://shapingopinion.com/is-big-tech-a-common-carrier/ https://shapingopinion.com/is-big-tech-a-common-carrier/), and regulate them. To get more specific, this decision is going to result in Google drawing arbitrary, indefensible lines based on the perspectives their employees and leaders deem allowable. For instance, can a content producer monetize their perspective that the Pacific Northwest heatwave from June was not primarily caused by climate change? There were numerous headlines claiming that this heatwave was "virtually impossible" without climate change, quoting a paper that was not peer-reviewed. But the paper itself admitted that a record breaking heatwave would have taken place even without climate change, and this point was made by others such as Atmospheric Sciences Professor Cliff Mass at the University of Washington (https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/07/flawed-heatwave-report-leads-to-false.html https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/07/flawed-heatwave-repor...). So whose opinion is allowed in that situation? Who gets monetization that biases the world towards that perspective and who gets drowned out? Who gets a fact check or context label that casts doubt on their content and who doesn't? Apparently, the world we've accepted, is one where a small number of Silicon Valley progressive elites decide all of that for the whole world.

munk-a 5y ago
A while back a representative of one of the major US political parties said that "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." - when the government is constantly defunded more power is handed to private corporations. Somebody has the authority at the end of the day - you can't have a vacuum of authority - since the government has been restricted from actually being responsible for reasonable platform creation we've ended up in this bad timeline where mega-corps are the arbiters of speech instead.
- logicalmonster 5y ago
  > when the government is constantly defunded more power is handed to private corporations. Defunded? Please correct me I'm wrong, but I think that the overall Federal Budget has risen dramatically in this time period.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    You're correct - but that funding is being more concentrated in certain segments of the government and national programs like what could host video sharing have thus been impossible to conceive of. Also - the overall budget is a terrible thing to go by since wars cost a boatload of money.
    - logicalmonster 5y ago
      > national programs like what could host video sharing have thus been impossible to conceive of You're talking about desiring a government run video host? In theory, it's an interesting concept. But what happens when somebody starts posting objectionable, but still legal, content and one group or another starts screaming about blocking it? Seems like a slippery slope towards government censorship. > Also - the overall budget is a terrible thing to go by since wars cost a boatload of money. Please fact-check me on this, but I believe that wars are handled by separate spending bills.
      - mcphage 5y ago
        > Seems like a slippery slope towards government censorship. Luckily when it’s done by the government, that’s actually unconstitutional and you have a recourse. When it’s done by a private company, you have none.
      - munk-a 5y ago
        Yea - as mentioned by the sibling comment if a government platform tried to censor you then your first amendment rights actually are being impinged (unlike how it is with a private company which owes you no right to expression). There would be some leeway for the government to censor content that was outright dangerous but honestly a federal judge would probably refuse to hold up any bans on flat earther or climate change denial content. While both of those topics are mildly harmful to society they likely wouldn't be immediate enough for a judge. If you want free and open communication you want the government to have a (visible!) hand in it.

munk-a 5y ago

A while back a representative of one of the major US political parties said that "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." - when the government is constantly defunded more power is handed to private corporations. Somebody has the authority at the end of the day - you can't have a vacuum of authority - since the government has been restricted from actually being responsible for reasonable platform creation we've ended up in this bad timeline where mega-corps are the arbiters of speech instead.

logicalmonster 5y ago
> when the government is constantly defunded more power is handed to private corporations. Defunded? Please correct me I'm wrong, but I think that the overall Federal Budget has risen dramatically in this time period.
- munk-a 5y ago
  You're correct - but that funding is being more concentrated in certain segments of the government and national programs like what could host video sharing have thus been impossible to conceive of. Also - the overall budget is a terrible thing to go by since wars cost a boatload of money.
  - logicalmonster 5y ago
    > national programs like what could host video sharing have thus been impossible to conceive of You're talking about desiring a government run video host? In theory, it's an interesting concept. But what happens when somebody starts posting objectionable, but still legal, content and one group or another starts screaming about blocking it? Seems like a slippery slope towards government censorship. > Also - the overall budget is a terrible thing to go by since wars cost a boatload of money. Please fact-check me on this, but I believe that wars are handled by separate spending bills.
    - mcphage 5y ago
      > Seems like a slippery slope towards government censorship. Luckily when it’s done by the government, that’s actually unconstitutional and you have a recourse. When it’s done by a private company, you have none.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      Yea - as mentioned by the sibling comment if a government platform tried to censor you then your first amendment rights actually are being impinged (unlike how it is with a private company which owes you no right to expression). There would be some leeway for the government to censor content that was outright dangerous but honestly a federal judge would probably refuse to hold up any bans on flat earther or climate change denial content. While both of those topics are mildly harmful to society they likely wouldn't be immediate enough for a judge. If you want free and open communication you want the government to have a (visible!) hand in it.