7 ms·

Governments don’t control these massively influential communications platforms (Maybe they should?) In some ways, huge tech companies are more powerful than go

Governments don’t control these massively influential communications platforms (Maybe they should?) In some ways, huge tech companies are more powerful than governments. So why should they have the power to essentially remove ideas from public discussion?

boplicity 5y ago
> So why should they have the power to essentially remove ideas from public discussion? They don't. They never have. You're ascribing way more power to tech companies than they've ever had. That being said, the combined power of tech companies and media companies -- of which there are many -- does have the ability you're talking about. (For example, Fox, Warner, Google, Nytimes, etc.) The lines certainly have become a bit blurred, with Comcast and Verizon buying media companies though.
- ccn0p 5y ago
  I agree a single company doesn't have all the power, but for some reason they generally seem to act in concert with one another. Take for example the Hunter Biden laptop story. It was suppressed "by mistake" according to Jack himself [1]. Later, survey indicated many voters believed it was a "very important" story [2]. Another example is lab leak. Thus, yes, yes they do. [1] https://nypost.com/2021/03/25/dorsey-says-blocking-posts-hunter-biden-story-was-total-mistake/ https://nypost.com/2021/03/25/dorsey-says-blocking-posts-hun... [2] https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2022/hunter_s_laptop_from_hell_is_an_important_story_voters_sayhttps://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2022/hunter_s_laptop_from_hell_is_an_important_story_voters_say https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/gen...
  - themitigating 5y ago
    Do you have any evidence the laptop story suppression wasn't a mistake?
    - overrun11 5y ago
      Do you have evidence that it wasn't? Why do you get to decide the null hypothesis?
      - themitigating 5y ago
        Twitter claimed it was a mistake, that's all the information we have. You're claiming they are lying, you have to offer evidence to prove that claim.
        overrun11 5y ago
        You've ignored the point. Twitter made the claim that they made a mistake, should they be held to your standard that "you have to offer evidence to prove that claim."
    - the_doctah 5y ago
      I'm sorry, you think every social media company censoring a story at the same time was somehow a mistake??
  - boplicity 5y ago
    Strangely, practically everyone knows about the Hunter Biden laptop story, so no, that was certainly not very suppressed -- and you certainly did see articles about it in established media organizations, just not all of them. So, no, it was not "essentially removed" from "public discussion" as the OP claimed. In fact, your bringing up the story (which I immediately recognized) proves the point. It is indeed, part of public discussion.
    - overrun11 5y ago
      Yes now it is. It wasn't nearly as well known _before_ the election.
      - boplicity 5y ago
        There were articles about the story published by many mainstream news organizations before the election -- including the Washington Post, The New York Times, Politico, Vox, Techcrunch, CNN, CBS News, and USA Today, among others. I fail to see the "supression" of the story from the public discussion, based on the reality of the situation. Edit: The point is that the story was part of the "public discussion" -- though I understand that some people disagree with some of the articles that were part of the public discussion. Disagreement is a normal part of "discussion." The original claim I was responding to was that this story was "suppressed" from "public discussion." It was not.
        WaxedChewbacca 5y ago
        overrun11 5y ago
        You're making no distinction between the content of the coverage. The Hunter Biden laptop story was widely covered pre-election in the context of it being false or disinfo. Politico: "Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say" source: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-... NPR: "Analysis: Questionable 'N.Y. Post' Scoop Driven By Ex-Hannity Producer And Giuliani" source: https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924506867/analysis-questionable-n-y-post-scoop-driven-by-ex-hannity-producer-giuliani https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924506867/analysis-questionab... Compilation of journalists calling it disinfo: https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1440402740409110528 https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1440402740409110528 I honestly don't think I am following your argument at all. The fact that they wrongly reported on something without evidence is exactly the point.
emteycz 5y ago
What? I am not aware of a single company that is at least as powerful as the smallest government. What do you mean?
- kevingadd 5y ago
  Try paying for things at a shop or service that only accepts credit cards when you've been banned from having one. Who bans you from that? Payment processors. If all the insurance companies decide they won't insure you, how will you get health care? The government had to intervene (with the ACA) because that particular problem was so bad. People trying to immigrate often have to use email to communicate with government agencies. If gmail bans their account, they can no longer talk to the immigration agency. I've seen a couple different people have this exact problem. There are plenty of other examples. Certainly governments have the power to do all these things as well, but large influential companies can absolutely ruin your life if you get the wrong kind of attention (or in the case of automated policy decisions, get unlucky).
  - emteycz 5y ago
    This is something much different from the previous claim (that companies are as powerful as states). None of this means that the company is more powerful than any state. And regardless - no business is going to send you to prison, while the state can. No business will shoot you, while the state can. So even in this interpretation of "how much can they fuck up my life" the state wins.
    - kevingadd 5y ago
      Many of the things I cited are powers that businesses have and the US government does not have. I don't know why this is hard to understand. Businesses are free to shoot you as well, private security guards can carry guns in most parts of the US. Businesses can also send you to prison via false police reports, which is a thing that has happened periodically.
      - emteycz 5y ago
sp332 5y ago
That sounds like an argument against monopolies, not and argument against moderation.
- mab122 5y ago
  or argument *for* inter-op of those platforms (reducing network effects of monopolies)
jermaustin1 5y ago
> So why should they have the power to essentially remove ideas from public discussion? A private company is not required to publish your rants on the current state of underground mole peoples' infiltration of the highest offices of the world's governments. If you somehow get it onto the platform, and they are made aware of it, they can unpublished it. Just like the NYT is not required to post every opinion piece that is submitted to them.
- nottorp 5y ago
  > Just like the NYT is not required to post every opinion piece that is submitted to them. That worked when there were more than two platforms to post your opinions on.
  - jermaustin1 5y ago
    You say that like there aren't hundreds of social media platforms out there now and like it isn't trivial for a technical person to set up your own social media service on some "bulletproof host" in Lithuania or Russia. There isn't a dearth of social media. There are a couple of GIANT social media websites that have sprung up in the last 2 decades, but there are dozens of semi-popular niche-ier forums that cater to any rant you might want to leave.
  - rosndo 5y ago
    Today there are more platforms to post your opinions on than ever before.
    - mojzu 5y ago
      And very easy ways for people to create their own platforms/blogs with their own rules too, they almost certainly won't have the same reach as the larger platforms but it seems to be a common view that Facebook/Twitter/etc. owe people access to their platform and maximum potential audience for some reason. Personally I really don't understand how those espousing free speech principles are making arguments that seem to require other private individuals and companies to repeat/amplify speech they don't want to
zamfi 5y ago
> In some ways, huge tech companies are more powerful than governments Sure, but in other ways, they are not. They do not, for example, break the government's monopoly on force; tech companies generally cannot compel you to pay taxes or imprison you. If you make them unhappy, mostly the worst thing they can do is ignore you -- and unlike a government, they cannot force others to ignore you, and they cannot much affect your life outside of their own transactions with you. The centralization of multiple forms of power is more concerning than the mere existence of power in separate spheres. You say "maybe they should?" but collaboration between the organization that controls force and the organizations that control speech seems like an opportunity for much more substantial oppression.
wsc981 5y ago
> Governments don’t control these massively influential communications platforms (Maybe they should?) Trusted News Initiative says otherwise. Which is why all big platforms either censor or warn public on information that is counter to the Western governments narratives.
542458 5y ago
If social media companies actually had the true power to remove topics from public discussion, there would not be public discussion on increasing regulation on these companies or breaking them up.
- ccn0p 5y ago
  the key word we might be hung up on is "remove". they can't just remove, but they can sway just enough to have real social impact.
  - themitigating 5y ago
    And yet Trump was elected in 2016 and almost in 2020. Polls also indicate he would win an election between him and Biden right now. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/600146-poll-trump-leads-biden-harris-in-2024-matchups/ https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/600146-poll-trump-lead... 33% of the US population thinks the 2020 election was stolen https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-12-28/poll-a-third-of-americans-question-legitimacy-of-biden-victory-nearly-a-year-since-jan-6 https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-12-28/pol... What evidence do you have that they hold sway over society?
    - Iwan-Zotow 5y ago
      Ever heard about HB laptop?
      - themitigating 5y ago
        Yes, what about it?
        refurb 5y ago
        Well the former Democratic PAC leader now Facebook PR executive had that story pulled until such time it could be “fact checked”. Still waiting 16 months later. https://twitter.com/andymstone/status/1316395902479872000 https://twitter.com/andymstone/status/1316395902479872000

boplicity 5y ago

> So why should they have the power to essentially remove ideas from public discussion? They don't. They never have. You're ascribing way more power to tech companies than they've ever had. That being said, the combined power of tech companies and media companies -- of which there are many -- does have the ability you're talking about. (For example, Fox, Warner, Google, Nytimes, etc.) The lines certainly have become a bit blurred, with Comcast and Verizon buying media companies though.

ccn0p 5y ago
I agree a single company doesn't have all the power, but for some reason they generally seem to act in concert with one another. Take for example the Hunter Biden laptop story. It was suppressed "by mistake" according to Jack himself [1]. Later, survey indicated many voters believed it was a "very important" story [2]. Another example is lab leak. Thus, yes, yes they do. [1] https://nypost.com/2021/03/25/dorsey-says-blocking-posts-hunter-biden-story-was-total-mistake/ https://nypost.com/2021/03/25/dorsey-says-blocking-posts-hun... [2] https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2022/hunter_s_laptop_from_hell_is_an_important_story_voters_sayhttps://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2022/hunter_s_laptop_from_hell_is_an_important_story_voters_say https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/gen...
- themitigating 5y ago
  Do you have any evidence the laptop story suppression wasn't a mistake?
  - overrun11 5y ago
    Do you have evidence that it wasn't? Why do you get to decide the null hypothesis?
    - themitigating 5y ago
      Twitter claimed it was a mistake, that's all the information we have. You're claiming they are lying, you have to offer evidence to prove that claim.
      - overrun11 5y ago
        You've ignored the point. Twitter made the claim that they made a mistake, should they be held to your standard that "you have to offer evidence to prove that claim."
  - the_doctah 5y ago
    I'm sorry, you think every social media company censoring a story at the same time was somehow a mistake??
- boplicity 5y ago
  Strangely, practically everyone knows about the Hunter Biden laptop story, so no, that was certainly not very suppressed -- and you certainly did see articles about it in established media organizations, just not all of them. So, no, it was not "essentially removed" from "public discussion" as the OP claimed. In fact, your bringing up the story (which I immediately recognized) proves the point. It is indeed, part of public discussion.
  - overrun11 5y ago
    Yes now it is. It wasn't nearly as well known _before_ the election.
    - boplicity 5y ago
      There were articles about the story published by many mainstream news organizations before the election -- including the Washington Post, The New York Times, Politico, Vox, Techcrunch, CNN, CBS News, and USA Today, among others. I fail to see the "supression" of the story from the public discussion, based on the reality of the situation. Edit: The point is that the story was part of the "public discussion" -- though I understand that some people disagree with some of the articles that were part of the public discussion. Disagreement is a normal part of "discussion." The original claim I was responding to was that this story was "suppressed" from "public discussion." It was not.
      - WaxedChewbacca 5y ago
      - overrun11 5y ago
        You're making no distinction between the content of the coverage. The Hunter Biden laptop story was widely covered pre-election in the context of it being false or disinfo. Politico: "Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say" source: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-... NPR: "Analysis: Questionable 'N.Y. Post' Scoop Driven By Ex-Hannity Producer And Giuliani" source: https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924506867/analysis-questionable-n-y-post-scoop-driven-by-ex-hannity-producer-giuliani https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924506867/analysis-questionab... Compilation of journalists calling it disinfo: https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1440402740409110528 https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1440402740409110528 I honestly don't think I am following your argument at all. The fact that they wrongly reported on something without evidence is exactly the point.

emteycz 5y ago

What? I am not aware of a single company that is at least as powerful as the smallest government. What do you mean?

kevingadd 5y ago
Try paying for things at a shop or service that only accepts credit cards when you've been banned from having one. Who bans you from that? Payment processors. If all the insurance companies decide they won't insure you, how will you get health care? The government had to intervene (with the ACA) because that particular problem was so bad. People trying to immigrate often have to use email to communicate with government agencies. If gmail bans their account, they can no longer talk to the immigration agency. I've seen a couple different people have this exact problem. There are plenty of other examples. Certainly governments have the power to do all these things as well, but large influential companies can absolutely ruin your life if you get the wrong kind of attention (or in the case of automated policy decisions, get unlucky).
- emteycz 5y ago
  This is something much different from the previous claim (that companies are as powerful as states). None of this means that the company is more powerful than any state. And regardless - no business is going to send you to prison, while the state can. No business will shoot you, while the state can. So even in this interpretation of "how much can they fuck up my life" the state wins.
  - kevingadd 5y ago
    Many of the things I cited are powers that businesses have and the US government does not have. I don't know why this is hard to understand. Businesses are free to shoot you as well, private security guards can carry guns in most parts of the US. Businesses can also send you to prison via false police reports, which is a thing that has happened periodically.
    - emteycz 5y ago

sp332 5y ago

That sounds like an argument against monopolies, not and argument against moderation.

mab122 5y ago
or argument *for* inter-op of those platforms (reducing network effects of monopolies)

jermaustin1 5y ago

> So why should they have the power to essentially remove ideas from public discussion? A private company is not required to publish your rants on the current state of underground mole peoples' infiltration of the highest offices of the world's governments. If you somehow get it onto the platform, and they are made aware of it, they can unpublished it. Just like the NYT is not required to post every opinion piece that is submitted to them.

nottorp 5y ago
> Just like the NYT is not required to post every opinion piece that is submitted to them. That worked when there were more than two platforms to post your opinions on.
- jermaustin1 5y ago
  You say that like there aren't hundreds of social media platforms out there now and like it isn't trivial for a technical person to set up your own social media service on some "bulletproof host" in Lithuania or Russia. There isn't a dearth of social media. There are a couple of GIANT social media websites that have sprung up in the last 2 decades, but there are dozens of semi-popular niche-ier forums that cater to any rant you might want to leave.
- rosndo 5y ago
  Today there are more platforms to post your opinions on than ever before.
  - mojzu 5y ago
    And very easy ways for people to create their own platforms/blogs with their own rules too, they almost certainly won't have the same reach as the larger platforms but it seems to be a common view that Facebook/Twitter/etc. owe people access to their platform and maximum potential audience for some reason. Personally I really don't understand how those espousing free speech principles are making arguments that seem to require other private individuals and companies to repeat/amplify speech they don't want to

zamfi 5y ago

> In some ways, huge tech companies are more powerful than governments Sure, but in other ways, they are not. They do not, for example, break the government's monopoly on force; tech companies generally cannot compel you to pay taxes or imprison you. If you make them unhappy, mostly the worst thing they can do is ignore you -- and unlike a government, they cannot force others to ignore you, and they cannot much affect your life outside of their own transactions with you. The centralization of multiple forms of power is more concerning than the mere existence of power in separate spheres. You say "maybe they should?" but collaboration between the organization that controls force and the organizations that control speech seems like an opportunity for much more substantial oppression.

wsc981 5y ago

> Governments don’t control these massively influential communications platforms (Maybe they should?) Trusted News Initiative says otherwise. Which is why all big platforms either censor or warn public on information that is counter to the Western governments narratives.

542458 5y ago

If social media companies actually had the true power to remove topics from public discussion, there would not be public discussion on increasing regulation on these companies or breaking them up.

ccn0p 5y ago
the key word we might be hung up on is "remove". they can't just remove, but they can sway just enough to have real social impact.
- themitigating 5y ago
  And yet Trump was elected in 2016 and almost in 2020. Polls also indicate he would win an election between him and Biden right now. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/600146-poll-trump-leads-biden-harris-in-2024-matchups/ https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/600146-poll-trump-lead... 33% of the US population thinks the 2020 election was stolen https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-12-28/poll-a-third-of-americans-question-legitimacy-of-biden-victory-nearly-a-year-since-jan-6 https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-12-28/pol... What evidence do you have that they hold sway over society?
  - Iwan-Zotow 5y ago
    Ever heard about HB laptop?
    - themitigating 5y ago
      Yes, what about it?
      - refurb 5y ago
        Well the former Democratic PAC leader now Facebook PR executive had that story pulled until such time it could be “fact checked”. Still waiting 16 months later. https://twitter.com/andymstone/status/1316395902479872000 https://twitter.com/andymstone/status/1316395902479872000