3 ms·

Backchannels can be used for good. Both parties had back channels (simultaneously), so it's not like the availability for a back channel was restricted to the p

Backchannels can be used for good. Both parties had back channels (simultaneously), so it's not like the availability for a back channel was restricted to the party in power. And so long as we are talking "requests" and not "demands", there is no issue. The lack of transparency is an issue though, which was kinda my point... informal systems don't have transparency. But backchannels can certainly be helpful. Twitter is the backchannel for customer service for many companies. But let's take HN as another case. How many times has HN been used as an informal mechanism to get Google to fix something? There are few formal methods to contact Google customer support, so having an informal method (HN) has been quite helpful. Is this an optimal method? Certainly not, but the existence of an informal communication method to request a review of a tweet is not an issue.

dmix 4y ago
Sure…backchannels can be good? But channels to do what? Google fixing broken things in the products? Sure I guess that’s good absent alternatives. A whale type customer getting a backchanel to the CEO is also good for business. Twitter using backchannels to censor what the influential parties want? I don’t see who that is valuable to. It doesn’t help Twitters business and I doubt it’s how the public expects their speech to be censored. So only really their friends at Twitter benefit? Or anoint themselves gatekeeper and public benefactor. Idk why you keep bringing up “both sides do it” as some excuse. Of course both sides have power/influence over big tech employees. Even unelected ones. It is entirely natural for established institutions and powerful individuals to have influence. That’s why you should build in protections and processes to prevent that from happening. And if you do end up doing it then be transparent… have a public list of times you censored tweets at the request of public servants and powerful individuals. It’s for the public’s good right? It’s not just about their own personal gain…right?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

dmix 4y ago

Sure…backchannels can be good? But channels to do what? Google fixing broken things in the products? Sure I guess that’s good absent alternatives. A whale type customer getting a backchanel to the CEO is also good for business. Twitter using backchannels to censor what the influential parties want? I don’t see who that is valuable to. It doesn’t help Twitters business and I doubt it’s how the public expects their speech to be censored. So only really their friends at Twitter benefit? Or anoint themselves gatekeeper and public benefactor. Idk why you keep bringing up “both sides do it” as some excuse. Of course both sides have power/influence over big tech employees. Even unelected ones. It is entirely natural for established institutions and powerful individuals to have influence. That’s why you should build in protections and processes to prevent that from happening. And if you do end up doing it then be transparent… have a public list of times you censored tweets at the request of public servants and powerful individuals. It’s for the public’s good right? It’s not just about their own personal gain…right?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]