4 ms·

My cynical narrative is that as progressive activists came to embrace social media censorship as a mechanism to win political battles, the underlying advocacy n

My cynical narrative is that as progressive activists came to embrace social media censorship as a mechanism to win political battles, the underlying advocacy not having ISPs meddle with the internet became harder to square with enthusiastic advocacy for censorship at the layer of the internet's actual communication applications (or basic service layer, eg. Cloudflare.) "ISPs must not oppress us, but it's fine when social media platforms do it" probably lacks mass appeal.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jquery 4y ago
[flagged]
- stale2002 4y ago
  > Last I checked Twitter was under the total control of a right wing troll. Zuckerberg isn't exactly a leftist You didn't read the post you were responding to closely enough. The original post was not about who controls which social media website. Instead, it was about whether or not individual people support social media companies censoring whatever they heck they want, and comparing that to supporting ISPs censoring whatever the heck they want. It should be obviously true that progressives, and democrats these days are more in favor of social media companies controlling their platform, compared to, say, a decade ago. "its a private company, it can do what it wants!" Is almost a catchphrase now, of democrat-aligned people on any of these topics, theses days.
  - jquery 4y ago
    >It should be obviously true that progressives, and democrats these days are more in favor of social media companies controlling their platform, compared to, say, a decade ago. I would appreciate some evidence for this claim.
    - stale2002 4y ago
      > I would appreciate some evidence for this claim. The evidence would be any time someone complains about censorship done by social media platforms, and the response is "Its a private company it can do what it wants!". Surely, you aren't going to pretend that you haven't heard people say this line, over and over and over again, in these discussions before?
      - jquery 4y ago
        To the extent progressives actually said that, it was mocking the hypocrisy of conservatives who purport to be pro-business and “anti-regulation”, demonstrating they’re only anti-regulation when it’s convenient. Surely the joke wasn’t that difficult to understand… To the extent progressives believed it, they believe people should have the right to censor hate speech, and if it’s carried out by private companies rather than the government, all the better, because the government is hogtied by the first amendment.
        stale2002 4y ago
        > Surely the joke wasn’t that difficult to understand… It started as a joke, and then became something that people actually believed. You can test this out by simply asking progressives if they think that private social media companies should be regulated in what they are allowed to moderate, or if instead they should be allowed to censor or moderate however they want, or is instead "A private company, it can do what it wants!".
- UberFly 4y ago
  "In fact it's hard to think of a single major tech company run by a leftist" You aren't trying very hard.
- aliasxneo 4y ago
  It was ironic reading this comment after another one higher up in the same thread: > Political polarization has been increasing in the US
smt88 4y ago
> "ISPs must not oppress us, but it's fine when social media platforms do it" The difference is that ISPs have no competition and that social media platforms are actively recommending things. If social media truly became "dumb pipes" and operated only on the desires of their users, I'd agree with you, but that's not the case.
- yanderekko 4y ago
  But ISPs obviously do have competition. And the desire for social media censorship goes way beyond biased recommendation engines. Based on the reaction to Musk's "zero recommendation score" proposal for hateful content, just messing around with recommendation algorithms but not going further (ie. banning the content itself from being viewed by anyone) means the fascists win.
  - smt88 4y ago
    > But ISPs obviously do have competition. This is absolutely untrue about 70+ million people in the US[1]. It's also functionally untrue for most of us who have a choice between 1-3 large companies. I live in a major US city, and my options are Comcast or AT&T. We don't even have Starlink yet. When 3-4 companies control nearly 100% of the market, there isn't any real choice. It's easy for them all to just be terrible. 1. https://ilsr.org/report-most-americans-have-no-real-choice-in-internet-providers/ https://ilsr.org/report-most-americans-have-no-real-choice-i...
    - yanderekko 4y ago
      3-4 companies isn't a monopoly. Even if there's one company people are free to move. And broadband internet competes with mobile internet. This may sound somewhat glib, but it's also glib to say that a person whose friends all primarily interact on say Facebook is not subject to comparable market power from Facebook.
      - yunwal 4y ago
        3-4 companies in a market can exist and still have 1 company be a monopoly. There’s also the issue of renters not having the ability to switch carriers because their landlords won’t let an alternate ISP install in their building. Then, if you want anything resembling high speed internet, your options are even more limited. Only 25% of zip codes in cities have more than 1 provider that provides >25mbps. So, companies can still behave like monopolies even if there’s more than 1 ISP in their region.
supriyo-biswas 4y ago
Political polarization has been increasing in the US[1], so it is entirely expected that both sides are more interested in taking steps that most disparage the other. Neutral policies that benefit both sides are not helpful in this atmosphere, and are expediently left out. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_polarization_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_polarization_in_th...
- ikekkdcjkfke 4y ago
  divide et impera
- scarface74 4y ago
  People who say “political polarization has increased” seem to forget about that whole segregation and Jim Crow era. It’s not like it’s ancient history. My still living parents grew up with much worse “polarization”

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jquery 4y ago

[flagged]

stale2002 4y ago
> Last I checked Twitter was under the total control of a right wing troll. Zuckerberg isn't exactly a leftist You didn't read the post you were responding to closely enough. The original post was not about who controls which social media website. Instead, it was about whether or not individual people support social media companies censoring whatever they heck they want, and comparing that to supporting ISPs censoring whatever the heck they want. It should be obviously true that progressives, and democrats these days are more in favor of social media companies controlling their platform, compared to, say, a decade ago. "its a private company, it can do what it wants!" Is almost a catchphrase now, of democrat-aligned people on any of these topics, theses days.
- jquery 4y ago
  >It should be obviously true that progressives, and democrats these days are more in favor of social media companies controlling their platform, compared to, say, a decade ago. I would appreciate some evidence for this claim.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    > I would appreciate some evidence for this claim. The evidence would be any time someone complains about censorship done by social media platforms, and the response is "Its a private company it can do what it wants!". Surely, you aren't going to pretend that you haven't heard people say this line, over and over and over again, in these discussions before?
    - jquery 4y ago
      To the extent progressives actually said that, it was mocking the hypocrisy of conservatives who purport to be pro-business and “anti-regulation”, demonstrating they’re only anti-regulation when it’s convenient. Surely the joke wasn’t that difficult to understand… To the extent progressives believed it, they believe people should have the right to censor hate speech, and if it’s carried out by private companies rather than the government, all the better, because the government is hogtied by the first amendment.
      - stale2002 4y ago
        > Surely the joke wasn’t that difficult to understand… It started as a joke, and then became something that people actually believed. You can test this out by simply asking progressives if they think that private social media companies should be regulated in what they are allowed to moderate, or if instead they should be allowed to censor or moderate however they want, or is instead "A private company, it can do what it wants!".
UberFly 4y ago
"In fact it's hard to think of a single major tech company run by a leftist" You aren't trying very hard.
aliasxneo 4y ago
It was ironic reading this comment after another one higher up in the same thread: > Political polarization has been increasing in the US

smt88 4y ago

> "ISPs must not oppress us, but it's fine when social media platforms do it" The difference is that ISPs have no competition and that social media platforms are actively recommending things. If social media truly became "dumb pipes" and operated only on the desires of their users, I'd agree with you, but that's not the case.

yanderekko 4y ago
But ISPs obviously do have competition. And the desire for social media censorship goes way beyond biased recommendation engines. Based on the reaction to Musk's "zero recommendation score" proposal for hateful content, just messing around with recommendation algorithms but not going further (ie. banning the content itself from being viewed by anyone) means the fascists win.
- smt88 4y ago
  > But ISPs obviously do have competition. This is absolutely untrue about 70+ million people in the US[1]. It's also functionally untrue for most of us who have a choice between 1-3 large companies. I live in a major US city, and my options are Comcast or AT&T. We don't even have Starlink yet. When 3-4 companies control nearly 100% of the market, there isn't any real choice. It's easy for them all to just be terrible. 1. https://ilsr.org/report-most-americans-have-no-real-choice-in-internet-providers/ https://ilsr.org/report-most-americans-have-no-real-choice-i...
  - yanderekko 4y ago
    3-4 companies isn't a monopoly. Even if there's one company people are free to move. And broadband internet competes with mobile internet. This may sound somewhat glib, but it's also glib to say that a person whose friends all primarily interact on say Facebook is not subject to comparable market power from Facebook.
    - yunwal 4y ago
      3-4 companies in a market can exist and still have 1 company be a monopoly. There’s also the issue of renters not having the ability to switch carriers because their landlords won’t let an alternate ISP install in their building. Then, if you want anything resembling high speed internet, your options are even more limited. Only 25% of zip codes in cities have more than 1 provider that provides >25mbps. So, companies can still behave like monopolies even if there’s more than 1 ISP in their region.

supriyo-biswas 4y ago

Political polarization has been increasing in the US[1], so it is entirely expected that both sides are more interested in taking steps that most disparage the other. Neutral policies that benefit both sides are not helpful in this atmosphere, and are expediently left out. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_polarization_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_polarization_in_th...

ikekkdcjkfke 4y ago
divide et impera
scarface74 4y ago
People who say “political polarization has increased” seem to forget about that whole segregation and Jim Crow era. It’s not like it’s ancient history. My still living parents grew up with much worse “polarization”