6 ms·

Technocensorship: When Corporations Serve as a Front for Government Censors

72 points by redbar0n 3y ago

nonrandomstring 3y ago
It's worth revisiting the Constitutional philosophy of separation of church and state [0]. When technology became our new religion, it prefigured the establishment of new churches. The five giant websites that ministrate to all our earthly needs demand fresh Jeffersonian ideas. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
- engineer_22 3y ago
  That's a stretch, I don't see tech giants as religious vehicles.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    Y'know I thought that too, and even wrote a (I hope reasonably well argued) piece on why people should not throw a religious mantle over issues that can better be framed within rationalist secular ethics [0]. But then I keep seeing more and more that scares me in people's reactions to AI and what are clearly cult-like tendencies to submit before the power of technology. The very conceit of "technological determinism" [1] is already an abdication of reason. Check out Techno-Theodicy, the relation between Silicon Valley, Cosmism and transcendence, and the now old but very salient Andrew Kimbrell talk on "Cold Evil" [2]. It always starts as " a stretch" and in the blink of an eye it's "just accepted as the normal culture". I think it would behove us well to at least recognise and address this. [0] https://techwrongs.org/2023/03/06/microsoft-is-not-a-religious-choice/ https://techwrongs.org/2023/03/06/microsoft-is-not-a-religio... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_determinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_determinism [2] https://centerforneweconomics.org/publications/cold-evil-technology-and-modern-ethics/ https://centerforneweconomics.org/publications/cold-evil-tec...
    - engineer_22 3y ago
      This is an idea I haven't seen before, thanks for that. I'll be glad to read it. Unfortunately, since it's new to me, I can't provide any kind of reasoned reply, other than to send my thanks and a nice day. EDIT: That said, I'll also check out your podcast.
  - kjkjadksj 3y ago
    They do things like incorporate in ireland to not pay taxes and often have a cult of personality at the helm. Quacks like a duck and all.
birdofhermes 3y ago
It would be nice to see folks who take such a rigorous stance on the First and Second Amendments (not in this article, but in author’s book _Battlefield America_) adopt similarly rigorous and detailed readings of the other twenty-five.
- engineer_22 3y ago
  What do you mean particularly?
- sandspar 3y ago
  Are the other twenty-five under constant threat like the first two?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- bavell 3y ago
  Perhaps there are important reasons why they are #1 and #2?
  - birdofhermes 3y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights See the historical notes under proposal and ratification, in particular the table of article revisions approved in 1789. The order of ratification was contingent on a series of historical accidents and has little to do with Madison’s (or any other individual founder’s) intentions.
    - leereeves 3y ago
      The table "Approval of the Bill of Rights in Congress and the States" shows that the amendments are in the same order in the Bill of Rights as they were in Madison's original proposal, and all were ratified December 15, 1791. Some of his proposals were removed, though, and one of those was resurrected two hundred years later.
ryandrake 3y ago
[flagged]
- engineer_22 3y ago
  I must have missed that quote in the article
- EricE 3y ago
  What a disingenuous take - his web site is NOT social media, nor are the other examples you cite. Your take is about as useful as the arguments that the only way to end racism is through noble bigotry (quotas, DEI, etc.)
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    If we wade past all the dramatic language like "tyranny" and "fascism" and "authoritarian intolerance", his main point appears to be: > On paper—under the First Amendment, at least—we are technically free to speak. > In reality, however, we are now only as free to speak as a government official—or corporate entities such as Facebook, Google or YouTube—may allow. This take ignores all the other ways "we" are able to speak whatever we want, online and offline. These corporate entities are not required to publish any old thing that their users want them to publish, and those users have other ways to get their messages out, if their message is not OK on those particular corporate platforms. If "we" were actually being "muzzled" the author wouldn't even be able to publish his article and get it onto HN.
    - SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
      So in your worldview, the only time the author can actually say what he's saying, is a situation where it's already impossible for him to say it at all. I think you should consider the practical ramifications of the standard you're suggesting, even if you feel like in some abstract way it is correct. Most tyranny relies on such pedantry, e.g., "you do have freedom of thought, just not the freedom to spread your harmful ideas!", this sentence makes complete sense, but in that example, in what useful sense do you have freedom of thought?
jmull 3y ago
I agree, the government should not have a role in influencing the content moderation policies of social media networks except for things that are strictly illegal. It's depressing, though, because the only time people seem interested in this is when someone from the opposite political party is trying to influence content moderation policies. If the Biden administration put undue pressure on social media companies, that's bad. If Donald Trump as president pressures Twitter to exempt him from their content moderation, that's also bad. But you'll get very few people who will call out both things. Sadly, almost nobody seems to care about the free speech of anyone except the people they agree with.
- engineer_22 3y ago
  > Sadly, almost nobody seems to care about the free speech of anyone except the people they agree with. It's at the forefront of public conversation right now because it's an emerging issue in the tech space, but we have a long rich history of free speech cases to look back on.
devaiops9001 3y ago
ha ha this post here only scratches the surface, see what Mike Benz has to say and you'll hear some s** https://rumble.com/v4fmjiu-mike-benz-part-2-how-the-department-of-dirty-tricks-turned-on-americans.html https://rumble.com/v4fmjiu-mike-benz-part-2-how-the-departme...
derelicta 3y ago
National Security is the new Raison d'État

72 points by redbar0n 3y ago

It's worth revisiting the Constitutional philosophy of separation of church and state [0]. When technology became our new religion, it prefigured the establishment of new churches. The five giant websites that ministrate to all our earthly needs demand fresh Jeffersonian ideas. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

engineer_22 3y ago
That's a stretch, I don't see tech giants as religious vehicles.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  Y'know I thought that too, and even wrote a (I hope reasonably well argued) piece on why people should not throw a religious mantle over issues that can better be framed within rationalist secular ethics [0]. But then I keep seeing more and more that scares me in people's reactions to AI and what are clearly cult-like tendencies to submit before the power of technology. The very conceit of "technological determinism" [1] is already an abdication of reason. Check out Techno-Theodicy, the relation between Silicon Valley, Cosmism and transcendence, and the now old but very salient Andrew Kimbrell talk on "Cold Evil" [2]. It always starts as " a stretch" and in the blink of an eye it's "just accepted as the normal culture". I think it would behove us well to at least recognise and address this. [0] https://techwrongs.org/2023/03/06/microsoft-is-not-a-religious-choice/ https://techwrongs.org/2023/03/06/microsoft-is-not-a-religio... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_determinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_determinism [2] https://centerforneweconomics.org/publications/cold-evil-technology-and-modern-ethics/ https://centerforneweconomics.org/publications/cold-evil-tec...
  - engineer_22 3y ago
    This is an idea I haven't seen before, thanks for that. I'll be glad to read it. Unfortunately, since it's new to me, I can't provide any kind of reasoned reply, other than to send my thanks and a nice day. EDIT: That said, I'll also check out your podcast.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  They do things like incorporate in ireland to not pay taxes and often have a cult of personality at the helm. Quacks like a duck and all.

birdofhermes 3y ago

It would be nice to see folks who take such a rigorous stance on the First and Second Amendments (not in this article, but in author’s book _Battlefield America_) adopt similarly rigorous and detailed readings of the other twenty-five.

engineer_22 3y ago
What do you mean particularly?
sandspar 3y ago
Are the other twenty-five under constant threat like the first two?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
bavell 3y ago
Perhaps there are important reasons why they are #1 and #2?
- birdofhermes 3y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights See the historical notes under proposal and ratification, in particular the table of article revisions approved in 1789. The order of ratification was contingent on a series of historical accidents and has little to do with Madison’s (or any other individual founder’s) intentions.
  - leereeves 3y ago
    The table "Approval of the Bill of Rights in Congress and the States" shows that the amendments are in the same order in the Bill of Rights as they were in Madison's original proposal, and all were ratified December 15, 1791. Some of his proposals were removed, though, and one of those was resurrected two hundred years later.

ryandrake 3y ago

[flagged]

engineer_22 3y ago
I must have missed that quote in the article
EricE 3y ago
What a disingenuous take - his web site is NOT social media, nor are the other examples you cite. Your take is about as useful as the arguments that the only way to end racism is through noble bigotry (quotas, DEI, etc.)
- ryandrake 3y ago
  If we wade past all the dramatic language like "tyranny" and "fascism" and "authoritarian intolerance", his main point appears to be: > On paper—under the First Amendment, at least—we are technically free to speak. > In reality, however, we are now only as free to speak as a government official—or corporate entities such as Facebook, Google or YouTube—may allow. This take ignores all the other ways "we" are able to speak whatever we want, online and offline. These corporate entities are not required to publish any old thing that their users want them to publish, and those users have other ways to get their messages out, if their message is not OK on those particular corporate platforms. If "we" were actually being "muzzled" the author wouldn't even be able to publish his article and get it onto HN.
  - SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
    So in your worldview, the only time the author can actually say what he's saying, is a situation where it's already impossible for him to say it at all. I think you should consider the practical ramifications of the standard you're suggesting, even if you feel like in some abstract way it is correct. Most tyranny relies on such pedantry, e.g., "you do have freedom of thought, just not the freedom to spread your harmful ideas!", this sentence makes complete sense, but in that example, in what useful sense do you have freedom of thought?

jmull 3y ago

I agree, the government should not have a role in influencing the content moderation policies of social media networks except for things that are strictly illegal. It's depressing, though, because the only time people seem interested in this is when someone from the opposite political party is trying to influence content moderation policies. If the Biden administration put undue pressure on social media companies, that's bad. If Donald Trump as president pressures Twitter to exempt him from their content moderation, that's also bad. But you'll get very few people who will call out both things. Sadly, almost nobody seems to care about the free speech of anyone except the people they agree with.

engineer_22 3y ago
> Sadly, almost nobody seems to care about the free speech of anyone except the people they agree with. It's at the forefront of public conversation right now because it's an emerging issue in the tech space, but we have a long rich history of free speech cases to look back on.

devaiops9001 3y ago

ha ha this post here only scratches the surface, see what Mike Benz has to say and you'll hear some s** https://rumble.com/v4fmjiu-mike-benz-part-2-how-the-department-of-dirty-tricks-turned-on-americans.html https://rumble.com/v4fmjiu-mike-benz-part-2-how-the-departme...

derelicta 3y ago

National Security is the new Raison d'État