16 ms·

Big Tech Is Trying to Prevent Debate About Its Social Harms

194 points by goles 3y ago

svilen_dobrev 3y ago
funny how this new "new stuff" follows the "Smoking-is-fine" of the past.. in a "Merchants of Doubt" [0] style [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt_(film)
goles 3y ago
https://archive.is/JSaKx https://archive.is/JSaKx
skybrian 3y ago
This headline is a bit misleading. Debate about big tech's social harms has been constantly happening everywhere online and in the news for many years. It's a frequent topic of conversation. This is often facilitated using big tech's tools. But the article isn't about censorship. It seems to be about lobbying tactics in negotiations about international trade agreements that most people don't know about and have no access to.
- vlovich123 3y ago
  In other words you can have whatever discussion you want unless it can actually accomplish something, at which point powerful players start fucking with the playing field. Just because it’s not straight up censorship doesn’t mean it’s not an immoral way to play the game.
  - nicechianti 3y ago
    [dead]
  - VelesDude 3y ago
    Pretty much. The amount of discussion that goes on internally about the potential blow back on these services is very in depth and they are aware of their issues. These usually come from lower-mid level folks that can see the larger emergent picture of their actions. And then higher ups do the complete opposite and go ahead anyway because the business survival instinct kicks in and "if we don't do it, they will!". I cannot find them right now but I recall the emails at Apple between Steve/Phil/Scott etc. regarding the ability to use apps on the iPhone. Probably one of the few times where some of the folks at the top were thinking about these issues. Steve was against it because of the potential for their phone to become something entirely different than what they intended it to be AKA a highly focused easy to use phone, media system with a little web browsing. An Apple product, by Apple to be used the Apple way. But because of pressure from Android they opened up the App store because, essentially, "if we don't do it, they will be the only ones doing it.". While it worked wonders for their bottom line, you do have to wonder if long term it was the smartest move due to the blow back on it societal issues. But then, Android was already going this path so it was Apples game to lose to Google. This is one of the key features of technology, if someone else can do something to gain an advantage over their competitors, it is in the best interest for the original group to also adopt said technologies of be left behind. If they opt out, it most likely means they will not survive into the future. On a larger scale, this applies to not only those that make this tech but how people use it. You may be against smart phones for instance but if almost everyone else is using them, you are practically forced to use a smart phone because society will be shaped by them.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > "if we don't do it, they will!". Any time you hear someone justifying bad behavior with this sentiment, you know you're dealing with someone who is ethically and morally bankrupt.
      - VelesDude 3y ago
        I am 100% with you. Unfortunately, those that think like that usually go to the top because they will pull the trigger quicker than those that hold back and consider the consequences. They will always be 1st to the market. Then it just become a game of survivorship bias when thousands of folks try this, 99% get the blow back and fail but the ones that are lucky enough to ride that and weather the issues get rewarded immensely. AKA every billionaire. This is why it seems like the social media that doesn't worry about their long term issue the most seem to do the best market wise. AT least for now. "Ethics be damned, get users by any means possible!". Facebook has been very reckless about this since they had their IPO, and it has worked until folks eventually conned on to it, but that time gap is huge and the damage unknowable. We are seeing a very extreme version of this at Twitter/X at the moment, with moderation being minimized, but it looks like that may a case were they went too far to fast and it is coming back to hurt them.
  - hackernewds 3y ago
    What censorship? We're discussing the article and this on tech platforms
    - vlovich123 3y ago
      Can you understand that there's a difference between having a random conversation with a total stranger on the Internet vs organizing a motivated & well-funded effort to take action by lobbying the people that would actually be relevant? 99% of the speech on these forums is just ideation, learning about things, & maybe connecting offline with like-minded people. It has it's place and it's useful for a number of reasons, but it's not on the same playing field as swaying mass amounts of public opinion through well-funded propaganda or paying for lobbying / political reelection.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      Is HN Big Tech?
      - krapp 3y ago
        HN is owned and operated by a Silicon Valley startup incubator, so it's at least Big Tech adjacent.
        VelesDude 3y ago
        It is adjacent but HN is just far enough away for 'Big Profit' that it can still have some decent conversation.
      - hackerdude222 3y ago
        Of course it is, how would you classify it? > The valuation of Y Combinator's companies is estimated to be at least $600 billion as of January 2023.
        ethbr1 3y ago
        As more of a social network than a company? I.e. Garry Tan doesn't have direct authority in the same way that Sundar Pichai does.
  - bsenftner 3y ago
    Actually, no, we must wrap your discussion in ads and place it next to celebrity gossip, and then if the discussion includes things we don't like we'll use the advertisers and celebrities to condemn the discussion participants.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  To clarify: The article addresses secret World Trade Organization discussions about limiting member countries' abilities to regulate big tech.
throwaway5959 3y ago
It’s only a problem because they’re US companies. I don’t hear anyone complaining about how a few companies (Bayer, Syngenta, etc) basically controls the food supply (seeds).
- forgetfreeman 3y ago
  That could be a function of the content you routinely consume? Those discussions absolutely happen, they just don't usually crop up on SV incubator forum sites.
andsoitis 3y ago
> Google, Facebook, and Amazon Stunning omission of Apple and Microsoft (OpenAI).
- SSchick 3y ago
  OpenAI (relatively) hasn't been around for that long, the other 2 are more questionable.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  Microsoft isn't on the same side. Microsoft goes all over the world funding trade groups that say they want to regulate Google and Facebook, because Microsoft rightly perceives that they have a competitive weakness against them and nothing to lose by hosing up those markets through regulation. It started with FairSearch 15 years ago, only the names of the front groups have changed.
  - darby_eight 3y ago
    Microsoft is absolutely on the same side in terms of ruthless pursuit of international IP protection. I certainly don't see them acting in any overtly pro-consumer capacity.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
kmeisthax 3y ago
We need to seriously reform how treaties are entered into. I'm not going to say "all treaties are bad" but when governments are saying "we're not going to even entertain what you're asking for because we can't get out of this treaty", something has gone terribly wrong and you don't have a democracy anymore.
- bdw5204 3y ago
  The thing is any government that says "we can't get out of this treaty" is lying. There is no such thing as "international law" and all nations exist in a state of anarchy with each other. That's why they, historically speaking, have constantly waged war with each other. If a nation wishes to get out of a treaty, it can simply refuse to follow it. If other nations don't like this, they can appeal to the supreme court of nations which is called war and let might decide who is right. Treaties are, and by their nature must be, at-will contracts that exist as long as all parties to them wish for them to continue to exist. Every treaty is as worthless as the Kellogg-Briand Pact[0] which purported to outlaw war until Germany, Italy and Japan suddenly decided to stop following it and start a second world war. There are many other examples in political science where politicians have spun elaborate Gordian knots[1] that, for some reason, they pretend they cannot just cut with a common sword. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg–Briand_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg–Briand_Pact [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_Knot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_Knot
- SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
  "We can't" is, in many situations and certainly when it comes to international treaties, a polite way to say "we don't think it's worth the costs". Nobody can make a country stay in a treaty if it doesn't want to, but it often doesn't make economic sense to blow up your international trade agreements over specific policies that you might prefer to be set differently.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Never gonna happen. Treaties are how american corporations enforce US laws world wide. The "stakeholders" leverage the economic and military might of the US government via lobbying to have their interests protected. Besides, if the USA really wanted out, it would just get out. Nothing they can do about it.
jeffbee 3y ago
Article jumps off with facts not in evidence. "an issue that unites Americans across political and geographic divides is that these corporations, collectively known as “Big Tech,” have too much power over nearly every facet of our lives", it claims. Yet national opinion surveys consistently show that "Big Tech" companies are on par with things like Cheerios in terms of trust and general perception. The author later goes on to suggest that we should side with Yelp and Match.com, two of the most mendacious and evil entities to ever register a domain. In between there is a lot of other mushy thinking. This doesn't seem like the author's strongest work.
- darby_eight 3y ago
  > companies are on par with things like Cheerios in terms of trust and general perception Is this supposed to be a marker of something meaningful? General Mills is not exactly a brand that exudes trust or consumer loyalty.
  - jeffbee 3y ago
    Yes, Cheerios and Band Aids are examples of brands that are pretty much equal to Jesus in terms of popularity, trust, and good perception among the public.
kaptainscarlet 3y ago
Why would they agree to something that would put them out of business
- bamboozled 3y ago
  Because they might have empathy, ethics or morals?
Terr_ 3y ago
I feel this generalizes to: "Big X is using its lobbying power inside some countries to secretly coerce other countries into depriving their citizens of democratic options to regulate what Big X does in their borders."
- piva00 3y ago
  Which generalises even more broadly to "capital has no ethics", if there's big bucks to be made there's very little of moral considerations. We as humans failed to instill morality unto the Minotaur of capitalism, it's our collective moral failure that allows it.
  - Terr_ 3y ago
    > We as humans failed to instill morality unto the Minotaur of capitalism True, but that problem pre-dates capitalism by at least several thousand years--humanity has never managed to reliably instill lasting morality into any institution, not even those ostensibly centered on it. In that view, it's not that companies are uniquely bad, but that the environment and ecosystem[0] doesn't constrain their tendencies. [0]: Institusystem? Estabisystem? Whatever, obviously I don't mean biology.
    - piva00 3y ago
      > True, but that problem pre-dates capitalism by at least several thousand years--humanity has never managed to reliably instill lasting morality into any institution, not even those ostensibly centered on it. Completely in agreement, it's just a general disappointment I have given that we are leaps and bounds more knowledgeable than at any point previously in history, even with all that knowledge about our past, about how systems work, incentives, etc. we haven't been able to tame the beast of greed and let it roam free to destroy as it pleases. It's just my wishful thinking that we should be better by this point but we aren't, that's not reality.
monksy 3y ago
Big tech has been trying to stifle activism that doesn't help it's bottom line for a long time now. I'm curious to hear where are our crypto activists, robotics, and privacy activists that we used to have. The 3 laws of robotics used to be a hard thing that people respected. Now.. lol autonomous kill drones.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- VelesDude 3y ago
  The three laws were fine when it was theoretical and the realm of Sci-fi. But apparently as soon as the technology became mature enough, they had to be done away with to the sake of maximizing results! Ethics be dammed!

194 points by goles 3y ago

funny how this new "new stuff" follows the "Smoking-is-fine" of the past.. in a "Merchants of Doubt" [0] style [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt_(film)

goles 3y ago

https://archive.is/JSaKx https://archive.is/JSaKx

skybrian 3y ago

This headline is a bit misleading. Debate about big tech's social harms has been constantly happening everywhere online and in the news for many years. It's a frequent topic of conversation. This is often facilitated using big tech's tools. But the article isn't about censorship. It seems to be about lobbying tactics in negotiations about international trade agreements that most people don't know about and have no access to.

vlovich123 3y ago
In other words you can have whatever discussion you want unless it can actually accomplish something, at which point powerful players start fucking with the playing field. Just because it’s not straight up censorship doesn’t mean it’s not an immoral way to play the game.
- nicechianti 3y ago
  [dead]
- VelesDude 3y ago
  Pretty much. The amount of discussion that goes on internally about the potential blow back on these services is very in depth and they are aware of their issues. These usually come from lower-mid level folks that can see the larger emergent picture of their actions. And then higher ups do the complete opposite and go ahead anyway because the business survival instinct kicks in and "if we don't do it, they will!". I cannot find them right now but I recall the emails at Apple between Steve/Phil/Scott etc. regarding the ability to use apps on the iPhone. Probably one of the few times where some of the folks at the top were thinking about these issues. Steve was against it because of the potential for their phone to become something entirely different than what they intended it to be AKA a highly focused easy to use phone, media system with a little web browsing. An Apple product, by Apple to be used the Apple way. But because of pressure from Android they opened up the App store because, essentially, "if we don't do it, they will be the only ones doing it.". While it worked wonders for their bottom line, you do have to wonder if long term it was the smartest move due to the blow back on it societal issues. But then, Android was already going this path so it was Apples game to lose to Google. This is one of the key features of technology, if someone else can do something to gain an advantage over their competitors, it is in the best interest for the original group to also adopt said technologies of be left behind. If they opt out, it most likely means they will not survive into the future. On a larger scale, this applies to not only those that make this tech but how people use it. You may be against smart phones for instance but if almost everyone else is using them, you are practically forced to use a smart phone because society will be shaped by them.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > "if we don't do it, they will!". Any time you hear someone justifying bad behavior with this sentiment, you know you're dealing with someone who is ethically and morally bankrupt.
    - VelesDude 3y ago
      I am 100% with you. Unfortunately, those that think like that usually go to the top because they will pull the trigger quicker than those that hold back and consider the consequences. They will always be 1st to the market. Then it just become a game of survivorship bias when thousands of folks try this, 99% get the blow back and fail but the ones that are lucky enough to ride that and weather the issues get rewarded immensely. AKA every billionaire. This is why it seems like the social media that doesn't worry about their long term issue the most seem to do the best market wise. AT least for now. "Ethics be damned, get users by any means possible!". Facebook has been very reckless about this since they had their IPO, and it has worked until folks eventually conned on to it, but that time gap is huge and the damage unknowable. We are seeing a very extreme version of this at Twitter/X at the moment, with moderation being minimized, but it looks like that may a case were they went too far to fast and it is coming back to hurt them.
- hackernewds 3y ago
  What censorship? We're discussing the article and this on tech platforms
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    Can you understand that there's a difference between having a random conversation with a total stranger on the Internet vs organizing a motivated & well-funded effort to take action by lobbying the people that would actually be relevant? 99% of the speech on these forums is just ideation, learning about things, & maybe connecting offline with like-minded people. It has it's place and it's useful for a number of reasons, but it's not on the same playing field as swaying mass amounts of public opinion through well-funded propaganda or paying for lobbying / political reelection.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    Is HN Big Tech?
    - krapp 3y ago
      HN is owned and operated by a Silicon Valley startup incubator, so it's at least Big Tech adjacent.
      - VelesDude 3y ago
        It is adjacent but HN is just far enough away for 'Big Profit' that it can still have some decent conversation.
    - hackerdude222 3y ago
      Of course it is, how would you classify it? > The valuation of Y Combinator's companies is estimated to be at least $600 billion as of January 2023.
      - ethbr1 3y ago
        As more of a social network than a company? I.e. Garry Tan doesn't have direct authority in the same way that Sundar Pichai does.
- bsenftner 3y ago
  Actually, no, we must wrap your discussion in ads and place it next to celebrity gossip, and then if the discussion includes things we don't like we'll use the advertisers and celebrities to condemn the discussion participants.
wolverine876 3y ago
To clarify: The article addresses secret World Trade Organization discussions about limiting member countries' abilities to regulate big tech.

throwaway5959 3y ago

It’s only a problem because they’re US companies. I don’t hear anyone complaining about how a few companies (Bayer, Syngenta, etc) basically controls the food supply (seeds).

forgetfreeman 3y ago
That could be a function of the content you routinely consume? Those discussions absolutely happen, they just don't usually crop up on SV incubator forum sites.

andsoitis 3y ago

> Google, Facebook, and Amazon Stunning omission of Apple and Microsoft (OpenAI).

SSchick 3y ago
OpenAI (relatively) hasn't been around for that long, the other 2 are more questionable.
jeffbee 3y ago
Microsoft isn't on the same side. Microsoft goes all over the world funding trade groups that say they want to regulate Google and Facebook, because Microsoft rightly perceives that they have a competitive weakness against them and nothing to lose by hosing up those markets through regulation. It started with FairSearch 15 years ago, only the names of the front groups have changed.
- darby_eight 3y ago
  Microsoft is absolutely on the same side in terms of ruthless pursuit of international IP protection. I certainly don't see them acting in any overtly pro-consumer capacity.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

kmeisthax 3y ago

We need to seriously reform how treaties are entered into. I'm not going to say "all treaties are bad" but when governments are saying "we're not going to even entertain what you're asking for because we can't get out of this treaty", something has gone terribly wrong and you don't have a democracy anymore.

bdw5204 3y ago
The thing is any government that says "we can't get out of this treaty" is lying. There is no such thing as "international law" and all nations exist in a state of anarchy with each other. That's why they, historically speaking, have constantly waged war with each other. If a nation wishes to get out of a treaty, it can simply refuse to follow it. If other nations don't like this, they can appeal to the supreme court of nations which is called war and let might decide who is right. Treaties are, and by their nature must be, at-will contracts that exist as long as all parties to them wish for them to continue to exist. Every treaty is as worthless as the Kellogg-Briand Pact[0] which purported to outlaw war until Germany, Italy and Japan suddenly decided to stop following it and start a second world war. There are many other examples in political science where politicians have spun elaborate Gordian knots[1] that, for some reason, they pretend they cannot just cut with a common sword. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg–Briand_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg–Briand_Pact [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_Knot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_Knot
SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
"We can't" is, in many situations and certainly when it comes to international treaties, a polite way to say "we don't think it's worth the costs". Nobody can make a country stay in a treaty if it doesn't want to, but it often doesn't make economic sense to blow up your international trade agreements over specific policies that you might prefer to be set differently.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
Never gonna happen. Treaties are how american corporations enforce US laws world wide. The "stakeholders" leverage the economic and military might of the US government via lobbying to have their interests protected. Besides, if the USA really wanted out, it would just get out. Nothing they can do about it.

jeffbee 3y ago

Article jumps off with facts not in evidence. "an issue that unites Americans across political and geographic divides is that these corporations, collectively known as “Big Tech,” have too much power over nearly every facet of our lives", it claims. Yet national opinion surveys consistently show that "Big Tech" companies are on par with things like Cheerios in terms of trust and general perception. The author later goes on to suggest that we should side with Yelp and Match.com, two of the most mendacious and evil entities to ever register a domain. In between there is a lot of other mushy thinking. This doesn't seem like the author's strongest work.

darby_eight 3y ago
> companies are on par with things like Cheerios in terms of trust and general perception Is this supposed to be a marker of something meaningful? General Mills is not exactly a brand that exudes trust or consumer loyalty.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  Yes, Cheerios and Band Aids are examples of brands that are pretty much equal to Jesus in terms of popularity, trust, and good perception among the public.

kaptainscarlet 3y ago

Why would they agree to something that would put them out of business

bamboozled 3y ago
Because they might have empathy, ethics or morals?

Terr_ 3y ago

I feel this generalizes to: "Big X is using its lobbying power inside some countries to secretly coerce other countries into depriving their citizens of democratic options to regulate what Big X does in their borders."

piva00 3y ago
Which generalises even more broadly to "capital has no ethics", if there's big bucks to be made there's very little of moral considerations. We as humans failed to instill morality unto the Minotaur of capitalism, it's our collective moral failure that allows it.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  > We as humans failed to instill morality unto the Minotaur of capitalism True, but that problem pre-dates capitalism by at least several thousand years--humanity has never managed to reliably instill lasting morality into any institution, not even those ostensibly centered on it. In that view, it's not that companies are uniquely bad, but that the environment and ecosystem[0] doesn't constrain their tendencies. [0]: Institusystem? Estabisystem? Whatever, obviously I don't mean biology.
  - piva00 3y ago
    > True, but that problem pre-dates capitalism by at least several thousand years--humanity has never managed to reliably instill lasting morality into any institution, not even those ostensibly centered on it. Completely in agreement, it's just a general disappointment I have given that we are leaps and bounds more knowledgeable than at any point previously in history, even with all that knowledge about our past, about how systems work, incentives, etc. we haven't been able to tame the beast of greed and let it roam free to destroy as it pleases. It's just my wishful thinking that we should be better by this point but we aren't, that's not reality.

monksy 3y ago

Big tech has been trying to stifle activism that doesn't help it's bottom line for a long time now. I'm curious to hear where are our crypto activists, robotics, and privacy activists that we used to have. The 3 laws of robotics used to be a hard thing that people respected. Now.. lol autonomous kill drones.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
VelesDude 3y ago
The three laws were fine when it was theoretical and the realm of Sci-fi. But apparently as soon as the technology became mature enough, they had to be done away with to the sake of maximizing results! Ethics be dammed!