3 ms·

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 f

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.

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.