←back to thread

707 points patd | 7 comments | | HN request time: 1.29s | source | bottom
Show context
Traster ◴[] No.23322571[source]
I think this is going to be a discussion thread that is almost inevitably going to be a shitshow, but anyway:

There are people who advocate the idea that private companies should be compelled to distribute hate speech, dangerously factually incorrect information and harassment under the concept that free speech is should be applied universally rather than just to government. I don't agree, I think it's a vast over-reach and almost unachievable to have both perfect free speech on these platforms and actually run them as a viable business.

But let's lay that aside, those people who make the argument claim to be adhering to an even stronger dedication to free speech. Surely, it's clear here that having the actual head of the US government threatening to shut down private companies for how they choose to manage their platforms is a far more disturbing and direct threat against free speech even in the narrowest sense.

replies(42): >>23322601 #>>23322660 #>>23322889 #>>23322983 #>>23323095 #>>23323271 #>>23325355 #>>23327443 #>>23327459 #>>23327625 #>>23327899 #>>23327986 #>>23328982 #>>23329094 #>>23329143 #>>23329230 #>>23329237 #>>23329375 #>>23329616 #>>23329658 #>>23329911 #>>23330257 #>>23330267 #>>23330422 #>>23330438 #>>23330441 #>>23331115 #>>23331430 #>>23331436 #>>23331462 #>>23331469 #>>23331944 #>>23332090 #>>23332213 #>>23332505 #>>23332858 #>>23332905 #>>23332934 #>>23332983 #>>23333360 #>>23341099 #>>23346876 #
rmtech ◴[] No.23330441[source]
A private company that has a monopoly on speech is no longer a private company, it's essentially an unelected and unaccountable part of the permanent government.

You need to think about entities based on their properties, not the labels that are attached to them. That ought to be obvious to people who program for a living; think of a private company with a speech monopoly as the good old .txt.exe scam.

You're attaching the label "not government" to Google, but in terms of properties it is like the government. YouTube has openly admitted to manipulating video results despite it costing them money to do so. Their monopoly position is so strong that the YouTube leadership rules us like a dictatorship.

I would prefer it if these tech monopolies were simply broken up. But failing that, they need to obey the first amendment or be shut down in the US.

Europe is a different beast, but I think the UK at least should adopt the US first amendment.

replies(4): >>23330499 #>>23330816 #>>23330869 #>>23331774 #
bananabreakfast ◴[] No.23330499[source]
No company has a monopoly on speech. Especially not twitter of all places...
replies(2): >>23330746 #>>23334485 #
banads ◴[] No.23330746[source]
Has any group of people in history ever had so much control over public discourse at such a large scale as Facebook, or Twitter?
replies(3): >>23330900 #>>23331388 #>>23334187 #
root_axis ◴[] No.23330900[source]
Facebook and Twitter do not control public discourse.
replies(4): >>23330959 #>>23330988 #>>23331030 #>>23333384 #
1. banads ◴[] No.23330988[source]
Then who controls the code that their platforms run on, and how is FB able to conduct emotional manipulation experiments?

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/every...

replies(1): >>23331124 #
2. root_axis ◴[] No.23331124[source]
If you don't want to be manipulated by Facebook then don't use it. Yes, Facebook is very popular. Anyway, don't use it.
replies(2): >>23335733 #>>23337080 #
3. rmtech ◴[] No.23335733[source]
This is a silly argument. The service that Facebook offers is becoming so important that asking people not to use it is like asking people not to breathe, and over time it will become moreso.
replies(1): >>23338131 #
4. banads ◴[] No.23337080[source]
I quit FB many years ago, because I'm technically and historically literate. And yet there are billions of other people who are not, and who do use it, and this strongly effects my life

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect

5. root_axis ◴[] No.23338131{3}[source]
> The service that Facebook offers is becoming so important that asking people not to use it is like asking people not to breathe

Utterly absurd hyperbole. There are a billions of people in the world who do not use Facebook, comparing the use of Facebook to drawing breath is about as ridiculous as it gets.

replies(1): >>23341828 #
6. rmtech ◴[] No.23341828{4}[source]
It's not ridiculous. If you want to have friends, promote a brand etc in the modern world you need these networks.

The reason that activists engage in deplatforming activity is that it's effective at destroying movements; brands like Milo Yianopolous and Generation Identity were totally destroyed by deplatforming by a few key social networks.

I can provide the evidence on those if you don't believe me.

replies(1): >>23353056 #
7. root_axis ◴[] No.23353056{5}[source]
> If you want to have friends, promote a brand etc in the modern world you need these networks.

A total falsehood that is easily disproven by the many millions of people who have friends that don't use social media and the many thousands of successful companies that don't advertise on social media.