←back to thread

707 points patd | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
newacct583 ◴[] No.23331388[source]
Well, just off the top of my head:

* The PRC government right now

* Pretty much any government behind the iron curtain during the cold war

* The Catholic church over much of its history

...

I mean, come on. Pick any reasonably competent totalitarian regime and you'll find that one of core pillars of the support structure is precisely "control over public discourse".

So maybe in context putting a fact check link under a tweet doesn't sound so bad?

replies(1): >>23337048 #
banads ◴[] No.23337048[source]
Try again, your only example that comes close to the scale and number of users of FB (2.6B MAU), is PRC (1.4B citizens), and that does not exactly help your case that FB is too powerful.
replies(1): >>23338439 #
1. root_axis ◴[] No.23338439[source]
MAUs are not a measurement of control over an individual. For the vast majority of Facebook users, Facebook is a very small slice of their life composing only a few minutes of activity per use. If someone opens up the Facebook app for 5 minutes a month they are considered a MAU. Suggesting that browsing an app for a few minutes out of a day is comparable to authoritarian control over 1.4 billion people demonstrates a complete lack of perspective in reality.
replies(1): >>23343725 #
2. banads ◴[] No.23343725[source]
What measurement would you suggest we use to approximate the number of people whose communication is under the control of a particular organization?

>If someone opens up the Facebook app for 5 minutes a month they are considered a MAU. Suggesting that browsing an app for a few minutes out of a day is comparable to authoritarian control over 1.4 billion people demonstrates a complete lack of perspective in reality.

Your strawman is what lacks perspective of reality. The average FB user spends 30-60 minutes on Facebook each day, depending on the source.

replies(1): >>23345751 #
3. root_axis ◴[] No.23345751[source]
> What measurement would you suggest we use to approximate the number of people whose communication is under the control of a particular organization

You'd first have to a establish a definition for the term "control".

> The average FB user spends 30-60 minutes on Facebook each day

Voluntarily interacting with an app for 45 minutes a day does not in any concevibile interpretation meet the definition of "control". The user is literally in complete control of the apps they interact with on their phone or computer.

replies(1): >>23371506 #
4. banads ◴[] No.23371506{3}[source]
>You'd first have to a establish a definition for the term "control"

Let me google that for you:

>control: the power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events.