Big Tech's De-Platforming Binge Highlights the Need for Web 3.0(forbes.com)
forbes.com
Big Tech's De-Platforming Binge Highlights the Need for Web 3.0
https://www.forbes.com/sites/leeorshimron/2021/01/17/big-techs-de-platforming-binge-highlights-the-need-for-web-30/
25 comments
Thankfully we still have laws of physics and the market that keep people honest. also there are always the independent thinkers who will March towards progress. things are not so bad / there is always a new hope !
I’m not sure that the capital markets are a good measurement device for censorship-resistant truth. The money supply is so distorted, specifically the huge amount of reserves held by a few banks and individuals, that most traders are making bets on those entity’s investment decisions (positive feedback) rather than price to value (negative feedback).
Oh please. They're removing people who have clearly violated their terms of service, not to mention many tenets of basic humanity.
This is like being worried about government overreach when people guilty of murder are caught and sent to prison.
This is like being worried about government overreach when people guilty of murder are caught and sent to prison.
No this is not the same, because on one hand there is a governemnent that is the emanation of the people's will, and on the other there is a private company with its own rules.
The correct analogy is biggest malls refusing entry to them, or ISPs refusing to give them service, or private healthcare companies refusing to insure them
The correct analogy is biggest malls refusing entry to them, or ISPs refusing to give them service, or private healthcare companies refusing to insure them
> worried about government overreach when people guilty of murder are caught and sent to prison
Oh please. Banning dissenting opinions off of platforms is more akin to capital punishment. Try not to make strawman equivalencies.
Oh please. Banning dissenting opinions off of platforms is more akin to capital punishment. Try not to make strawman equivalencies.
Twitter and Facebook have privatized the public square. If you're denied from them your speech is nowhere near on a level playing field with everyone else. This gives them immense political power.
Regardless of what you think about how they're using that power now, it's naive to think that they will shy from abusing it.
Regardless of what you think about how they're using that power now, it's naive to think that they will shy from abusing it.
> Twitter and Facebook have privatized the public square.
Yes, but they couldn't have done it without all the users who saw value in their services.
Frankly, I find it difficult to take seriously the people who act as though banning someone from one of these platforms is such an egregious restriction of their ability to communicate that it needs to be regulated by law. Of course, I don't actually use these services and, outside of a brief window in the 2010s, never have.
Yes, but they couldn't have done it without all the users who saw value in their services.
Frankly, I find it difficult to take seriously the people who act as though banning someone from one of these platforms is such an egregious restriction of their ability to communicate that it needs to be regulated by law. Of course, I don't actually use these services and, outside of a brief window in the 2010s, never have.
One thing no one seems to question is
"Does a sitting president who is usig provocative language and a barrage of lies, lies that are being proven false and beong fought against by public officials at all levels, needs to be de platformed?"
I think the more broader question is, how much, as a society, can we allow free speech to reign free, especially if that free speech is the basis of a constant barrage of lies, distortions and propaganda.
"Does a sitting president who is usig provocative language and a barrage of lies, lies that are being proven false and beong fought against by public officials at all levels, needs to be de platformed?"
I think the more broader question is, how much, as a society, can we allow free speech to reign free, especially if that free speech is the basis of a constant barrage of lies, distortions and propaganda.
[deleted]
The current situation is very complex.
The main issue is that people who say Trump is lying is mostly Trump's opposition.
From an observer, it becomes difficult to know what is exaggerated, what is true, and what is not.
But then if we have a due process for this, that will essentially be the ministry of truth.
If we don't, then it just looks like one side just accuses the other side endlessly.
The main issue is that people who say Trump is lying is mostly Trump's opposition.
From an observer, it becomes difficult to know what is exaggerated, what is true, and what is not.
But then if we have a due process for this, that will essentially be the ministry of truth.
If we don't, then it just looks like one side just accuses the other side endlessly.
A ministry of truth is created when you have an organization that is deplatforming and/or censoring content. That is where we are right now; a small number of big tech companies are acting as a ministry of truth.
Due process is a mechanism to check the power of large organizations. It does not create a ministry of truth, it restrains it.
In fairness to big tech; they have been restrained thus far (at least as far as the current political issues are concerned), but the lack of due process is concerning because if the ministry of truth decides to become more aggressive, there is no mechanism to restrain it.
Due process is a mechanism to check the power of large organizations. It does not create a ministry of truth, it restrains it.
In fairness to big tech; they have been restrained thus far (at least as far as the current political issues are concerned), but the lack of due process is concerning because if the ministry of truth decides to become more aggressive, there is no mechanism to restrain it.
except as we have seen , the executive has a lot of power in selection of personnel for the offices that will oversee the censorship
what if in addition to supreme court judges, Trump would have been able to create a "truth certification" body and pack it with his Betsy DeVos type cronies?
what if in addition to supreme court judges, Trump would have been able to create a "truth certification" body and pack it with his Betsy DeVos type cronies?
Just because two people say two different things doesn't mean there isn't an objective answer most of the time. He lied about his tax returns repeatedly and consistently, despite it being either obviously false (can't release them under audit bs) or disproven later when they were eventually made public.
> The main issue is that people who say Trump is lying is mostly Trump's opposition
A lot of Republican & trump supporters objected to his lies and issued public statements to that effect.
Also, it doesn't matter if the person is a trump hater, the thing that matters is the facts.
Stop the steal is the lie, because, in the numerous cases filed by trump, they have never produced any evidence.
A lot of Republican & trump supporters objected to his lies and issued public statements to that effect.
Also, it doesn't matter if the person is a trump hater, the thing that matters is the facts.
Stop the steal is the lie, because, in the numerous cases filed by trump, they have never produced any evidence.
> The main issue is that people who say Trump is lying is mostly Trump's opposition.
There are a range of fact checkers who stake their reputation on trying the best they can to avoid bias, look at those sources and you will see this is not the case.
Also, the government already gets heavily involved in determining the truth without any ministry in the form of slander and liable trials.
One of the more controversial released calls was with Georgia Republican election officials trying to tell him that there was not fraud.
There are a range of fact checkers who stake their reputation on trying the best they can to avoid bias, look at those sources and you will see this is not the case.
Also, the government already gets heavily involved in determining the truth without any ministry in the form of slander and liable trials.
One of the more controversial released calls was with Georgia Republican election officials trying to tell him that there was not fraud.
You're kinda pointing I think in the correct direction.
There are different kind of facts. In this case the fact is a legal fact. One generated via the electoral process and subject to rulings by the courts, and certification by the legislative branch.
The electoral system and the courts have ruled universally that Trump lost. That system is made up of offices held by all the various factions.
So the legal fact is Biden won the election. That's it. Saying otherwise is lying, saying it's debatable is also lying.
There are different kind of facts. In this case the fact is a legal fact. One generated via the electoral process and subject to rulings by the courts, and certification by the legislative branch.
The electoral system and the courts have ruled universally that Trump lost. That system is made up of offices held by all the various factions.
So the legal fact is Biden won the election. That's it. Saying otherwise is lying, saying it's debatable is also lying.
Problem then is: the believers of lies simply do not trust (an certain topics at least) the unbiased sources.
I've been thinking about augmenting social networks with some measure of trust (eg. express that I trust my uncle 90% when it comes to car repairs but 5% when it comes to vaccines). But then eventually, we'll see N groups again. Nothing new there.
But maybe by expressing trust(-per-topic) new misinformation will spread less quickly?
I've been thinking about augmenting social networks with some measure of trust (eg. express that I trust my uncle 90% when it comes to car repairs but 5% when it comes to vaccines). But then eventually, we'll see N groups again. Nothing new there.
But maybe by expressing trust(-per-topic) new misinformation will spread less quickly?
>The main issue is that people who say Trump is lying is mostly Trump's opposition.
It is indeed an issue that not more people are calling Trump what he is: a liar. How do we make telling the truth socially profitable again?
It is indeed an issue that not more people are calling Trump what he is: a liar. How do we make telling the truth socially profitable again?
Just reminds me that Clay Shirky forsaw these issues back in 2003 in his writings A Group is its Own Worst Enemy:
> People who work on social software are closer in spirit to economists and political scientists than they are to people making compilers. They both look like programming, but when you're dealing with groups of people as one of your run-time phenomena, that is an incredibly different practice. In the political realm, we would call these kinds of crises a constitutional crisis. It's what happens when the tension between the individual and the group, and the rights and responsibilities of individuals and groups, gets so serious that something has to be done.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160316073128/http://www.shirky...
> People who work on social software are closer in spirit to economists and political scientists than they are to people making compilers. They both look like programming, but when you're dealing with groups of people as one of your run-time phenomena, that is an incredibly different practice. In the political realm, we would call these kinds of crises a constitutional crisis. It's what happens when the tension between the individual and the group, and the rights and responsibilities of individuals and groups, gets so serious that something has to be done.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160316073128/http://www.shirky...
Web 2.0 is fine and working. Get off the monopoly platforms and make yer own websites, sillies.
This is the problem with censorship. First it’s about the people being censored. Then it’s about the people doing the censoring. Then it’s about the people that disagree with the people doing the censoring. And then everybody is afraid to disagree on anything. And then everybody has to actively agree with everything. And then nothing makes sense but everybody agrees on it, and nobody understands why. And then the whole system depends on everybody believing something ridiculous, so they create counter-narrative honeypots to catch rational thinkers.
I read “1984” when I was 15 and it just seemed kind of stupid and fantastical because I didn’t believe that people could be so illogical and I couldn’t see why the state would want to control people that way. Somehow through reading history and the news, it appears far more plausible, although the same questions loom larger. And I also have to consider the simplest answer, which is that history and the news also share the primary purpose of books such as “1984”, which is to put on a profitable form of entertainment.