U.S. Senate tech hearing becomes political tussle(reuters.com)
reuters.com
U.S. Senate tech hearing becomes political tussle
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tech-senate/who-the-hell-elected-you-us-senate-tech-hearing-becomes-political-tussle-idUSKBN27D1AH
149 comments
How so? If there's a single group that's allowed to restrict the media, then it's politicians e.g. defamation laws.
Alternately, if there's a single group that's allowed to restrict the media, it's the media.
Following that, it's the people, who can restrict the media based on what they pay attention to.
Following that, it's the people, who can restrict the media based on what they pay attention to.
How do you do that, if all the big platforms you use are beginning to censor political information that would threaten their power.
So that's the media censoring the people.
That's not what I was arguing.
I was stating that the media is in a better position to censor themselves than the government is, and that the media will follow views, so people can censor the media by paying or not paying attention.
That's not what I was arguing.
I was stating that the media is in a better position to censor themselves than the government is, and that the media will follow views, so people can censor the media by paying or not paying attention.
Besides that it really feels like across the board; politicians, pundits and the wider media have really let themselves get lost in this story. Twitter is one media company in existence at one point in American history. How it exercises editorial control feels like a bit of a minor point. Especially considering America's long history of media empires which have been far more subservient to the whims of moguls (i.e. Hearst, Murdoch, Clear Channel, etc.)
Twitter isn't a publisher that is the difference to "media". They are held to a different standard because they claim to not publish just host stuff. You cant exercise editorial control as a hostler. Thats like if a library would change the content or their books according to their own definitions of what should and should not be read by the people.
Twitter is a publisher. Anyone who controls a platform through a centralized structure is one IMO. The "host v. publisher" construction is purely courts tying themselves in knots so some can have their cake and eat it too.
Well, they are not ATM. Thats the reality.
Yeah, the gist of what he was saying probably should have been worded as "who made you king?"
Which seems to have a clear enough answer:
The billion+ active users of Twitter & Facebook, for whom these rules seem acceptable & decent.
The billion+ active users of Twitter & Facebook, for whom these rules seem acceptable & decent.
The rules are not the problem. People agree or go somewhere else. Its how they are applied. Having hacked material not allowed would be totally fine but you cant allow it once and then block it another time. Either is against the rules or not. And before creating such a rule there would need to be serious effort to figure out how to enforce it fair and if that's not possible the rule should never even be set up. This no hacked content rule for example was nonsense form the beginning. You would need to block everything instantly or at first report because you simply cant know if its hacked content. And it puts twitter in the position to judge if something is in fact hacked content or not. And by the time they decide its already all over the internet anyway because the Streisand effect is real. Its just a useless rule with no concept to implement but it opens doors to suppress something from becoming a trending topic.
It's not that straightforward. The rules are anything but obvious. It's one big echo chamber.
I'm sure Cruz understands the absurdity of what he's saying. He's not stupid or ignorant (he clerked for Rehnquist, just to give an example) and would probably agree that viewpoint-based liability shelter is unconstitutional. But at some point the Republication party decided it was a good strategy to play the victim and he's toeing the line.
He didn't say that such a person is or should be elected. Its just rhetoric, no need to imply something into it that he never said. Hes obviously aware that the first amendment can not be overruled by anyone elected or not.
Jack Dorsey seems to have lied to Cruz. He said that it was now possible to tweet the NY Post story (at 4:41):
https://youtu.be/EsE3mnzgpQM?t=281
But it apparently is not:
https://twitter.com/abigailmarone/status/1321476036211757056...
https://youtu.be/EsE3mnzgpQM?t=281
But it apparently is not:
https://twitter.com/abigailmarone/status/1321476036211757056...
"What @jack told the Senate, under oath, is false. I just tried to tweet the @nypost story alleging Biden’s CCP corruption.
Still blocked.
18 USC 1621 makes it a felony to lie under oath to the Senate."
https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1321499884919377927?s=20
Still blocked.
18 USC 1621 makes it a felony to lie under oath to the Senate."
https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1321499884919377927?s=20
> “Who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear,” Cruz said.
That's such a ridiculous thing to say. Twitter has the unanimous consent of everyone who is subject to their rules. Every Twitter user became a Twitter user by choice and no-one is going to use violence against them for no longer using Twitter or for creating an alternative. That couldn't be further from the situation with the government.
Cruz and other politicians impose their rules on people who never had a choice. The US government did not create the land it claims as its territory, it took control of it by force killing thousands of people. The government is both willing and able to use extreme violence to prevent people from avoiding it or creating alternatives to it.
A Twitter user who is angry about Twitter's censorship only has to spend a few minutes to delete their account and create an account with another service (Gab, mastodon, etc.). A US citizen who is angry about the US government's censorship have to abandon their home and be accepted by another government. Even then, the US government may still demand their money and loyalty.
That's such a ridiculous thing to say. Twitter has the unanimous consent of everyone who is subject to their rules. Every Twitter user became a Twitter user by choice and no-one is going to use violence against them for no longer using Twitter or for creating an alternative. That couldn't be further from the situation with the government.
Cruz and other politicians impose their rules on people who never had a choice. The US government did not create the land it claims as its territory, it took control of it by force killing thousands of people. The government is both willing and able to use extreme violence to prevent people from avoiding it or creating alternatives to it.
A Twitter user who is angry about Twitter's censorship only has to spend a few minutes to delete their account and create an account with another service (Gab, mastodon, etc.). A US citizen who is angry about the US government's censorship have to abandon their home and be accepted by another government. Even then, the US government may still demand their money and loyalty.
> The US government did not create the land it claims as its territory, it took control of it by force killing thousands of people.
Yeah, that's true of every nation in existence and every nation in the past. We just happen to live in a relatively peaceful time. Not too long ago, constant war and fighting for territory was all there was, and there wasn't a square mile on planet earth that blood hasn't been spilt for.
Twitter is a monopoly and has an outsized influence on politics and news today, beyond any media force in history, perhaps. They're protected by arbitrary legislation from the 90s that prevents them from being held accountable for false or defamatory statements from getting published and shared on their platform.
The whole impetus from that protection was to promote free speech. Instead, Twitter has chosen to arbitrarily and selectively mute, shadow ban, lock out, and silence those who they disagree with. I think if they are benefitting from 230 protection, they should not be allowed to engage in this kind of manipulation. Or they should be forced to federate their service with other platforms.
With Twitter, individual contributors can spend a decade building up a following of tens of thousands to millions of users, and then with a click, Twitter can take that away. I mean, I'm old enough to remember when we got the right to keep your phone number passed so that you can keep your number when you switch cell phone carriers. That sort of thing does not exist in social media. If I switch platforms, I lose my ability to communicate with my connections. That's a problem. That should be legislated away.
Yeah, that's true of every nation in existence and every nation in the past. We just happen to live in a relatively peaceful time. Not too long ago, constant war and fighting for territory was all there was, and there wasn't a square mile on planet earth that blood hasn't been spilt for.
Twitter is a monopoly and has an outsized influence on politics and news today, beyond any media force in history, perhaps. They're protected by arbitrary legislation from the 90s that prevents them from being held accountable for false or defamatory statements from getting published and shared on their platform.
The whole impetus from that protection was to promote free speech. Instead, Twitter has chosen to arbitrarily and selectively mute, shadow ban, lock out, and silence those who they disagree with. I think if they are benefitting from 230 protection, they should not be allowed to engage in this kind of manipulation. Or they should be forced to federate their service with other platforms.
With Twitter, individual contributors can spend a decade building up a following of tens of thousands to millions of users, and then with a click, Twitter can take that away. I mean, I'm old enough to remember when we got the right to keep your phone number passed so that you can keep your number when you switch cell phone carriers. That sort of thing does not exist in social media. If I switch platforms, I lose my ability to communicate with my connections. That's a problem. That should be legislated away.
> Yeah, that's true of every nation in existence and every nation in the past. We just happen to live in a relatively peaceful time. Not too long ago, constant war and fighting for territory was all there was, and there wasn't a square mile on planet earth that blood hasn't been spilt for.
Cruz is a part of the US government so my statement was about that government but it is of course applicable to all governments.
> Twitter is a monopoly and has an outsized influence on politics and news today, beyond any media force in history, perhaps.
No, Twitter is not a monopoly. Nobody is forced to use Twitter and nobody is prevented from competing with Twitter. The same is not true for the US government which Cruz is a part of.
> They're protected by arbitrary legislation from the 90s that prevents them from being held accountable for false or defamatory statements from getting published and shared on their platform.
Section 230 is no more arbitrary than any other legislation. It doesn't protect Twitter any more than it protects its competitors or anyone else who publishes contend uploaded by other people. Section 230 provides the same type of protection as the first or second amendment, protection from the government.
> The whole impetus from that protection was to promote free speech.
Then it has achieved its objective as it would be much more difficult for anyone (except maybe massive corporations) to publish user generated content without section 230.
> Instead, Twitter has chosen to arbitrarily and selectively mute, shadow ban, lock out, and silence those who they disagree with.
It's their servers. They have no obligation to host anything on them.
> I think if they are benefitting from 230 protection, they should not be allowed to engage in this kind of manipulation. Or they should be forced to federate their service with other platforms.
Force is not an appropriate response. Why don't you delete your Twitter account and setup an account with a competing service? Then you can advocate for other people to do the same thing voluntarily instead of advocating for force and coercion.
> With Twitter, individual contributors can spend a decade building up a following of tens of thousands to millions of users, and then with a click, Twitter can take that away.
You should never have used Twitter in the first place if that was a requirement. Twitter doesn't offer that security but mastodon does so you can use that instead. Other people don't have an obligation to cater to your preferences and it's wrong to force them to do that. Twitter does however allow you to pin a tweet with a link to your mastodon account so I suggest you do that if you still have a Twitter account.
> I mean, I'm old enough to remember when we got the right to keep your phone number passed so that you can keep your number when you switch cell phone carriers. That sort of thing does not exist in social media. If I switch platforms, I lose my ability to communicate with my connections. That's a problem. That should be legislated away.
No, force is not the answer to non-violent problems. Please explore peaceful and voluntary solutions to your problems before imposing your will on others.
Cruz is a part of the US government so my statement was about that government but it is of course applicable to all governments.
> Twitter is a monopoly and has an outsized influence on politics and news today, beyond any media force in history, perhaps.
No, Twitter is not a monopoly. Nobody is forced to use Twitter and nobody is prevented from competing with Twitter. The same is not true for the US government which Cruz is a part of.
> They're protected by arbitrary legislation from the 90s that prevents them from being held accountable for false or defamatory statements from getting published and shared on their platform.
Section 230 is no more arbitrary than any other legislation. It doesn't protect Twitter any more than it protects its competitors or anyone else who publishes contend uploaded by other people. Section 230 provides the same type of protection as the first or second amendment, protection from the government.
> The whole impetus from that protection was to promote free speech.
Then it has achieved its objective as it would be much more difficult for anyone (except maybe massive corporations) to publish user generated content without section 230.
> Instead, Twitter has chosen to arbitrarily and selectively mute, shadow ban, lock out, and silence those who they disagree with.
It's their servers. They have no obligation to host anything on them.
> I think if they are benefitting from 230 protection, they should not be allowed to engage in this kind of manipulation. Or they should be forced to federate their service with other platforms.
Force is not an appropriate response. Why don't you delete your Twitter account and setup an account with a competing service? Then you can advocate for other people to do the same thing voluntarily instead of advocating for force and coercion.
> With Twitter, individual contributors can spend a decade building up a following of tens of thousands to millions of users, and then with a click, Twitter can take that away.
You should never have used Twitter in the first place if that was a requirement. Twitter doesn't offer that security but mastodon does so you can use that instead. Other people don't have an obligation to cater to your preferences and it's wrong to force them to do that. Twitter does however allow you to pin a tweet with a link to your mastodon account so I suggest you do that if you still have a Twitter account.
> I mean, I'm old enough to remember when we got the right to keep your phone number passed so that you can keep your number when you switch cell phone carriers. That sort of thing does not exist in social media. If I switch platforms, I lose my ability to communicate with my connections. That's a problem. That should be legislated away.
No, force is not the answer to non-violent problems. Please explore peaceful and voluntary solutions to your problems before imposing your will on others.
> It doesn't protect Twitter any more than it protects its competitors or anyone else who publishes contend uploaded by other people.
That's technically true, but practically, I'm not so sure. Section 230 created the conditions for the high level of online centralization and corporate-driven censorship we see now.
> Force is not the answer to non-violent problems.
I agree with this in general, but the first use of legislative "force" was the Congressional decree that libel and slander arguments against internet platforms will not be entertained in American courts. Is it okay to "force" citizens to endure violations of their rights without legal recourse? Does the justification for applying this "force" still apply in 2020?
That's technically true, but practically, I'm not so sure. Section 230 created the conditions for the high level of online centralization and corporate-driven censorship we see now.
> Force is not the answer to non-violent problems.
I agree with this in general, but the first use of legislative "force" was the Congressional decree that libel and slander arguments against internet platforms will not be entertained in American courts. Is it okay to "force" citizens to endure violations of their rights without legal recourse? Does the justification for applying this "force" still apply in 2020?
Yes, it's a monopoly. No one is forced to use electricity but people don't really have much of a choice when it comes to power providers. If you want to build an audience by micro blogging there is no other platform that comes close to Twitter's reach. They have almost the entire market.
Section 230 protects Twitter a great deal, in a way that neither Fox nor CNN nor any other news organization gets. When those organizations publish false information they can be sued. Twitter cannot thanks to 230. That's a huge advantage. And their meddling in free speech violates the impetus for the 230 legislation in the first place. If they are going to meddle, they don't deserve protection from liability.
If it's useless legislation in your opinion, let's just get rid of it and see what the lawyers do with Twitter. Is that fair, in your mind? It's fair in mine.
Section 230 protects Twitter a great deal, in a way that neither Fox nor CNN nor any other news organization gets. When those organizations publish false information they can be sued. Twitter cannot thanks to 230. That's a huge advantage. And their meddling in free speech violates the impetus for the 230 legislation in the first place. If they are going to meddle, they don't deserve protection from liability.
If it's useless legislation in your opinion, let's just get rid of it and see what the lawyers do with Twitter. Is that fair, in your mind? It's fair in mine.
At some point, the political leaders of the world are going to have to take a side. Either online social networks are publishers, or they are common carriers, or they are something else and that something needs to be defined with sufficient clarity for everyone to know where they stand and what their rights and responsibilities are.
If the social networks are to be considered publishers, they can properly be held accountable for the information they propagate. That has to remain true whether the information is blatantly untrue political propaganda and climate change denial and anti-vaccination conspiracy theories or child abuse images and calls for violent protest and revenge porn. But the services also have to have full editorial rights to go along with that responsibility, and if the biggest loudspeakers on the planet choose, for example, not to propagate someone's political speech during an election campaign because the operators of those services don't like the politicians, that's their right.
Alternatively, if the services are to be considered common carriers, we go to the other extreme. They aren't responsible for anything transmitted over their network, whether good or bad. They are a mere conduit for information, no different to a phone service or postal mail or the crazy guy shouting in the pub at the end of the night or the Internet itself for that matter. They have to be impartial, including passing on material they don't necessarily like or agree with, without interference or comment. But then the services shouldn't be forever accused of not doing enough to combat whatever this season's political Big Bad is, regardless of the cost or even technical practicality of doing something else about that issue. Censorship is not their responsibility, and enforcing laws against criminal behaviour online is still the responsibility of government through normal law enforcement agencies and judicial processes.
Those are the two classical models for big data shifters within most of our legal systems today, at least in the relatively democratic West. If governments want a third model instead, the politicians need to own the issue for once and actually say what they want so the tech firms can do it (or stop trading, or relocate to a more favourable environment, if what is demanded is too unreasonable or unrealistic). But of course then the frequent contradictions in political comment on these networks would be undermined and they could no longer be turned into the fall guys for everything bad that happens online so politicians who haven't managed to deal with difficult issues can save face.
I am no big fan of any of these social networks, and I do personally think that much stronger regulation of big tech firms is long overdue, for the benefit of all the ordinary people whose lives are affected by them. But I also believe in fairness and transparency, particularly when it comes to who is legally required to do what and who is legally responsible for what. It's really tiresome to see politicians who wouldn't know an encryption algorithm if you handed them a paper with the algorithm's name in inch-high letters on the cover trying to lecture representatives of businesses that, for all their many failings and problems, are at least doing something that some real people find useful.
If the social networks are to be considered publishers, they can properly be held accountable for the information they propagate. That has to remain true whether the information is blatantly untrue political propaganda and climate change denial and anti-vaccination conspiracy theories or child abuse images and calls for violent protest and revenge porn. But the services also have to have full editorial rights to go along with that responsibility, and if the biggest loudspeakers on the planet choose, for example, not to propagate someone's political speech during an election campaign because the operators of those services don't like the politicians, that's their right.
Alternatively, if the services are to be considered common carriers, we go to the other extreme. They aren't responsible for anything transmitted over their network, whether good or bad. They are a mere conduit for information, no different to a phone service or postal mail or the crazy guy shouting in the pub at the end of the night or the Internet itself for that matter. They have to be impartial, including passing on material they don't necessarily like or agree with, without interference or comment. But then the services shouldn't be forever accused of not doing enough to combat whatever this season's political Big Bad is, regardless of the cost or even technical practicality of doing something else about that issue. Censorship is not their responsibility, and enforcing laws against criminal behaviour online is still the responsibility of government through normal law enforcement agencies and judicial processes.
Those are the two classical models for big data shifters within most of our legal systems today, at least in the relatively democratic West. If governments want a third model instead, the politicians need to own the issue for once and actually say what they want so the tech firms can do it (or stop trading, or relocate to a more favourable environment, if what is demanded is too unreasonable or unrealistic). But of course then the frequent contradictions in political comment on these networks would be undermined and they could no longer be turned into the fall guys for everything bad that happens online so politicians who haven't managed to deal with difficult issues can save face.
I am no big fan of any of these social networks, and I do personally think that much stronger regulation of big tech firms is long overdue, for the benefit of all the ordinary people whose lives are affected by them. But I also believe in fairness and transparency, particularly when it comes to who is legally required to do what and who is legally responsible for what. It's really tiresome to see politicians who wouldn't know an encryption algorithm if you handed them a paper with the algorithm's name in inch-high letters on the cover trying to lecture representatives of businesses that, for all their many failings and problems, are at least doing something that some real people find useful.
I've learned over the years that you can learn a lot about a person's true intentions regarding an issue by noting how they otherwise engage with the issue. In this example, Cruz is obviously angry about what editorial control was exercised rather than that it was exercised at all. Given that I haven't seen him railing at Rupert Murdoch or Sinclair for its creeping monopoly of local radio.
When's the last time an entire news cycle was influenced by what was said on local radio?
Sinclair's effect of influence is distributed rather than centralized. The two things are asymmetric but that does not mean they aren't both powerful.
Realistically speaking social media companies should be regulated as public utilities. That's just recognizing the fact that they are natural monopolies. Saying "delete your account, and practically ostracize yourself from public discourse into irrelevance" makes as much sense as saying "you don't like your water company? just use another one". Technically we could live in a society in which this is true, but in practice we don't.
I'm a big fan of public utilities but those things are light years apart.
Water 1 You must have clean water. 2 You cannot feasibly participate in some other water gathering project in your municipality. 3 Another water company cannot establish itself in your municipality
Social Media 1 You do not need social media, there are many healthy ways to stay connected to friends and family 2 You have many choices of social networks where you can spend your time 3 The longest lived major social networks is like 10 or 15 years old and we really don't have any idea how penetrable the market is long term.
Water 1 You must have clean water. 2 You cannot feasibly participate in some other water gathering project in your municipality. 3 Another water company cannot establish itself in your municipality
Social Media 1 You do not need social media, there are many healthy ways to stay connected to friends and family 2 You have many choices of social networks where you can spend your time 3 The longest lived major social networks is like 10 or 15 years old and we really don't have any idea how penetrable the market is long term.
>>Saying "delete your account, and practically ostracize yourself from public discourse into irrelevance"
You know there's this big big gigantic thing called the internet and it's so incredibly big you can make your very own website with your own name on it? If you're relevant to public discourse, people will obviously go to your personal website.
If not - maybe you're not so relevant as you thought.
You know there's this big big gigantic thing called the internet and it's so incredibly big you can make your very own website with your own name on it? If you're relevant to public discourse, people will obviously go to your personal website.
If not - maybe you're not so relevant as you thought.
That's a cop-out. If there is one thing we have learned from the current generation of dominant tech services, it's that network effects can be hugely powerful in this space. A business with a strong enough network effect supporting its main product or service can, evidently, screw up in almost any other respect and still survive with its network intact and its share price untroubled. And that remains true even if those screw-ups can have catastrophic effects on many little guys who were affected.
Is a commercial radio or broadcast television station a public utility as well?
I watched Jack's testimony in part to try to take a lesson in handling the heat. He did very well and stayed cool.
Myself, I don't think I handle the heat very well. In executive reviews, I never quite understand what VPs are asking, because the way they phrase questions is always kind of flawed and it makes me think of 5 ways to answer based on 5 possible interpretations of their question, and invariably (every time!) I start answering and then am asked to stop because that's not what they asked. I also get pretty stressed/nervous before big exec reviews (it just always feels like an exposition of any personal failure), and my brain has seized once or twice. I supposed I'm not cut out for being in the line of fire. So much for my dreams of being CEO of a mega- tech company! :-)
Maybe goes without saying that I'm envious of my peers who can waltz into the fiercest review and not flinch while they state their case.
I'd love to hear from others on this.
Myself, I don't think I handle the heat very well. In executive reviews, I never quite understand what VPs are asking, because the way they phrase questions is always kind of flawed and it makes me think of 5 ways to answer based on 5 possible interpretations of their question, and invariably (every time!) I start answering and then am asked to stop because that's not what they asked. I also get pretty stressed/nervous before big exec reviews (it just always feels like an exposition of any personal failure), and my brain has seized once or twice. I supposed I'm not cut out for being in the line of fire. So much for my dreams of being CEO of a mega- tech company! :-)
Maybe goes without saying that I'm envious of my peers who can waltz into the fiercest review and not flinch while they state their case.
I'd love to hear from others on this.
Have you ever tried doing copious amounts of beta blockers? I hear they're well for this.
Seriously. Symphony orchestras apparently praise them for taking the extreme anxiety out of performing to massive audiences
Seriously. Symphony orchestras apparently praise them for taking the extreme anxiety out of performing to massive audiences
Not sure why you're being downvoted. I've looked into Propranolol as that seems like an acceptable and safe (mild) solution to fight off the lizard-brain aspects of anxiety.
As you say, praised by performers. Anecdotally, I have a friend who gives it a glowing review for helping him accept a major award ("I'd like to thank the Academy").
As you say, praised by performers. Anecdotally, I have a friend who gives it a glowing review for helping him accept a major award ("I'd like to thank the Academy").
Ehh, I only saw one. I was being completely serious, but the "copious amounts" humor might've been a bit much for some of HN :P
Propranolol is just about the safest option out there, is what I had in mind in saying it, and is the go to for just about everybody who is prescribed it for positions (such as being in some sort of performative entertainment) to defeat anxiety. I believe I read the account of a violinist from the New York Philharmonic in which the actual jist was, for them and everybody else they knew in the ensemble prescribed it, "literally makes you give zero fucks about anybody out there and lets you zone in on exactly what you need to focus on"
So, if you've never had any heart issues or other health problems, I'd seriously recommend just discussing it with a GP. If they for some reason really give you a hard no - as somebody who's struggled through the shitty medical system that is the U.S. and now receives care from Cedars-Sinai in LA, Stanford, and Cleveland Clinic - fuck that doctor, get a new one.
If you do however have any fears of your heart health, just go to a cardiologist and get a standard cardiac workup along with a stress test and such. It's your life, don't let it be hindered by not trying something a simple contextually completely safe substance may be able to instantly fix. I say this as somebody who lost the entirety of their teenage years and is still fighting to have an attempt at recovery into my young 20's from lack of care for a more serious health issue that "I just couldn't have had because I was just so young and it's such a rare condition"
Absolute chickenfuckin peabrains some docs are. Sorry if I started to ramble too much haha. Go look into your stuff with a doc, and if you need - I'm aware of quite a few other relatively simple legal (US) drug solutions for such issues of anxiety, having a pretty deep into the field pharmacist brother.
Propranolol is just about the safest option out there, is what I had in mind in saying it, and is the go to for just about everybody who is prescribed it for positions (such as being in some sort of performative entertainment) to defeat anxiety. I believe I read the account of a violinist from the New York Philharmonic in which the actual jist was, for them and everybody else they knew in the ensemble prescribed it, "literally makes you give zero fucks about anybody out there and lets you zone in on exactly what you need to focus on"
So, if you've never had any heart issues or other health problems, I'd seriously recommend just discussing it with a GP. If they for some reason really give you a hard no - as somebody who's struggled through the shitty medical system that is the U.S. and now receives care from Cedars-Sinai in LA, Stanford, and Cleveland Clinic - fuck that doctor, get a new one.
If you do however have any fears of your heart health, just go to a cardiologist and get a standard cardiac workup along with a stress test and such. It's your life, don't let it be hindered by not trying something a simple contextually completely safe substance may be able to instantly fix. I say this as somebody who lost the entirety of their teenage years and is still fighting to have an attempt at recovery into my young 20's from lack of care for a more serious health issue that "I just couldn't have had because I was just so young and it's such a rare condition"
Absolute chickenfuckin peabrains some docs are. Sorry if I started to ramble too much haha. Go look into your stuff with a doc, and if you need - I'm aware of quite a few other relatively simple legal (US) drug solutions for such issues of anxiety, having a pretty deep into the field pharmacist brother.
> I believe I read the account of a violinist from the New York Philharmonic in which the actual jist was, for them and everybody else they knew in the ensemble prescribed it, "literally makes you give zero fucks about anybody out there and lets you zone in on exactly what you need to focus on"
Last Winter I played in a small ensemble after not performing in a band for maybe twenty years (mostly because of stage fright). Here I was: lead trumpet (carrying the entire melody), totally exposed, audience of maybe 60 people. Zero nervousness as I stood on stage looking out at everyone, as we get ready to begin. But about two minutes in, my hands began to shake, my lungs couldn't take in oxygen, I couldn't hold the notes. Nowhere to hide -- I was the solo lead part for the entire performance! If I even stopped playing for one measure to re-collect myself, it sounded ridiculous because I'm the melody and the pieces had no breaks. The embarrassment was severe. The other players didn't look my way as we packed up afterwards, and I barely said a word as I raced for the exit.
So the idea of being able to get that under control (a lifelong struggle) -- yeah, potentially life-changing.
Last Winter I played in a small ensemble after not performing in a band for maybe twenty years (mostly because of stage fright). Here I was: lead trumpet (carrying the entire melody), totally exposed, audience of maybe 60 people. Zero nervousness as I stood on stage looking out at everyone, as we get ready to begin. But about two minutes in, my hands began to shake, my lungs couldn't take in oxygen, I couldn't hold the notes. Nowhere to hide -- I was the solo lead part for the entire performance! If I even stopped playing for one measure to re-collect myself, it sounded ridiculous because I'm the melody and the pieces had no breaks. The embarrassment was severe. The other players didn't look my way as we packed up afterwards, and I barely said a word as I raced for the exit.
So the idea of being able to get that under control (a lifelong struggle) -- yeah, potentially life-changing.
> Have you ever tried doing copious amounts of beta blockers? I hear they're well for this.
This seems like some potentially dangerous general advise.
This seems like some potentially dangerous general advise.
"Copious" does seem dangerous. But beta blockers do seem like a recognized chemical fix to the fight-or-flight response. I've heard: half a tablet of propanolol an hour before a major performance or presentation, and try it out in advance to make sure no adverse effects.
At any rate, it's a prescription drug, so a physician needs to be involved.
At any rate, it's a prescription drug, so a physician needs to be involved.
I wonder how many divers, pitchers, figure-skaters, or goalies use them then? If they have no other affect on the peripheral nervous system, it seems like they would be useful in high-stress, high-accuracy athletics.
The reason I brought it up aside from my longstanding general knowledge of the effects - recently had a stint in which I was in a more expensive part of SoCal for 9 months, became friends with a fairly rich and fancy doctor through an extreme sports hobby and practically lived with him for 6 of those months (he was just at a point in which he was able to get a place for to have a real workshop, I'm a young mechanical engineer and custom fab/machinist - he was fairly lonely and we just hit it off building and enjoying said extreme hobby)
I met a fairly large amount of professionals and extreme sports people all in different walks of life being around him - the vast, vast majority (seriously, maybe I was just in a weird place, but nearly all) would regularly use things like beta blockers in their daily lives (prescribed by a doc for these specific reasons) for things like performance anxiety. They also used a lot of other drugs for various tasks throughout their days... Mainly stimulants - but yeah. From my experience, people are quite aware of them, they're indescribably helpful, and in this modern world there's quite literally no reason to not use them if they can be of assistance to you unless you have an identified cardiac/vascular reason that would be dangerous to.
I met a fairly large amount of professionals and extreme sports people all in different walks of life being around him - the vast, vast majority (seriously, maybe I was just in a weird place, but nearly all) would regularly use things like beta blockers in their daily lives (prescribed by a doc for these specific reasons) for things like performance anxiety. They also used a lot of other drugs for various tasks throughout their days... Mainly stimulants - but yeah. From my experience, people are quite aware of them, they're indescribably helpful, and in this modern world there's quite literally no reason to not use them if they can be of assistance to you unless you have an identified cardiac/vascular reason that would be dangerous to.
> Senator Ted Cruz went after Twitter’s Jack Dorsey after the CEO said Twitter has no influence over elections.
Is the answer to Senator Cruz's question (from the headline) "The board of directors of Twitter"?
Is the answer to Senator Cruz's question (from the headline) "The board of directors of Twitter"?
[deleted]
Ted Cruz argued vehemently against net neutrality at the physical layer, on the basis that private markets, not governments, should dictate what traffic ISPs allow and prioritize on their pipes. But when there's a perceived bias against conservatives, suddenly he's all for government intervention at the application layer.
Cry me a river, Ted.
Cry me a river, Ted.
It's not the same though. You can be at the same time for minimizing Government involvement and even allowing ISPs to decide how they prevent/censor business models, but draw a line when they begin to censor political speech.
It's not that those are impossible stances to reconcile in a vacuum (I agree that they are not). It's the cynical way that he ignored the pleas of everyone who said that abandoning net neutrality would lead to censorship and entrenchment of big tech when it didn't affect him, and then turned around and suddenly saw the problem when he perceived himself and his party as the victim.
Ted is not stupid. He went to Princeton (cum laude, '92) and has a Harvard Law degree (magna cum laude, '95). He's acting.
The question is why.
The question is why.
Might be worth pointing out that the title is clickbait -- This sentence was spoken to Jack Dorsey, not a senator.
(Not blaming this on OP at all, it is the original title.)
(Not blaming this on OP at all, it is the original title.)
Some of the stuff Mike Lee is talking about is very troubling. He is saying the mere act of "labeling: content is censorship. This would classify things like spam filters (or hell, email with an important flag set) as mechanisms for censorship.
Spam filters could be used for censorship. But the key difference is spam filters allow the user to tweak their settings. If I'm explicitly following someone on Twitter, I should be able to hear what they have to say just like I can hear whatever email newsletter I subscribe to. And I shouldn't have to fight with Gmail to get approval for my newsletter to be published.
This isn't true for the vast majority of consumers. For example, the IP address of the SMTP server will carry a reputation. ISPs will block IPs that are untrusted and your message will get "dropped" before you receive it. You can run your own server and just let everything through but we're dangerously close to the "just build your own facebook if they censor you" rebuttle.
If we are going to let the government declare this a form of illegal censorship the email email trust framework is going to break down. Lee and his ilk are playing with fire.
If we are going to let the government declare this a form of illegal censorship the email email trust framework is going to break down. Lee and his ilk are playing with fire.
Mike Lee is a budding autocrat. He just weeks ago said democracy was not the objective of the American government, and now he's insinuating the government should be able to compel and prohibit certain speech by private entities.
Spam filters are a form of censorship. Not all censorship is bad.
And from the other perspective, not all spam filters are good, either.
There is a real problem today with a relatively small number of organisations that host a lot of email accounts being so aggressive with their filtering that it has undermined the basic mechanics and reliability of email as a communications channel.
Stronger obligations on those claiming to provide an email hosting service to actually deliver legitimate mail to their account holders, or to at least provide an effective and standardised recovery mechanism when they make a bad judgement while trying to block junk mail, wouldn't go amiss.
There is a real problem today with a relatively small number of organisations that host a lot of email accounts being so aggressive with their filtering that it has undermined the basic mechanics and reliability of email as a communications channel.
Stronger obligations on those claiming to provide an email hosting service to actually deliver legitimate mail to their account holders, or to at least provide an effective and standardised recovery mechanism when they make a bad judgement while trying to block junk mail, wouldn't go amiss.
What should social media do with directed propaganda campaigns?
If one side of an argument poisons the discourse, what then?
Should both sides poison the well?
If one side of an argument poisons the discourse, what then?
Should both sides poison the well?
Whatever they want. This is how all media companies have exercised editorial control for decades. The only difference here is people feel some strange sense of ownership over Twitter that they do not over The New York Times.
Twitter has user generated content and feels like a conversation. Unfortunately, the conversation feels like shouting a lot of the time.
Because users are creating the content.
You created it but you gave it away the moment you posted it.
Right, just like I give my labor away to my employer. Still, there are reasonable limits and laws on how workers are treated. Likewise, social media is due for the same.
I am super confused by that counterpoint. You essentially have to have a job in a modern economy. You don't have to post to social media. This gives your employer an outsized degree of influence in your personal viability. Hence the government regulates the market exchange of labor for money.
I'm having a really hard time seeing how that relates to the government getting involved with a media company because you don't like what they did with short blog you posted as a passtime.
What's more the government doesn't do much to protect your work product as an employee. Generally that's down to contract which most companies ensure you sign away any rights to.
I'm having a really hard time seeing how that relates to the government getting involved with a media company because you don't like what they did with short blog you posted as a passtime.
What's more the government doesn't do much to protect your work product as an employee. Generally that's down to contract which most companies ensure you sign away any rights to.
No, I don't have to have a job. I can live on welfare, I can go live in the woods, I can farm, go Amish, etc.
We have the concept of worker rights. Those were fought for after the turn of the 20th century when the nature of work itself changed. The human rights issue of our time has to do with individual sovereignty on the internet. I strongly support all regulation that brings these internet monopolies down. Break them up. Force them to federate. Force them to respect privacy and encryption. End the tyranny, period. I don't care if it's coming from a government or a corporation. End it.
If you're calling Twitter a media company, then they should be subject to the same regulations that other media companies are subject to: which include libel and fraud. They're not allowed to commit those things, but social media gets a pass.
Yes, government sets a minimum wage, they force 1.5x pay over 40 hours, there's workman's comp requirements, safety requirements, discrimination protection, etc etc. There's thousands of labor laws, look them up.
We have the concept of worker rights. Those were fought for after the turn of the 20th century when the nature of work itself changed. The human rights issue of our time has to do with individual sovereignty on the internet. I strongly support all regulation that brings these internet monopolies down. Break them up. Force them to federate. Force them to respect privacy and encryption. End the tyranny, period. I don't care if it's coming from a government or a corporation. End it.
If you're calling Twitter a media company, then they should be subject to the same regulations that other media companies are subject to: which include libel and fraud. They're not allowed to commit those things, but social media gets a pass.
Yes, government sets a minimum wage, they force 1.5x pay over 40 hours, there's workman's comp requirements, safety requirements, discrimination protection, etc etc. There's thousands of labor laws, look them up.
My point was not that you "must" have a job to survive. It is that for most intents and purposes, you must have a job to participate in modern society. Giving up a job in most senses means giving up a place in society. The same, at least in my opinion, is untrue of social media.
I certainly never said there were no such thing as labor laws.
I agree regarding Twitter being subject to the same rules as other media companies. I think the "editor vs platform" argument is the kind of thing lawyers love to wax on about and is otherwise sophistic nonsense. A platform under centralized power is a publication, period. Its maintainers are its editors.
I don't think Twitter is good or should even be left to its own devices necessarily. I just don't happen to think it is all that special or important. I think if we're not doing anything about traditional media conglomerates we shouldn't do anything about Twitter either.
But I don't have any problem rethinking how massive we let certain industry players grow or realizing that size itself can be a problem. As I said in another part of this thread.
> Personally, I am not opposed to restructuring the relationship of the individual to big corporate businesses. But at the same time we have to be honest about the fact that this isn't really something all that special. And if we want do this kind of restructuring to social media, we should consider those changes within an entire landscape of companies that reap all kinds of benefit from society and externalize all kinds of costs onto it.
I certainly never said there were no such thing as labor laws.
I agree regarding Twitter being subject to the same rules as other media companies. I think the "editor vs platform" argument is the kind of thing lawyers love to wax on about and is otherwise sophistic nonsense. A platform under centralized power is a publication, period. Its maintainers are its editors.
I don't think Twitter is good or should even be left to its own devices necessarily. I just don't happen to think it is all that special or important. I think if we're not doing anything about traditional media conglomerates we shouldn't do anything about Twitter either.
But I don't have any problem rethinking how massive we let certain industry players grow or realizing that size itself can be a problem. As I said in another part of this thread.
> Personally, I am not opposed to restructuring the relationship of the individual to big corporate businesses. But at the same time we have to be honest about the fact that this isn't really something all that special. And if we want do this kind of restructuring to social media, we should consider those changes within an entire landscape of companies that reap all kinds of benefit from society and externalize all kinds of costs onto it.
It's not strange at all. People naturally feel a sense of ownership over Tweets they create.
And yet we're not having an extended conversation about editorial control over "letters to the editor". Somehow, after years of gatekeeping of all kinds in media, deleting some 140 character headline level information is a crisis.
My guess is that there is a kind of entitlement at work here. The rise of social media was predated by lots of techno-optimism regarding what the internet would do for humanity. And the rise of social media itself was wreathed in a kind of "victory for democracy" zeitgeist that these companies often played into themselves.
But in reality, Twitter is a big corporate media business just like any other. And what's happening here is people are realizing the hard way that business is largely unaccountable.
Personally, I am not opposed to restructuring the relationship of the individual to big corporate businesses. But at the same time we have to be honest about the fact that this isn't really something all that special. And if we want do this kind of restructuring to social media, we should consider those changes within an entire landscape of companies that reap all kinds of benefit from society and externalize all kinds of costs onto it.
My guess is that there is a kind of entitlement at work here. The rise of social media was predated by lots of techno-optimism regarding what the internet would do for humanity. And the rise of social media itself was wreathed in a kind of "victory for democracy" zeitgeist that these companies often played into themselves.
But in reality, Twitter is a big corporate media business just like any other. And what's happening here is people are realizing the hard way that business is largely unaccountable.
Personally, I am not opposed to restructuring the relationship of the individual to big corporate businesses. But at the same time we have to be honest about the fact that this isn't really something all that special. And if we want do this kind of restructuring to social media, we should consider those changes within an entire landscape of companies that reap all kinds of benefit from society and externalize all kinds of costs onto it.
I am not taking sides, right or left. I think it is fair to say it’s a mess.
I fail to see why the US constitution’s protection of the press would apply to organizations indistinguishable from political action groups engaging in the dissemination and promotion of lies with the intent to shape narratives and manipulate the audience.
What the media has devolved into should be outside of constitutional protection. This protection should be reserved for the truth. A high bar, yes, yet the only metric that can assure the delivery of information rather than political indoctrination through lies and careful manipulation.
Too difficult? Well, if what is being said can’t be determined to be truthful, don’t say it or print it. It’s that simple. Go look for a story backed by facts.
That’s the other point: The constitution should be about protecting quality, not quantity.
These enterprises are doing unmeasurable damage to society.
Again, all sides are guilty.
I fail to see why the US constitution’s protection of the press would apply to organizations indistinguishable from political action groups engaging in the dissemination and promotion of lies with the intent to shape narratives and manipulate the audience.
What the media has devolved into should be outside of constitutional protection. This protection should be reserved for the truth. A high bar, yes, yet the only metric that can assure the delivery of information rather than political indoctrination through lies and careful manipulation.
Too difficult? Well, if what is being said can’t be determined to be truthful, don’t say it or print it. It’s that simple. Go look for a story backed by facts.
That’s the other point: The constitution should be about protecting quality, not quantity.
These enterprises are doing unmeasurable damage to society.
Again, all sides are guilty.
> This protection should be reserved for the truth.
I think this is literally impossible to credibly establish in a political/legal context, especially in our present epistemological crisis.
I think this is literally impossible to credibly establish in a political/legal context, especially in our present epistemological crisis.
Which is fine. My perspective is simple: If the matter being reported isn’t objectively true, move on and look for something else to report.
We need less noise and more signal.
We need less noise and more signal.
I'm confused. Your post seems to indicate that what is "untrue" should not be constitutionally protected speech. That's a far cry from "move on and look for something else to report".
My point is that I don't know how you establish a credible arbiter of what is and isn't protected speech in a world where most people's concept of what "true" and "untrue" are highly depends on their base political positions.
My point is that I don't know how you establish a credible arbiter of what is and isn't protected speech in a world where most people's concept of what "true" and "untrue" are highly depends on their base political positions.
What I am saying is that lies should not be protected by the US constitution. One ought to be responsible for the consequences of speech. We are, citizens are. We have freedom of speech, yet the constitution does not protect us from the consequences of what we say as individuals.
There are two groups who are allowed to lie with impunity: the press and politicians.
This is wrong. And I posit it is particularly wrong in the case of the press.
Here's the way I look at it: We grant the press the right protections from government intervention. This is good and we should definitely do it. We want them to work for us, to keep us informed and provide us with access to the truth. The phrase "Speaking truth to power" has a real meaning. It isn't "Fabricating and lying to power". We recognize this right in the constitution because knowing the truth is crucially important. Lies are not helpful and are usually destructive, as the current political mess clearly demonstrates.
My "move on and look for something else to report" comment is a simple way of saying that: If the press can't back a story to the degree necessary to consider it truthful, they should move on and report on something else. Constantly broadcasting lies isn't useful to anyone. There are plenty of other stories to report on.
I mean, some of the things "journalists" are saying on TV are down-right vile. If you or I said and printed such things about people or groups of people we would lose everything we own in a massive defamation lawsuit. The media and politicians suffer no consequences for, quite literally, at times, utterly destroying the lives of people with lies. That is objectively wrong and should not be protected by a the US constitution.
There are two groups who are allowed to lie with impunity: the press and politicians.
This is wrong. And I posit it is particularly wrong in the case of the press.
Here's the way I look at it: We grant the press the right protections from government intervention. This is good and we should definitely do it. We want them to work for us, to keep us informed and provide us with access to the truth. The phrase "Speaking truth to power" has a real meaning. It isn't "Fabricating and lying to power". We recognize this right in the constitution because knowing the truth is crucially important. Lies are not helpful and are usually destructive, as the current political mess clearly demonstrates.
My "move on and look for something else to report" comment is a simple way of saying that: If the press can't back a story to the degree necessary to consider it truthful, they should move on and report on something else. Constantly broadcasting lies isn't useful to anyone. There are plenty of other stories to report on.
I mean, some of the things "journalists" are saying on TV are down-right vile. If you or I said and printed such things about people or groups of people we would lose everything we own in a massive defamation lawsuit. The media and politicians suffer no consequences for, quite literally, at times, utterly destroying the lives of people with lies. That is objectively wrong and should not be protected by a the US constitution.
Media and the public sector needs to disentangle itself from these spaces. I would suggest writing to your congress-critters asking for an exploration of the ActivityPub ecosystem.
Senate hearings have become a circus. It is only a matter of time before one of the CEOs will deliver a Henry Reardon (Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged) styled speech which will leave these smarty pant Senators with an egg on face. It wont come from Sundar, Jack or Zuck but it will come from someone. Perhaps someone like Musk.
Instead of using these hearings to genuinely uncover information we don't have, Senators are using this to ask rhetorical questions that can give sensational headlines for the partisan websites e.g. "Who elected you ? Angry Cruz flays far left tech company Twitter's CEO". I have seen ordinary journalists asking more relevant and better questions to Jack and others than these Senators.
These hearings were once about people holding other powerful individuals accountable. Now they are about clever soundbytes ironically optimized for platforms like Twitter.
Instead of using these hearings to genuinely uncover information we don't have, Senators are using this to ask rhetorical questions that can give sensational headlines for the partisan websites e.g. "Who elected you ? Angry Cruz flays far left tech company Twitter's CEO". I have seen ordinary journalists asking more relevant and better questions to Jack and others than these Senators.
These hearings were once about people holding other powerful individuals accountable. Now they are about clever soundbytes ironically optimized for platforms like Twitter.
And now you know why they refuse to allow cameras in the Supreme Court.
In other words, if juries deliberated in front of cameras, every jury would be hung.
Pretty sure politicians have been standing on podiums spouting nonsense to boost themselves since ancient times. Roman senators did it and it’s only more sophisticated in a world with cameras and the internet.
Fully agree. It is just that now with internet even Senator hearings have become part of that theater in a similar fashion.
Musk may have just started this. Read the EULA for Starlink
Either social media is a Platform and respects the First Ammendment and the right to free speech) OR it is a Publisher that can choose what to publish or censor and is thus subject to litigation. Blatant falsehoods about Trump have been published in social media for the past 3 years but verified documents showing Biden family colusion and pay to access to the office of the Vice President is deemed "misinformation"? A blatant double standard that is completely untenable in a free society.
This is a false dichotomy. I can’t name any platforms that don’t exercise moderation, except maybe 4chan? I think it’s desirable for places to put rules in place to kick out or mute the asshats.
A lot of people, especially on HN, like to characterize this as a Republican witch hunt. Before we devolve into that kind of thinking, remember this line from the article:
"Biden has expressed support for revoking the law"
Even though there are Democrats on the committee who think this is all nonsense, it is a bipartisan issue, going back years. A number of HN-favorite Democrats also supported what was going on back when they were still running for their party's nomination.
"Biden has expressed support for revoking the law"
Even though there are Democrats on the committee who think this is all nonsense, it is a bipartisan issue, going back years. A number of HN-favorite Democrats also supported what was going on back when they were still running for their party's nomination.
Surely any Senate hearing is a political tussle by definition. This seems like the usual unproductive showboating and I'm not sure any of this will matter two weeks from now.
You're almost right.
You are correct that they are filled with showboating. But at the same time they very often trigger changes in both policy and public opinion.
If nothing else, they allow us to see that a particular issue is on the radar in Washington, and not just something a bunch of randos on the internet are barking about.
There are hundreds, even thousands, of hearings like this that are productive. The difference is that they're handled more quietly, and are relegated to CSPAN, not HN.
You are correct that they are filled with showboating. But at the same time they very often trigger changes in both policy and public opinion.
If nothing else, they allow us to see that a particular issue is on the radar in Washington, and not just something a bunch of randos on the internet are barking about.
There are hundreds, even thousands, of hearings like this that are productive. The difference is that they're handled more quietly, and are relegated to CSPAN, not HN.
I think GP's cynicism is warranted in this case. I listened to the first hour of this hearing, including Cruz's rant, and it's pretty clear that Congress is not touching Section 230 anytime soon. They're content just dragging these CEOs into Congress for a tongue-lashing every once in a while. There's nothing of substance being discussed.
GOP senators going through these motions is kind of like a weird mirror image of when the Dems bring in the relevant CEO from the latest financial fraud for grilling, but no relevant laws get changed
The difference being that the laws should be changed in that case, whereas here maybe Section 230 is kinda OK.
Of course, GOP Senate can't do anything to stop them since the Dems not only enjoy the benefits of the censorship but they are encouraging more of it. All the R's can do is grandstand about it.
[deleted]
I've started watching some CSPAN hearings lately, going to the first-party source, because the reporting was so polarized. I'd hoped that that the difficulty of finding reasonable, moderate platforms was in part a problem of an extreme vocal minority being amplified by a media incentive to generate views. Unfortunately, I found that senators can be just as vitrolic as the anchors.
A few days ago I read this comment on HN which says CSPAN is part of the problem too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24807616
I don't have the perspective to evaluate this claim though. I don't know much about the intersection of politics and media in the 80s and 90s. It seems worth considering though. The premise seems straight forward: broadcasting politicians changes how politicians behave.
I don't have the perspective to evaluate this claim though. I don't know much about the intersection of politics and media in the 80s and 90s. It seems worth considering though. The premise seems straight forward: broadcasting politicians changes how politicians behave.
Hearings are a means of inquiry & discovery. That some electected representatives come with axes already well ground & biases all set, are there to score points, is unfortunate & not entirely surprising, but I'm not ok with normalizing this bad behavior. I like to think the Senate has hearings that do function too, where there are more adults present.
That, or the current front-runner for president (and next-best alternative to the incumbent President Trump) supports repealing Section 230, and if the Republicans can drum up enough popular support for a repeal that might be enough for Biden to support it as a "bipartisan" effort.
Cruz was putting on a disingenuous show for right wing audiences. This was a waste of time and further demeans the procedure, and congress.
Those hearings are also used to get representatives of these organizations on the record. Cruz certainly asked pointed questions, albeit driven by his political interest.
I'm still surprised how unprepared and naïve Jack seems to be for these kinds of procedures. The NYPost article in question and the entire account is still blocked to this day. I can only assume that they squashed it in such a way that they cannot recover it anymore. I know people find a GOP election win unlikely (Not including me), but he is doing his investors a great disservice by not being prepared for a landslide GOP win that could transform Sec 230 greatly.
I'm still surprised how unprepared and naïve Jack seems to be for these kinds of procedures. The NYPost article in question and the entire account is still blocked to this day. I can only assume that they squashed it in such a way that they cannot recover it anymore. I know people find a GOP election win unlikely (Not including me), but he is doing his investors a great disservice by not being prepared for a landslide GOP win that could transform Sec 230 greatly.
I'm torn between HN rules that we shouldn't talk politics, & Ted talking BS tech out his bunghole. He's making his hamfisted politics a mortal threat to tech (and sowing rabid dissent & unrest).
Scarey note that Biden has said he may support repeal. As every CEO noted, censorship would have to (radically) increase if platforms were no longer had protection from the speech they happen to host.
So weird how Cruz &c keep making this sound like there's some mandate that these platforms be nuetral. Definitely in large part to score sympathy, but what if he & his sect realize (how can they not?) & do want to errode the Safe Harbor provisions, make it unsafe to host content online? Or are they confident this is only a PR stunt, & that it will go nowhere?
So weird how Cruz &c keep making this sound like there's some mandate that these platforms be nuetral. Definitely in large part to score sympathy, but what if he & his sect realize (how can they not?) & do want to errode the Safe Harbor provisions, make it unsafe to host content online? Or are they confident this is only a PR stunt, & that it will go nowhere?
These platforms are already censored. It's not that hard to get a Tweet annulled or kicked off FB.
The issue is that right now, it's just 'opaque, private policy', mostly concerned with over violence, literally hate speech, that kind of stuff.
Twitter's banning of The NY Post a few days before an election though is quite problematic.
If there were some reasonable guidelines it might be a good idea, but I'm not sure how it would work.
The only answer I see is for Social Media to be very transparent about their policies, very consistent, probably have an external board and commit to some common standard approach.
It's one thing for FB/Twitter, altogether more difficult for Google though they've managed to stay out of it mostly.
The issue is that right now, it's just 'opaque, private policy', mostly concerned with over violence, literally hate speech, that kind of stuff.
Twitter's banning of The NY Post a few days before an election though is quite problematic.
If there were some reasonable guidelines it might be a good idea, but I'm not sure how it would work.
The only answer I see is for Social Media to be very transparent about their policies, very consistent, probably have an external board and commit to some common standard approach.
It's one thing for FB/Twitter, altogether more difficult for Google though they've managed to stay out of it mostly.
"So weird how Cruz &c keep making this sound like there's some mandate that these platforms be nuetral"
My understanding is that if these companies wish to use Section 230 to keep themselves from being held liable for what their users post. By censoring users' posts that don't violate the law they are acting as a publisher and not a platform, ergo eliminating Section 230 protections.
To my understanding, Trump didn't authorize the publishing of his tax info, so surely that would count as "hacked" or "illegally obtained", right? From what I've read about Hunter Biden's laptop, the information was legally obtained because he left the computer at the repair shop long enough that it legally became the property of the shop owner. I could be wrong (and if I am, please let me know) but that, to me, seems like clear bias on the part of Twitter and Facebook.
If they had treated both articles in the same manner I would likely agree with you about a lack of bias, but it seems to me that this was done to prevent damage being done to one campaign.
My understanding is that if these companies wish to use Section 230 to keep themselves from being held liable for what their users post. By censoring users' posts that don't violate the law they are acting as a publisher and not a platform, ergo eliminating Section 230 protections.
To my understanding, Trump didn't authorize the publishing of his tax info, so surely that would count as "hacked" or "illegally obtained", right? From what I've read about Hunter Biden's laptop, the information was legally obtained because he left the computer at the repair shop long enough that it legally became the property of the shop owner. I could be wrong (and if I am, please let me know) but that, to me, seems like clear bias on the part of Twitter and Facebook.
If they had treated both articles in the same manner I would likely agree with you about a lack of bias, but it seems to me that this was done to prevent damage being done to one campaign.
My understanding was that Section 230 was to protect platforms from liability. It was not to create new restrictions on how they must or must not otherwise regulate & shape speech on their platform.
This implication that platforms have to allow anyone to say whatever they want unless it's a certain pre-set class of illegal speech, lest they become some other service class with additional liabilities for speech, seems facetiously misguided & contrary to all evidence there is for how Section 230 was proposed, discussed, and how it describes itself.
This implication that platforms have to allow anyone to say whatever they want unless it's a certain pre-set class of illegal speech, lest they become some other service class with additional liabilities for speech, seems facetiously misguided & contrary to all evidence there is for how Section 230 was proposed, discussed, and how it describes itself.
"...seems facetiously misguided & contrary to all evidence"
It may be, I'm certainly no expert. As a layman I've been led to believe that if you alter user-generated content you toe the line of being classified as a publisher as opposed to a platform. And my understanding of platform versus publisher is that the latter is legally liable for the site's content and thus allowed to be moderated more heavily than the former. Again, I have zero experience with writing/interpreting law so recognize that I could be wrong here...
It may be, I'm certainly no expert. As a layman I've been led to believe that if you alter user-generated content you toe the line of being classified as a publisher as opposed to a platform. And my understanding of platform versus publisher is that the latter is legally liable for the site's content and thus allowed to be moderated more heavily than the former. Again, I have zero experience with writing/interpreting law so recognize that I could be wrong here...
It's not scary, it's promising. It means both sides understand the harm Section 230 causes, even if they disagree on how it plays out on their party specifically.
It allows platforms to be judge, jury, and executioner, while insulating them from any risk of appeal (being taken to court and held liable). It's an incredibly bad law, and it took election tampering for politicians to realize it also harms them, not just the little people who voted for them.
Politicians mostly care about themselves, and 2016 finally proved that 230 is a mistake that can no longer be ignored.
It allows platforms to be judge, jury, and executioner, while insulating them from any risk of appeal (being taken to court and held liable). It's an incredibly bad law, and it took election tampering for politicians to realize it also harms them, not just the little people who voted for them.
Politicians mostly care about themselves, and 2016 finally proved that 230 is a mistake that can no longer be ignored.
Section 230 insulates them from the risk of not removing stuff. Your liability risk as publisher or as a host of third party content before 230 was in what appeared on your site, not what did not appear.
There was little to no liability risk over removing specific material. E.g., if you posted something on my site and I took it down, you had virtually no chance of winning a lawsuit to force me to put it back up or to pay any damages.
Section 230 did not change that, and that's the way it will be if 230 goes away.
What section 230 addressed is the some courts had decided that if I removed some stuff from my site but not other stuff, then I could be liable for that other stuff even if it was posted by my users. So if I removed spam or off topic material, and someone slipped in some libel in another post I could be sued for the libel.
Removing 230 would just go back to that, where I have to chose between letting everything (except stuff that is illegal) on, or being responsible for everything.
No one is going to run a completely unmoderated site for long, which means they are going to opt for heavy moderation.
There was little to no liability risk over removing specific material. E.g., if you posted something on my site and I took it down, you had virtually no chance of winning a lawsuit to force me to put it back up or to pay any damages.
Section 230 did not change that, and that's the way it will be if 230 goes away.
What section 230 addressed is the some courts had decided that if I removed some stuff from my site but not other stuff, then I could be liable for that other stuff even if it was posted by my users. So if I removed spam or off topic material, and someone slipped in some libel in another post I could be sued for the libel.
Removing 230 would just go back to that, where I have to chose between letting everything (except stuff that is illegal) on, or being responsible for everything.
No one is going to run a completely unmoderated site for long, which means they are going to opt for heavy moderation.
What is it that you think Section 230 does that “allows platforms to be judge, jury, and executioner”? What harm, specifically, do you think the Section 230 liability shield is causing? What change, specifically, do you think should be made to cure that harm? How would your proposed change not cause sites with UGC to either shut down entirely (thereby eliminating the ability to speak out at all), require pre-approval for all UGC (thereby increasing the amount of censorship), or be overrun by spammers and trolls (thereby making the site useless)? Don’t just think about Twitter and Facebook. Think about Hacker News, or a subreddit you like, or a small community forum that you visit, or the comments section of your favourite tech news site. A change to Section 230 affects everybody.
This whole "sites with UGC will have to shut down entirely rather than face liability for their actions" nonsense is tiring. Facebook and Google are not going to decide to simply shutdown their eleventy billion dollar businesses because they will need to occasionally employ lawyers to defend themselves from lawsuits.
We need to actually and actively stop pretending this talking point is a thing. Sure, they can threaten to leave Australia for regulating them (as they have recently done), but unless you think some of the most valuable companies on the planet are going to literally pack up and leave the US because they'll be subject to the law (like every other non-tech-company already is!), I have ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.
Section 230 is a blanket immunity that allows Google, Facebook, and Twitter to avoid any sort of liability of any kinda for automated harms to society. That's it.
Sure, Section 230 technically applies to smaller websites, but it is effectively immaterial: Smaller websites and communities have reasonable, defensible human moderation activities. The United States court system is not some madhouse that you can exploit with bad code: It's built on firm pillars like intent and reasonableness. We have judges that rule on cases based on the facts of the specific issue in question, who are elected and accountable to the people.
Which is why, no, without 230, every website owner isn't suddenly going to jail because someone posted fraud. The intent isn't there. Intent is a crucial pillar of the law.
Meanwhile, Google and Facebook have harmful intent. Their intent is to raise engagement as much as possible, even if it radicalizes users, and causes actual harm to lives and liberty. Because at the end of the day, their moderation decisions are solely determined by profit. If it's not profitable to have adult content on the site because advertisers don't like it, adult content is banned. If it's very profitable to take political ads that claim falsehoods, you bet they're going to, because it makes them money. And if scammers and fraudsters pay top dollar for ad space, you know they'll be favored customers.
That is where Section 230 really applies: When bad people doing bad things can use it to hide behind any consideration of what they are doing. Section 230 doesn't defend tech companies, it dismisses all complaints against them, regardless of their merit.
Sure, it's going to cost Google and Facebook more to reckon with what they've done without immunity. So they really really want to keep that immunity. And they'll pay off every lobbyist, think tank, and so-called expert to tell you Section 230 is crucial to the Internet.
But when it's gone, they will suck it up and stay in business, because at the end of the day, they like money, and they'd still rather be in business even if it means they make a little less.
We need to actually and actively stop pretending this talking point is a thing. Sure, they can threaten to leave Australia for regulating them (as they have recently done), but unless you think some of the most valuable companies on the planet are going to literally pack up and leave the US because they'll be subject to the law (like every other non-tech-company already is!), I have ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.
Section 230 is a blanket immunity that allows Google, Facebook, and Twitter to avoid any sort of liability of any kinda for automated harms to society. That's it.
Sure, Section 230 technically applies to smaller websites, but it is effectively immaterial: Smaller websites and communities have reasonable, defensible human moderation activities. The United States court system is not some madhouse that you can exploit with bad code: It's built on firm pillars like intent and reasonableness. We have judges that rule on cases based on the facts of the specific issue in question, who are elected and accountable to the people.
Which is why, no, without 230, every website owner isn't suddenly going to jail because someone posted fraud. The intent isn't there. Intent is a crucial pillar of the law.
Meanwhile, Google and Facebook have harmful intent. Their intent is to raise engagement as much as possible, even if it radicalizes users, and causes actual harm to lives and liberty. Because at the end of the day, their moderation decisions are solely determined by profit. If it's not profitable to have adult content on the site because advertisers don't like it, adult content is banned. If it's very profitable to take political ads that claim falsehoods, you bet they're going to, because it makes them money. And if scammers and fraudsters pay top dollar for ad space, you know they'll be favored customers.
That is where Section 230 really applies: When bad people doing bad things can use it to hide behind any consideration of what they are doing. Section 230 doesn't defend tech companies, it dismisses all complaints against them, regardless of their merit.
Sure, it's going to cost Google and Facebook more to reckon with what they've done without immunity. So they really really want to keep that immunity. And they'll pay off every lobbyist, think tank, and so-called expert to tell you Section 230 is crucial to the Internet.
But when it's gone, they will suck it up and stay in business, because at the end of the day, they like money, and they'd still rather be in business even if it means they make a little less.
> Sure, Section 230 technically applies to smaller websites, but it is effectively immaterial: Smaller websites and communities have reasonable, defensible human moderation activities.
The reasonability of every word you write tests upon small sites doing an ok fair reasonable job right now, & the contention that is only big sites that do and/or will every have problems. Your post declared that these what folks will forever obviously be well-intended enough to skate clearly & effortlessly through a new legal regine without safe harbor where we suddenly mandate government-regulated moderation that enforces national standards upon all private platforms. This, to me, is hell.
The reasonability of every word you write tests upon small sites doing an ok fair reasonable job right now, & the contention that is only big sites that do and/or will every have problems. Your post declared that these what folks will forever obviously be well-intended enough to skate clearly & effortlessly through a new legal regine without safe harbor where we suddenly mandate government-regulated moderation that enforces national standards upon all private platforms. This, to me, is hell.
Governments want to censure our information, big ad companies want to sell our eyeballs to their clients, political parties want to ride this train to their election success, but nobody is asking individual users what they want. Why is everyone offering to do filtering/censure/ranking for us but we can't decide for ourselves? For example, why is there just one single ranking in Google - maybe I'd like a plurality of ranking systems, each configured by a different organisation (such as EFF). Empower users to choose for themselves the bubble they want.
Small websites generally have low income and minimal resources: The bar for reasonableness is different. Google and Facebook are bringing in record revenue, billions in pure profit, while claiming they can't afford good moderators and shouldn't be liable for the decisions their algorithms make.
First, I want to stress that I agree wholeheartedly that the social networking sites’ focus on engagement is clearly harmful to society, and the dark patterns they use to drive engagement are morally repugnant. I want that to stop as much as anybody. I’m not seeing an answer in your reply to my questions of what change to Section 230 you think would do something about that, though.
My understanding of S230 is that it says (1) information services are considered distributors rather than publishers when it comes to liability, and (2) if they exercise limited editorial control in good faith by moderating objectionable content they are still considered distributors rather than publishers for the sake of liability. (Also, there are already various exceptions to the liability shield, so it is not a blanket immunity.)
While you may be tired of the argument that sites will shut down, it is one legitimate potential outcome of a change to S230, and one we’ve already seen in action: SESTA-FOSTA caused Craigslist to close their personals sections even though they had no intent to facilitate sex trafficking and it would have been reasonable for them to claim that the overwhelming majority of posts were not illegal. They simply couldn’t accept the liability risk.
Furthermore, as someone who has hosted an online forum about retrocomputing since 2002, losing the liability protections of S230 in the way Ted Cruz seems to want it (by eliminating the liability shield for sites which moderate content) would absolutely push me to shutter the whole site. So, please don’t act like this isn’t a real threat; there’s both precedent and I’m telling you what it would cause me to do as a hobbyist site operator. It doesn’t matter if I could eventually win a court case—I am unable and unwilling to accept liability for what other users decide to say.
Since—again, as far as I know—it is not illegal for social networking sites to use algorithms or dark patterns to drive engagement, and since S230 is a shield only against liability for the content of posts made by users even in the presence of limited good faith moderation of the content, I ask once again the same questions: what is it that you think Section 230 does that “allows platforms to be judge, jury, and executioner”? (It doesn’t allow the platforms to modify UGC in a way which changes its meaning, for example.) What harm, specifically, do you think the Section 230 liability shield is causing? (It doesn’t shield providers against crimes that don’t exist, or crimes that they commit themselves.) What change, specifically, do you think should be made to cure that harm? How would your proposed change not cause sites with UGC to either shut down entirely (thereby eliminating the ability to speak out at all), require pre-approval for all UGC (thereby increasing the amount of censorship), or be overrun by spammers and trolls (thereby making the site useless)?
Looking forward to any answers to my questions above.
(EDIT: Clarity and tone.)
My understanding of S230 is that it says (1) information services are considered distributors rather than publishers when it comes to liability, and (2) if they exercise limited editorial control in good faith by moderating objectionable content they are still considered distributors rather than publishers for the sake of liability. (Also, there are already various exceptions to the liability shield, so it is not a blanket immunity.)
While you may be tired of the argument that sites will shut down, it is one legitimate potential outcome of a change to S230, and one we’ve already seen in action: SESTA-FOSTA caused Craigslist to close their personals sections even though they had no intent to facilitate sex trafficking and it would have been reasonable for them to claim that the overwhelming majority of posts were not illegal. They simply couldn’t accept the liability risk.
Furthermore, as someone who has hosted an online forum about retrocomputing since 2002, losing the liability protections of S230 in the way Ted Cruz seems to want it (by eliminating the liability shield for sites which moderate content) would absolutely push me to shutter the whole site. So, please don’t act like this isn’t a real threat; there’s both precedent and I’m telling you what it would cause me to do as a hobbyist site operator. It doesn’t matter if I could eventually win a court case—I am unable and unwilling to accept liability for what other users decide to say.
Since—again, as far as I know—it is not illegal for social networking sites to use algorithms or dark patterns to drive engagement, and since S230 is a shield only against liability for the content of posts made by users even in the presence of limited good faith moderation of the content, I ask once again the same questions: what is it that you think Section 230 does that “allows platforms to be judge, jury, and executioner”? (It doesn’t allow the platforms to modify UGC in a way which changes its meaning, for example.) What harm, specifically, do you think the Section 230 liability shield is causing? (It doesn’t shield providers against crimes that don’t exist, or crimes that they commit themselves.) What change, specifically, do you think should be made to cure that harm? How would your proposed change not cause sites with UGC to either shut down entirely (thereby eliminating the ability to speak out at all), require pre-approval for all UGC (thereby increasing the amount of censorship), or be overrun by spammers and trolls (thereby making the site useless)?
Looking forward to any answers to my questions above.
(EDIT: Clarity and tone.)
> SESTA-FOSTA caused Craigslist to close their personals sections
I would argue this was an explicitly political move. Craigslist is primarily funded by paid job ads... personal isn't a profit center for them. (So, it's unlikely to apply to a more general eyeball-need like Google/Facebook.) And they were using the threat of doing so as a reason SESTA-FOSTA should be blocked. "Missed connections" is both still alive, and heck, "general" has some very suggestive offers in it in my region. I hardly believe SESTA-FOSTA has murdered the ability to post personals online.
Which is to say, the shuttering of websites such as yours if this should come to pass is a self-fulfilling prophecy: You're threatening to do it because you don't want the law to change. That doesn't mean the risk of liability is unreasonable because you intend to follow through with that threat. It doesn't mean plenty of others aren't willing to operate websites with normal levels of liability found in... every other type of business.
As to your questions, Section 230 allows platforms to moderate content without facing any liability for the content that remains. The issue is that the decisionmaking they're allowed to employ here is completely unregulated and completely opaque... and tied very much to that revenue generation: Again, adult content sees a block because advertisers don't like it, and crazy political theories thrive because it pushes engagement.
We're not talking about "oh no, Facebook might be liable for one post they decided not to remove". We're talking about an entire decisionmaking regime that is built around their revenue. Why on earth shouldn't they be liable for that? If Facebook at any point reviewed QAnon posts, decided "nah, that doesn't violate our policies", and let them continue... again, we wouldn't be going after Facebook for the user-generated content, but Facebook's explicit decisions about how to handle that content. Where the intent comes into the scenario.
And yeah, that absolutely means we need to remove the liability shield. Because at least until we can dig into the case and order access to emails and records, seeing what posts are left up is all we have. And sure, I'd love to come at this another way too: Require the search, recommendation, and ranking algorithms of major tech platforms to be publicly shared and all moderation decisions subject to human appeal. Another avenue to that appeal though, is that people must be empowered to take a company to court over those moderation issues when their appeals internally are exhausted, which rolls back to removing liability protection.
I would argue this was an explicitly political move. Craigslist is primarily funded by paid job ads... personal isn't a profit center for them. (So, it's unlikely to apply to a more general eyeball-need like Google/Facebook.) And they were using the threat of doing so as a reason SESTA-FOSTA should be blocked. "Missed connections" is both still alive, and heck, "general" has some very suggestive offers in it in my region. I hardly believe SESTA-FOSTA has murdered the ability to post personals online.
Which is to say, the shuttering of websites such as yours if this should come to pass is a self-fulfilling prophecy: You're threatening to do it because you don't want the law to change. That doesn't mean the risk of liability is unreasonable because you intend to follow through with that threat. It doesn't mean plenty of others aren't willing to operate websites with normal levels of liability found in... every other type of business.
As to your questions, Section 230 allows platforms to moderate content without facing any liability for the content that remains. The issue is that the decisionmaking they're allowed to employ here is completely unregulated and completely opaque... and tied very much to that revenue generation: Again, adult content sees a block because advertisers don't like it, and crazy political theories thrive because it pushes engagement.
We're not talking about "oh no, Facebook might be liable for one post they decided not to remove". We're talking about an entire decisionmaking regime that is built around their revenue. Why on earth shouldn't they be liable for that? If Facebook at any point reviewed QAnon posts, decided "nah, that doesn't violate our policies", and let them continue... again, we wouldn't be going after Facebook for the user-generated content, but Facebook's explicit decisions about how to handle that content. Where the intent comes into the scenario.
And yeah, that absolutely means we need to remove the liability shield. Because at least until we can dig into the case and order access to emails and records, seeing what posts are left up is all we have. And sure, I'd love to come at this another way too: Require the search, recommendation, and ranking algorithms of major tech platforms to be publicly shared and all moderation decisions subject to human appeal. Another avenue to that appeal though, is that people must be empowered to take a company to court over those moderation issues when their appeals internally are exhausted, which rolls back to removing liability protection.
Judge, jury, and executioner of the behavior they allow on their property. Let’s not mix this up with the roles in the legal system that actually have those powers.
Social media is the public square in 2020. There's no way to claim we still have free speech while all speech is done in a private company's territory where said freedom "does not apply".
So realistically, we have two options: Regulate what those companies are allowed to do and hold them liable for what they do, or nationalize them so that we can once again treat them as public space.
So realistically, we have two options: Regulate what those companies are allowed to do and hold them liable for what they do, or nationalize them so that we can once again treat them as public space.
I don’t concede that social media is the public square; at most, it is one piece. It also seems to be one of the less useful, judging by the overall timbre of the engagement.
Even if true, what right does the govt or people have to reprieve the companies of their property rights? Nationalization is not generally in line with our system of laws in the US.
Even if true, what right does the govt or people have to reprieve the companies of their property rights? Nationalization is not generally in line with our system of laws in the US.
I certainly don't think nationalization is the ideal outcome. I'd hate for Twitter to become "the" official state communication medium. I'd far rather we stop making social media public squares by requiring social use decentralized protocols, like email.
But if we're not nationalizing, we need to accept that companies operating these platforms must at minimum be regulated, just like privately owned utilities are. They're conduct should be transparent, the public should be able to inspect the algorithms in use, and most crucially, these companies must be liable for their behavior. And that is directly contrary to the goals of Section 230.
But if we're not nationalizing, we need to accept that companies operating these platforms must at minimum be regulated, just like privately owned utilities are. They're conduct should be transparent, the public should be able to inspect the algorithms in use, and most crucially, these companies must be liable for their behavior. And that is directly contrary to the goals of Section 230.
I'd prefer full censorship instead of the partisan sham that Twitter is doing now.
> I'd prefer full censorship instead of the partisan sham that Twitter is doing now.
Historically, and this is one of its major problems, "full" censorship is a partisan act by the party defining and implementing the standards. So, when you say this, all I hear is that you prefer a different partisan basis for censorship, and for it to be globally-consistent partisanship rather than variable to reflecting the partisans preferences of individual outlets.
Historically, and this is one of its major problems, "full" censorship is a partisan act by the party defining and implementing the standards. So, when you say this, all I hear is that you prefer a different partisan basis for censorship, and for it to be globally-consistent partisanship rather than variable to reflecting the partisans preferences of individual outlets.
I meant make them responsible for anything that is posted/published on the platform. Oh, someone tweeted out a link to download a pirated copy of Mulan? Twitter is sued by Disney for losses incurred. Someone tweeted a threat to the President, secret service will interrogate Twitter execs/mods. Someone posts a tweet about depression and later is found to have committed suicide, Twitter will be criminally responsible for not informing the local police about a possible suicidal person.
Then they will be forced to vet every single tweet for accuracy/illegal content, or face continuous threat of lawsuits. Right now, they are blatantly bidding for one party's candidate, and abusing their monopoly by doing so. And hiding behind the guise of being a "platform".
Then they will be forced to vet every single tweet for accuracy/illegal content, or face continuous threat of lawsuits. Right now, they are blatantly bidding for one party's candidate, and abusing their monopoly by doing so. And hiding behind the guise of being a "platform".
why don't you go someplace else then? no one is forcing anyone on to Twitter, it had no more sway or status than the Babylon Bee or any other media.
if people vote with their feet to hang out someplace, it should not face increasing nuetrality regulations, imo. to answer Cruzcs question, every active Twitter user voted for Twitter, & our choice not to go use an alternative is an ongoing continual voting that could change any day.
I also don't agree, don't think Twitter is acting at all biased. I think they have very basic rules & have been very kind about trying to enforce them.
if people vote with their feet to hang out someplace, it should not face increasing nuetrality regulations, imo. to answer Cruzcs question, every active Twitter user voted for Twitter, & our choice not to go use an alternative is an ongoing continual voting that could change any day.
I also don't agree, don't think Twitter is acting at all biased. I think they have very basic rules & have been very kind about trying to enforce them.
> no one is forcing anyone on to Twitter, it had no more sway or status than the Babylon Bee or any other media.
That is probably the most untrue statement I've heard this week. Twitter the de facto standard way by which famous people and journalists speak out to their audience. As a general user, I have no alternative for the kind of news that is on Twitter. As a journalist/celebrity, there is no alternative to reach my audience directly. There is an immensely strong network effect.
> I also don't agree, don't think Twitter is acting at all biased. I think they have very basic rules & have been very kind about trying to enforce them.
Why then did they let people post about the fictional Russian collusion for 3 years? Investigations by federal agencies finally concluded that there was none. So why did Twitter allow that narrative to play out? Why did they let the leaked video of Trump saying random things in personal conversations be posted and shared? Why did Twitter let people post about fake and unproven allegations against Bret Kavanaugh? What was different?
That is probably the most untrue statement I've heard this week. Twitter the de facto standard way by which famous people and journalists speak out to their audience. As a general user, I have no alternative for the kind of news that is on Twitter. As a journalist/celebrity, there is no alternative to reach my audience directly. There is an immensely strong network effect.
> I also don't agree, don't think Twitter is acting at all biased. I think they have very basic rules & have been very kind about trying to enforce them.
Why then did they let people post about the fictional Russian collusion for 3 years? Investigations by federal agencies finally concluded that there was none. So why did Twitter allow that narrative to play out? Why did they let the leaked video of Trump saying random things in personal conversations be posted and shared? Why did Twitter let people post about fake and unproven allegations against Bret Kavanaugh? What was different?
This is incredibly insightful commentary, and I think it confesses to what a lot of the people protesting these platforms are actually angry about.
It's unfortunate that humanity is addicted to a couple pairs of supra-governmental private entities, that governments are less important than these private properties, but I don't think their massive massive world dominating size entitles governments to come meddle with their affairs & poke & prod & demand they become certain specific forms of free speech vehicles. It's up to the company to decide what kind of platform they want to be.
And it's up to us to use these systems or not. This above statement works & holds, so long as it's only network effect & not technical barrier to generating our own speech systems. Which, thankfully, I feel like the internet readily supplies (at least for now!).
It's unfortunate that humanity is addicted to a couple pairs of supra-governmental private entities, that governments are less important than these private properties, but I don't think their massive massive world dominating size entitles governments to come meddle with their affairs & poke & prod & demand they become certain specific forms of free speech vehicles. It's up to the company to decide what kind of platform they want to be.
And it's up to us to use these systems or not. This above statement works & holds, so long as it's only network effect & not technical barrier to generating our own speech systems. Which, thankfully, I feel like the internet readily supplies (at least for now!).
> As every CEO noted, censorship would have to (radically) increase if platforms were no longer had protection from the speech they happen to host.
If 230 was repealed, outlets could still retreat to only distributor rather than publisher liability by abandoning pro-active censorship entirely.
If 230 was repealed, outlets could still retreat to only distributor rather than publisher liability by abandoning pro-active censorship entirely.
And their platforms would all devolve into 4/8chan. No thanks.
Well, yeah, I didn't say it was a good option, just that total preemptive moderation (also not a good option) isn't the only choice.
It's almost like Sec. 230 is actually a good statute that may need to be tweaked, but not fundamentally changed or repealed.
> It's almost like Sec. 230 is actually a good statute that may need to be tweaked, but not fundamentally changed or repealed.
Well, yeah, while I don't point that out in every comment on 230-related issues, that's 100% my position.
Pre-230, mass communications platforms were between Scylla and Charybdis in a way which had previously been masked by the economics of print publishing and distribution making total editing the only sensible approach independent of liability concerns. The emergence of online platforms really brought that to light, and 230 was, if perhaps problematic in some details of application, exactly the right kind of solution.
Well, yeah, while I don't point that out in every comment on 230-related issues, that's 100% my position.
Pre-230, mass communications platforms were between Scylla and Charybdis in a way which had previously been masked by the economics of print publishing and distribution making total editing the only sensible approach independent of liability concerns. The emergence of online platforms really brought that to light, and 230 was, if perhaps problematic in some details of application, exactly the right kind of solution.
Is that a real option? Could there be an HN without any moderation?
That’s not true. A moderation-free platform can still get in trouble for defamation posted on their platform if 230 was removed.
> That’s not true.
Yes, it is.
> A moderation-free platform can still get in trouble for defamation posted on their platform if 230 was removed.
Yes, but that doesn't contradict anything in GP, which said hosts can move from publisher to distributo liability by not moderating, not that they can avoid liability altogether that way; distributors have notice-based liability, unlike publishers who have publication-based liability, so, absent 230 the situation for defamation on a not-preemprivelt-moderated site would be somewhat similar to what it is for copyright under the DMCA.
Yes, it is.
> A moderation-free platform can still get in trouble for defamation posted on their platform if 230 was removed.
Yes, but that doesn't contradict anything in GP, which said hosts can move from publisher to distributo liability by not moderating, not that they can avoid liability altogether that way; distributors have notice-based liability, unlike publishers who have publication-based liability, so, absent 230 the situation for defamation on a not-preemprivelt-moderated site would be somewhat similar to what it is for copyright under the DMCA.
> publisher to distributo[r] liability
This isn't a thing.
This isn't a thing.
Publisher vs. distributor liability is very much a thing.
https://cyber.harvard.edu/node/93965
https://cyber.harvard.edu/node/93965
I'm genuinely curious what the republicans want here. I get that they're mad because they think big tech is out to get them. And I don't even expect a policy proposal or bill at this stage. But is there even a paper from a think tank, or a right-wing law professor, who has put forward a coherent framework for how to regulate social media?
My understand is that if you repeal section 230, social media sites would either have to be completely unmoderated (like 4chan) or really heavily moderated (as they'd be liable for everything people post). Is that their goal here? Or if they want to replace 230, what would they replace it with?
My understand is that if you repeal section 230, social media sites would either have to be completely unmoderated (like 4chan) or really heavily moderated (as they'd be liable for everything people post). Is that their goal here? Or if they want to replace 230, what would they replace it with?
>> because they (republicans) think big tech is out to get them.
I'm genuinely curious how someone could follow the news in a basic way and still think it's just some conspiracy.
It's been beyond proven through leaks, deplatforming and whistleblowers that big tech is trying desperately to get Democrats elected.
I'm genuinely curious how someone could follow the news in a basic way and still think it's just some conspiracy.
It's been beyond proven through leaks, deplatforming and whistleblowers that big tech is trying desperately to get Democrats elected.
Republicans have said the same thing about Hollywood, academics, journalists, and scientists. And they've cherry picked stories to "prove" it with those groups too.
It's a proven fact that Hollywood, academics and journalists all lean to the left. No need to cherry pick stories.
Lean to the left compared to what? I don't think there's an abstract platonic "center", rather the center is defined by the major institutions in a society.
These institutions probably lean left of our national politics, but our national political system was intentionally designed to give disproportionate power to rural, low population areas.
These institutions probably lean left of our national politics, but our national political system was intentionally designed to give disproportionate power to rural, low population areas.
I think the center is defined by the society, not by the major institutions. And therefore it is perfectly reasonable to say that Hollywood, academics, and journalists all lean left.
230 is a law, not part of the constitution. It could be rewritten, for example, to say that if you want to claim protections under 230, you need to be clear about what your rules are and those rules must be evenly enforced.
As it stands, big tech is hiding behind enforcement of their rules, but we don't know what the rules are and seemingly everyone has broken them. But they get to decide when those rules are enforced.
As it stands, big tech is hiding behind enforcement of their rules, but we don't know what the rules are and seemingly everyone has broken them. But they get to decide when those rules are enforced.
The republicans want Twitter, Facebook, and Google to stop censoring (incl. down-ranking, labeling, etc.) mainstream right wing views. If they don't act more neutrally, the GOP will attempt force social media to behave as a common carrier, despite the implications that has for spam, real harassment, and so-called harassment, such as religious people tweeting their sincerely held views.
This issue really boils down to how you view social media's monopoly status. Are they a monopoly or not?
In republican's eyes, network effects make these companies a natural monopoly. Others think that's wrong because other sites are one click away. And, because Facebook displaced myspace, reddit displaced digg, etc.
This issue really boils down to how you view social media's monopoly status. Are they a monopoly or not?
In republican's eyes, network effects make these companies a natural monopoly. Others think that's wrong because other sites are one click away. And, because Facebook displaced myspace, reddit displaced digg, etc.
These freaks love freedom and private industry until it doesn't go their way.
Pretty sure that is the opposite of what we (generally) allow our elected officials to do.