The deplatforming of a president: An unprecedented week for the tech industry(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
The deplatforming of a president: An unprecedented week for the tech industry
https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/09/the-deplatforming-of-a-president/
134 comments
My perception, as a child of the 90s, is that the quality of mainstream news has dropped a lot since then, especially in the last ten years or so. I wonder if that’s really true though, or if its just the product of my own age and the availability of other sources of information.
It has. Watch, for example, German national news and it's like we had 20 years ago. And they have issues similar to ours over there too, but certain kinds of trust are still (more) intact.
Money has been sucked out of broadcast and printed media as ads have migrated online. It costs real money to support investigative journalism. Fewer ads = fewer dollars = lower quality.
I can definitely see that being a factor, but to my eye the NYT in particular seems worse, and I think I’ve heard they made tons of money during the last few years. You definitely do see some great pieces that couldn’t be done without the resources of an institution like the Times, but it seems to be surrounded by a lot of schlock.
There is more high quality investigative journalism than in any other time in history. There is also a more rapid and sensationalistic news cycle, with non-stop coverage of “breaking news” and talking heads who contribute nothing.
By analogy, the bigger the library the harder it is to find really great books.
By analogy, the bigger the library the harder it is to find really great books.
The investigative journalism is true at the national level, but locally it seems there’s not nearly as much as there used to be, with the void being filled with social media and activists
It's probably a bit of both. I'm not sure if the best print newspapers and magazines with global brands (NYT and WSJ in the US, The Economist in the UK) are obviously worse than they were a decade or decades back. But TV journalism is mostly a shadow its former self, the US weekly news magazines are basically gone, the local newspaper scene is mostly a shambles, etc. And, as you say, there are lots of other information sources that are far deeper on specific topics than mainstream journalism ever was.
Specifically that National News controlled by professional journalistic outlets which set the tone and heavily moderated what the public saw.
I have been watching a lot of TV news lately. As far as I know, professional journalists haven't deplatformed Trump.
You make a great point but I can't help feeling that its cowardly big Tech cosying up to the new president after years of being cosy with the outgoing one.
I have been watching a lot of TV news lately. As far as I know, professional journalists haven't deplatformed Trump.
You make a great point but I can't help feeling that its cowardly big Tech cosying up to the new president after years of being cosy with the outgoing one.
Many times journalists live on TV have cut away from the President when he’s devolved into lying during press conferences. Is that not deplatforming?
Is it though? News organizations have always chosen which portions of presidents' speeches/conferences to broadcast. They've always made editorial decisions as to which parts they consider important. This is just seems like another dimension to that sort of consideration.
[deleted]
How often did CNN cut-off a live transmission of POTUS speech to interject that POTUS is literally lying before Trump came along?
There’s a base assertion in your comment that all Presidents should be treated equally. If one President lies by an order of magnitude more than other Presidents, shouldn’t they be treated differently?
> How often did CNN cut-off a live transmission of POTUS speech to interject that POTUS is literally lying before Trump came along?
How often has CNN's editorial staff found presidents to repeat what CNN considers to be blatant provable lies in the past? I mean what are they supposed to do?
I agree that this sort of thing is unprecedented, but in many ways Trump is unprecedented.
How often has CNN's editorial staff found presidents to repeat what CNN considers to be blatant provable lies in the past? I mean what are they supposed to do?
I agree that this sort of thing is unprecedented, but in many ways Trump is unprecedented.
> I can't help feeling that its cowardly big Tech cosying up to the new president
If that was how it worked, wouldn't they have done it before Wednesday, and wouldn't they have done similar after the previous election?
If that was how it worked, wouldn't they have done it before Wednesday, and wouldn't they have done similar after the previous election?
I was listening to a live interview (with a political analyst, about trump) on the radio when Trump made his final tweet. They mentioned that he'd tweeted, but said "we're not going to read that right away," and after a little bit they read an excerpt prepared by a producer.
Remember his Four Seasons (Landscaping) presser? There was a lot of news about it but the event itself didn't get much play. Even Fox News has been cutting away from his fact-free tirades.
Remember his Four Seasons (Landscaping) presser? There was a lot of news about it but the event itself didn't get much play. Even Fox News has been cutting away from his fact-free tirades.
There were also magazines--lots and lots of magazines. Those could get pretty wild, with many a lot less journalistic than the major newspapers or the national news networks.
I think that a big difference back then was that it was very expensive to get your message available to a large national or even statewide audience, and even if you did it was harder to keep that audience if your message was too untruthful.
Now it is much cheaper on the distribution end, and once you get someone's attention the social media newsfeed algorithms note that and prioritize giving them more of your content or similar content, and deprioritize content that disagrees with yours. And because social media optimizes for engagement those people spend more time there and less reading/watching other source further reducing the chances they will see counterarguments to your content.
I think that a big difference back then was that it was very expensive to get your message available to a large national or even statewide audience, and even if you did it was harder to keep that audience if your message was too untruthful.
Now it is much cheaper on the distribution end, and once you get someone's attention the social media newsfeed algorithms note that and prioritize giving them more of your content or similar content, and deprioritize content that disagrees with yours. And because social media optimizes for engagement those people spend more time there and less reading/watching other source further reducing the chances they will see counterarguments to your content.
It is worth pointing out that Twitter had concrete near-term reasoning around incitement of further attacks on the capitol that they included in their reasoning - incitement is generally not protected speech (even though of course Twitter is a private platform and not restricted by the First Amendment). It is a legitimate concern that Trump would tacitly or explicitly encourage further mob attacks on the Capitol:
"Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021.
As such, our determination is that the two Tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so."
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
I also understand, even if it's not consistent, that Twitter would maintain a policy-violating account if it is that of a major world leader on public interest grounds alone. Once he is no longer the head of government, such reasons no longer apply. Practically speaking, this reason for maintaining the account the last two weeks of his presidency was, I suspect, outweighed by the immediacy of the worry on further insurrection attempts. I fall into the small camp of people (it seems?) that thinks Twitter was right not to have suspended his account earlier, and is right to now.
"Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021.
As such, our determination is that the two Tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so."
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
I also understand, even if it's not consistent, that Twitter would maintain a policy-violating account if it is that of a major world leader on public interest grounds alone. Once he is no longer the head of government, such reasons no longer apply. Practically speaking, this reason for maintaining the account the last two weeks of his presidency was, I suspect, outweighed by the immediacy of the worry on further insurrection attempts. I fall into the small camp of people (it seems?) that thinks Twitter was right not to have suspended his account earlier, and is right to now.
The two tweets are as follows:
> “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”
> “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”
I do not support Trumps actions throughout all of this. But how are those incitements for violence, even in context?
> “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”
> “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”
I do not support Trumps actions throughout all of this. But how are those incitements for violence, even in context?
The second one can be read as a tacit nod that the inauguration is a “safe” target.
I know many will see that as a stretch, but given the context and recent events, I do not.
I know many will see that as a stretch, but given the context and recent events, I do not.
By that logic, Trump commenting on any of his attendance plans is "inciting violence".
This goes far beyond a stretch.
This goes far beyond a stretch.
If those comments are in the context of his supporters having just stormed the US Capitol at his behest, killing several people and derailing the confirmation of his political enemy, then yes.
All I can do is disagree. I think this sets a horrifying social precedent and I have doubts it will be enforced equally.
I think the context is key here. Independent of what happened on Wednesday they don’t constitute a real threat. But one has to update one’s prior.
This was explicitly gone over in the announcement. The short of it is that they validate further attacks by promising Trump's allegiance, assistance, and a target.
Because Twitter has stolen the narrative. They decided what Trump meant by those tweets for you.
> They decided what Trump meant by those tweets for you
No, they decided it for themselves.
Other people in a position to relay, or not, the President's words get to make their own decision, too.
No, they decided it for themselves.
Other people in a position to relay, or not, the President's words get to make their own decision, too.
[deleted]
Compared to all the other places we could discuss the recent affairs online, HN is a unique place because we are the ones who’ve built the big tech industry. So we’re in the unique position of having to grapple with whether we’re failing the American people, or if we’re actually enabling good moral and ethical decisions
Personally I fall more on the former side. Whatever your stance, the tech industry is going through a deep existential moment right now
Personally I fall more on the former side. Whatever your stance, the tech industry is going through a deep existential moment right now
I’d throw a note of caution in the opposite direction though: as a group, HN are very atypical users of social media. Every time there’s a post about Facebook one of the most upvoted comments is someone saying they deleted Facebook. Societally speaking that’s super weird.
I still have Facebook but even then, over the holidays I saw the feeds of some older relatives and it was unlike anything I’ve seen before. An absolute mess of corrosive disinformation. Even knowing about it, I still don’t know it well. I don’t live in it. I can’t speak about it authoritatively. And it’s not even like, say, a subreddit. You can’t wander in and take a look, it’s all private to the user.
I don’t know whether the current censorship moves are wise or not, but as a group we’re not exposed to the reason the censorship is taking place. The HN crowd tends to lean towards free speech absolutism (as does the internet at large), which feels like a good reflex in general. But there’s mitigating context here and I don’t know that we (as a group) are the best people to talk to it.
I still have Facebook but even then, over the holidays I saw the feeds of some older relatives and it was unlike anything I’ve seen before. An absolute mess of corrosive disinformation. Even knowing about it, I still don’t know it well. I don’t live in it. I can’t speak about it authoritatively. And it’s not even like, say, a subreddit. You can’t wander in and take a look, it’s all private to the user.
I don’t know whether the current censorship moves are wise or not, but as a group we’re not exposed to the reason the censorship is taking place. The HN crowd tends to lean towards free speech absolutism (as does the internet at large), which feels like a good reflex in general. But there’s mitigating context here and I don’t know that we (as a group) are the best people to talk to it.
Facebook and YouTube don't target me with political disinformation, but their ads are often for malware like MacKeeper, or Bitcoin scams using fake celebrity endorsements. Even when they're for seemingly harmless merchandise like clothes, they're for Chinese online stores that will keep your money and disappear (wife fell for it once). Maybe my ad situation is so dire because I'm avoiding trackers at all cost, but man it's bad.
I'm amazed that people still act surprised that these platforms are used for hostile disinformation when that's basically their business model. (At least YouTube lets you pay to get rid of ads, although you lose even more privacy on the way.)
Edit: And to add something constructive, I think the only way out is for the EU (where I'm based) to fund a free, public, encrypted messenger service to free its citizens from WhatsApp, and maybe more services later. Social media has become the public space, for better or for worse, and at the very least it needs to be regulated like a utility.
I'm amazed that people still act surprised that these platforms are used for hostile disinformation when that's basically their business model. (At least YouTube lets you pay to get rid of ads, although you lose even more privacy on the way.)
Edit: And to add something constructive, I think the only way out is for the EU (where I'm based) to fund a free, public, encrypted messenger service to free its citizens from WhatsApp, and maybe more services later. Social media has become the public space, for better or for worse, and at the very least it needs to be regulated like a utility.
I argue that the "i deleted facebook" is a perfectly typical user of social media. Its trendy to tell that you quit Facebook. Instead "follow me on instagram".
HN is social media, and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.
HN is social media, and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.
“typical” in the sense that there are lots of examples of it, yes. But “typical” in the sense that it’s something the majority of people do... absolutely not.
My social circle is full of people that deleted FB. But when I step outside that circle not being on FB is very rare.
My social circle is full of people that deleted FB. But when I step outside that circle not being on FB is very rare.
> I argue that the "i deleted facebook" is a perfectly typical user of social media. Its trendy to tell that you quit Facebook. Instead "follow me on instagram".
I don't think a typical HN participant is deleting their FB account and then telling people to follow them on Instagram.
HN readers know that Instagram is owned by FB.
I don't think a typical HN participant is deleting their FB account and then telling people to follow them on Instagram.
HN readers know that Instagram is owned by FB.
> HN is social media, and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.
Another good bit of willful ignorance is that “if you’re not paying for it, you’re the product not the customer” seems to not apply to HN.
Another good bit of willful ignorance is that “if you’re not paying for it, you’re the product not the customer” seems to not apply to HN.
We can quibble over the definition of social media, but HN is more like forums and usenet dating back to the 80s than it is like Twitter or Facebook. Aside from temporal ranking of submissions, which is both universal and transparent, it's the same.
The big problem with Facebook and Twitter is a potent mix of incentive for controversy, algorithmic amplification, and groupthink bubbles. These problems exist elsewhere as well, so it's not like it's all social media (eg. television news networks in an age of unlimited media choice), but I don't think HN is a useful example to understand any of the macro-dynamics of todays information culture and political landscape.
The big problem with Facebook and Twitter is a potent mix of incentive for controversy, algorithmic amplification, and groupthink bubbles. These problems exist elsewhere as well, so it's not like it's all social media (eg. television news networks in an age of unlimited media choice), but I don't think HN is a useful example to understand any of the macro-dynamics of todays information culture and political landscape.
I disagree.
The forums that I used to use simply made the top shown comments/threads the most recent activity.
The default HN view is clearly based on some algorithm to calculate what is "worth" being on the front page. I read the high comment topics, and there is a ton of groupthink and pushing controversy.
This is also why the HN effect is even a concept. There are enough people here watching controversial topics to hug a modern website to death.
The forums that I used to use simply made the top shown comments/threads the most recent activity.
The default HN view is clearly based on some algorithm to calculate what is "worth" being on the front page. I read the high comment topics, and there is a ton of groupthink and pushing controversy.
This is also why the HN effect is even a concept. There are enough people here watching controversial topics to hug a modern website to death.
Sure there is groupthink, we're mostly software engineers. But it's a relatively small group, uniform presentation visible to anyone, and very limited reach. Contrast with what's going on in Twitter and Facebook: many orders of magnitude more reach, and it's almost impossible to have any idea what people are seeing or saying in aggregate, and what the many small groupthink bubbles are.
I know you’re arguing this as a note of caution in the opposite direction, but I’d actually argue this as a note in the same direction. You’re essentially arguing that we’re having an effect on something we don’t understand, which is a really bad thing to do in my opinion
> "we are the ones who’ve built the big tech industry"
Some of the participants on HN are some of the those who've build the big tech industry. It's always important to keep in mind that HN is more than just "big tech" and that "big tech" is more than just HN. Just as it's important when we're categorizing or characterizing any sufficiently large community.
Some of the participants on HN are some of the those who've build the big tech industry. It's always important to keep in mind that HN is more than just "big tech" and that "big tech" is more than just HN. Just as it's important when we're categorizing or characterizing any sufficiently large community.
This strikes me as insightless pedantry. Of course the union of the two sets isn't the intersection of the two sets! Nobody was debating this.
I am fairly certain what the parent comments meant was that the people on HN are a significant portion of the talent (note: talent != headcount) of big tech.
HN is a fantastic resource for learning about new tech. And being curious around technology is usually a sign that you're much above average.
I am fairly certain what the parent comments meant was that the people on HN are a significant portion of the talent (note: talent != headcount) of big tech.
HN is a fantastic resource for learning about new tech. And being curious around technology is usually a sign that you're much above average.
When you have so many people talking past each other because they're bucketing groups of people and assigning to them beliefs and behaviors while dismissing concerns with the casual "do all x believe y?" with on-going violent results, I don't think it's pedantry at all.
In less heated times when people are engaged in good-faith debate, we can be more lax with our language. From the discussions of the past few days, that's clearly not the case right now. We're unlikely to get past this without first being more nuanced ourselves.
In less heated times when people are engaged in good-faith debate, we can be more lax with our language. From the discussions of the past few days, that's clearly not the case right now. We're unlikely to get past this without first being more nuanced ourselves.
Watch Chappel’s “killing them softly” from 2002. It is a good reminder that BLM is a product of social media and smartphone cameras. Remember there have been tons of George Floyds before George Floyd. The difference is social media and cameras.
Social media is rough and polarizing, but on balance I expect history will see it as a positive with growing pains.
Also, the funniest line ever told starts with “Open and shut case, Johnson. I saw this once before when I was a rookie.”
Social media is rough and polarizing, but on balance I expect history will see it as a positive with growing pains.
Also, the funniest line ever told starts with “Open and shut case, Johnson. I saw this once before when I was a rookie.”
> or if we’re actually enabling good moral and ethical decisions
What an unbelievably patronizing worldview.
Personally, I think classical industry should act in kind, and refuse to sell gasoline, clothes, electricity, food, etc. to anyone who gave voice to BLM. Let's see who wins this tiresome war of refusing to do business with anyone whom we disagree.
What an unbelievably patronizing worldview.
Personally, I think classical industry should act in kind, and refuse to sell gasoline, clothes, electricity, food, etc. to anyone who gave voice to BLM. Let's see who wins this tiresome war of refusing to do business with anyone whom we disagree.
The best evidence I could find says 7% of the protests weren't peaceful, and those almost entirely after sundown.
You might argue that 7% has already lost an org credibility, but that's still 93% of protests that were peaceful.
Also, if you were black, how many George Floyd-esque videos do you think it would take you to see before you got physically angry? (Note that I'm partially blaming the media optimizing for outrage, here)
You might argue that 7% has already lost an org credibility, but that's still 93% of protests that were peaceful.
Also, if you were black, how many George Floyd-esque videos do you think it would take you to see before you got physically angry? (Note that I'm partially blaming the media optimizing for outrage, here)
And 7% of those protests killed over 25 people and caused > $1B in damage.
6th street in Austin is completely gone. People who live in major metros may not understand this, but rural America is laughing at them. These cities are national embarrassments.
But that's not the point. The point is the sheer arrogance required to believe that they're qualified to control what people are allowed to read.
These same people can't even keep their cities from being burned down, 50+% increases in murder rates, fecal matter on the streets, people leaving in droves... I'm supposed to listen to them? Really?
6th street in Austin is completely gone. People who live in major metros may not understand this, but rural America is laughing at them. These cities are national embarrassments.
But that's not the point. The point is the sheer arrogance required to believe that they're qualified to control what people are allowed to read.
These same people can't even keep their cities from being burned down, 50+% increases in murder rates, fecal matter on the streets, people leaving in droves... I'm supposed to listen to them? Really?
Disregarding the hyperbole, rural areas have their own set of problems that seem outrageous in turn to city dwellers. It's easy to scorn the speck in your neighbor's eye; removing one's own is more constructive.
They most definitely do have their own set of problems.
But if 90% of Twitter was run by Republicans who lived exclusively in rural areas, would you like it if they deplatformed Biden?
Would that be construed as offensive? Because that exact scenario is happening in reverse. People at tech companies in San Francisco who vote 90+% Democrat have just kicked off the Republican president of the United States. They've been talking about it for years, and this event is just pretext.
But if 90% of Twitter was run by Republicans who lived exclusively in rural areas, would you like it if they deplatformed Biden?
Would that be construed as offensive? Because that exact scenario is happening in reverse. People at tech companies in San Francisco who vote 90+% Democrat have just kicked off the Republican president of the United States. They've been talking about it for years, and this event is just pretext.
As a republicans living in a rural area, I have to disagree with your logic.
The issue with Trump isn’t his politics but his policy. I agree with his politics, we are both nominally Republican after all, but when he goes to implement it the policy is incompetent at best and actively harmful at worst.
For example, both Trump and I support the ideal of strong Republican leadership. I want to achieve that via elections, he aimed to achieve that through illegal power grabs attempts at last 4 years capped off with inciting a violent riot against his political opponents.
He has simply gone too far.
He stood in front of a crowd and told them to seize the party for himself, then after the riot called them patriots and told them they are loved.
The issue with Trump isn’t his politics but his policy. I agree with his politics, we are both nominally Republican after all, but when he goes to implement it the policy is incompetent at best and actively harmful at worst.
For example, both Trump and I support the ideal of strong Republican leadership. I want to achieve that via elections, he aimed to achieve that through illegal power grabs attempts at last 4 years capped off with inciting a violent riot against his political opponents.
He has simply gone too far.
He stood in front of a crowd and told them to seize the party for himself, then after the riot called them patriots and told them they are loved.
Fine, you disagree. But statistically, Trump has overwhelming support within the Republican party, even after this.
Vast majorities of Republican voters believe that Biden stole the election. Scarily huge majorities of Republican voters believe that something approaching Civil War is possible. Similar numbers exist that believe Democrats were trying to invalidate the 2016 election with their calls for impeachment before Trump even took office.
If San Francisco had any diversity of thought at all, it would understand how damaging their petty bans and disclaimers have been. But it doesn't. The perverse reality is that San Francisco has become an echo chamber.
Vast majorities of Republican voters believe that Biden stole the election. Scarily huge majorities of Republican voters believe that something approaching Civil War is possible. Similar numbers exist that believe Democrats were trying to invalidate the 2016 election with their calls for impeachment before Trump even took office.
If San Francisco had any diversity of thought at all, it would understand how damaging their petty bans and disclaimers have been. But it doesn't. The perverse reality is that San Francisco has become an echo chamber.
> 6th street in Austin is completely gone
I’ve been to Austin and to 6th Street. Tragic.
> These same people
They’re us. We’re all the same people. Maybe try asking them why they’re upset first before going “WHY do THOSE PEOPLE have to act like this?”
I’ve been to Austin and to 6th Street. Tragic.
> These same people
They’re us. We’re all the same people. Maybe try asking them why they’re upset first before going “WHY do THOSE PEOPLE have to act like this?”
Let’s remember WHY we must fight censorship: not for others but for our (future) selves.
Once censorship becomes acceptable and free speech no longer a principle, the power moves from the speaker(s) to the censors. Today they may be good guys on our side and stop various evil leaders and hateful villains from gathering followers but someday they may be a different kind of "good" guys - guys very intent on stopping us from "undermining the security of the state" or "spreading immoral ideas" or "smearing upstanding citizens".
There is no way to guarantee "good" censors (we can’t even agree what those accepted ideas are or that they will not change) so we MUST fight for freedom of speech.
Once censorship becomes acceptable and free speech no longer a principle, the power moves from the speaker(s) to the censors. Today they may be good guys on our side and stop various evil leaders and hateful villains from gathering followers but someday they may be a different kind of "good" guys - guys very intent on stopping us from "undermining the security of the state" or "spreading immoral ideas" or "smearing upstanding citizens".
There is no way to guarantee "good" censors (we can’t even agree what those accepted ideas are or that they will not change) so we MUST fight for freedom of speech.
Surely you can then just change platform (until this hits your ISP).
I wonder how these firms coordinate actions like this?
I don't think there is deliberate coordination.
It is more like the dancefloor effect (is it the official term?). When the dancefloor is empty, no one dares to take the first step, even if they want to, the someone finally steps in, then another, then another, etc... Dancing becomes more and more acceptable as the dancefloor fills up. Past a certain point, the opposite happens, it becomes unacceptable not to dance, so people step in even if they don't really want to.
It is more like the dancefloor effect (is it the official term?). When the dancefloor is empty, no one dares to take the first step, even if they want to, the someone finally steps in, then another, then another, etc... Dancing becomes more and more acceptable as the dancefloor fills up. Past a certain point, the opposite happens, it becomes unacceptable not to dance, so people step in even if they don't really want to.
It's called the first follower effect, I think. Derek Sivers wrote about it: https://sive.rs/ff
I think the firms do not want to be held responsible for hosting discussions that lead to violence during the transition of power. January 6th made organized violence look like a more real possibility.
It's more likely a domino effect.
In other words, they've all wanted to do it for a long time, and now there's a social momentum that allows them to do it without having been the first firm to do it.
It's just optics.
In other words, they've all wanted to do it for a long time, and now there's a social momentum that allows them to do it without having been the first firm to do it.
It's just optics.
The only momentum is changing administration or fear of attack for their profits, there's not much more to it.
As I understand you mean a hidden kind of coordination, not the obvious one, like "look at the news, they banned Trump, good idea, don't you think? shouldn't we do the same?". Why the hypothesis of such a coordination seems to be requisite? The obvious one explains facts nicely, I believe. I feel not the trace of a cognitive dissonance remained, so why to invent more complex explanations?
The Occam's explanation here (yours) is most definitely the correct one.
I can't imagine the executives of these companies sitting on conference calls coordinating their decisions like some sort of technocratic United Nations. That's just not how things play out in reality.
If anything, it's more likely people are tasked with monitoring public opinion on what other companies did. If the public reacted well, then the same thing may be implemented.
There's no cabal, just people watching the news and thinking "well that's a good idea that people like".
I can't imagine the executives of these companies sitting on conference calls coordinating their decisions like some sort of technocratic United Nations. That's just not how things play out in reality.
If anything, it's more likely people are tasked with monitoring public opinion on what other companies did. If the public reacted well, then the same thing may be implemented.
There's no cabal, just people watching the news and thinking "well that's a good idea that people like".
What baffles me about this is how people can call for private companies to be obligated to broadcast the direct messages of government leaders, and do it in the name of free speech.
Really? You want media to be state-run in the US?
You would actually need to repeal the first amendment to make that happen.
Really? You want media to be state-run in the US?
You would actually need to repeal the first amendment to make that happen.
I think the misunderstanding is happening because big tech claims to be an impartial platform and then actively censor whatever they don't like.
People are not demanding for government mandated one-sided media, they're asking a private company that they believe to be an impartial platform to don't take side.
Sure, you can follow both Parler and Twitter, Blaze and YouTube but I'd prefer to have a single transparent platform which respect completely freedom of speech.
People are not demanding for government mandated one-sided media, they're asking a private company that they believe to be an impartial platform to don't take side.
Sure, you can follow both Parler and Twitter, Blaze and YouTube but I'd prefer to have a single transparent platform which respect completely freedom of speech.
> big tech claims to be an impartial platform
I don’t think they claim any such thing. Read the Twitter TOS, guidelines, rules, etc. There are pages and pages of restrictions. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies
I suspect Twitter doesn’t use a moderation policy like Parler’s specifically because they don’t want to be a cesspool like Parler, with the correspondingly tiny user-base.
I don’t think they claim any such thing. Read the Twitter TOS, guidelines, rules, etc. There are pages and pages of restrictions. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies
I suspect Twitter doesn’t use a moderation policy like Parler’s specifically because they don’t want to be a cesspool like Parler, with the correspondingly tiny user-base.
>single transparent platform which respect completely freedom of speech
In which case it becomes a cesspool that most people will want to stay as far away from as possible.
In which case it becomes a cesspool that most people will want to stay as far away from as possible.
You can still provide optional curation without censorship.
That said, I do enjoy browsing 4chan, which could qualify under your definition
That said, I do enjoy browsing 4chan, which could qualify under your definition
> Really? You want media to be state-run in the US?
No, I just don't want tech companies "protecting" me from information. I'll read the direct words from people and process them for myself.
Twitter/FB/Apple/Google are not entities I would ever want choosing what I see and don't see.
[EDIT] Ironic that HN has chosen to censor my account. I guess what I said is too "dangerous" for you, the lowly user to read.
No, I just don't want tech companies "protecting" me from information. I'll read the direct words from people and process them for myself.
Twitter/FB/Apple/Google are not entities I would ever want choosing what I see and don't see.
[EDIT] Ironic that HN has chosen to censor my account. I guess what I said is too "dangerous" for you, the lowly user to read.
>Twitter/FB/Apple/Google are not entities I would ever want choosing what I see and don't see.
Isn't that exactly what they do to keep engagement up?
Isn't that exactly what they do to keep engagement up?
> for private companies
what is the relevance of these companies being private?
what is the relevance of these companies being private?
Caveat Lector: I am not a lawyer.
It’s less about the company being privately held and more about being a private sector company. There’s also a distinction in American common law between speech in the Public Square from speech in other locations, like private property.
It’s less about the company being privately held and more about being a private sector company. There’s also a distinction in American common law between speech in the Public Square from speech in other locations, like private property.
> There’s also a distinction in American common law between speech in the Public Square from speech in other locations, like private property.
My pet theory is that while legally, all but a few websites are private property, at some point countries are going to introduce legislation that sets criteria for when a private website must start acting like a public square (ex: more than X income, Y user accounts, Z daily active users).
Or, have government-run public squares, something like "geocities.gov" or "NextDoor.gov".
Not sure which one I think is worse.
My pet theory is that while legally, all but a few websites are private property, at some point countries are going to introduce legislation that sets criteria for when a private website must start acting like a public square (ex: more than X income, Y user accounts, Z daily active users).
Or, have government-run public squares, something like "geocities.gov" or "NextDoor.gov".
Not sure which one I think is worse.
> at some point countries are going to introduce legislation that sets criteria for when a private website must start acting like a public square
The US courts already apply existing standards for when private spaces have some of the same rules as public ones to online fora without needing separate legislation.
The US courts already apply existing standards for when private spaces have some of the same rules as public ones to online fora without needing separate legislation.
oh just a legal point. I am not sure that ppl saying that are arguing from a point of legality.
It's possible for people to simultaneously support the right of private companies to take legal actions that they want to take (including the IMO justified deplatforming of this individual) and to be somewhat bothered by the fact that big tech can get together over lunch and decide to substantially erase a significant slice of political discourse from the internet.
Mind you, they have various incentives--including potential anti-trust action--to maintain a light touch. But they have a huge ability to suppress if they chose to exercise it.
Mind you, they have various incentives--including potential anti-trust action--to maintain a light touch. But they have a huge ability to suppress if they chose to exercise it.
> It's possible for people to simultaneously support the right of private companies to take legal actions that they want to take (including the IMO justified deplatforming of this individual) and to be somewhat bothered by the fact that big tech together over lunch and decide to substantially erase a significant slide of political discourse from the internet.
This describes me pretty well. I'm personally okay with Twitter/Facebook/etc. temporarily/permanently banning Trump's accounts for numerous reasons (not the least incitement to riot), but I feel very uncomfortable de-platforming all of his supporters. Sure the ones actively making threats or other illegal actions, but I don't like the automatic removal of all of their discussion.
I'm definitely very conflicted about the whole thing though. I don't really see an obviously right way forward.
This describes me pretty well. I'm personally okay with Twitter/Facebook/etc. temporarily/permanently banning Trump's accounts for numerous reasons (not the least incitement to riot), but I feel very uncomfortable de-platforming all of his supporters. Sure the ones actively making threats or other illegal actions, but I don't like the automatic removal of all of their discussion.
I'm definitely very conflicted about the whole thing though. I don't really see an obviously right way forward.
There are still plenty of Trump supporters on Twitter and Facebook. There certainly isn't a blanket ban.
I think it's funny that many technologists love to wax philosophical about how disruptive and world-changing tech is except when it comes to this one issue. We have to admit that this is an unprecedented issue in the history of democracy.
I do think private companies should be free to run their platforms as they wish. I also feel really, really uncomfortable with the amount of power they have to control political discourse.
I do think private companies should be free to run their platforms as they wish. I also feel really, really uncomfortable with the amount of power they have to control political discourse.
[deleted]
It's weird how people treat social media as somehow very different than other types of media.
If someone in your town distributed pamphlets telling people to burn down the courthouse, they'd probably faces charged or be censured. Most people would agree with this, or at least, the idea that there are consequences for some kinds of speech actions. Freedom of speech has limits whether it's First amendment or just the general idea of freedom.
Why is social media any different?
If someone in your town distributed pamphlets telling people to burn down the courthouse, they'd probably faces charged or be censured. Most people would agree with this, or at least, the idea that there are consequences for some kinds of speech actions. Freedom of speech has limits whether it's First amendment or just the general idea of freedom.
Why is social media any different?
I agree. If someone calls to burn down a courthouse, they should absolutely face charges. But that's not what's happening here.
In this case, someone is saying "the courthouse is bad" after someone else tried to burn it down. The person who tried to burn down the courthouse is already facing legal repercussions. But what do you do about the person still complaining about the courthouse? Are they wrong to do so?
In this case, someone is saying "the courthouse is bad" after someone else tried to burn it down. The person who tried to burn down the courthouse is already facing legal repercussions. But what do you do about the person still complaining about the courthouse? Are they wrong to do so?
The real question is why are govt officials using public companies to communicate to the public? The shareholders who drive profits can ultimately do whatever they want to the accounts.
It gives too much power to unelected officials and sets a side channel of unofficial but official communication which is confusing for citizens.
It gives too much power to unelected officials and sets a side channel of unofficial but official communication which is confusing for citizens.
Because it is the most effective means of communicating a stream of short messages with a huge audience.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Right or wrong, power dynamics and censorship aside:
Remember that these platforms:
* have a lot of insight that we don't, even into private (generally unencrypted) messages
* are most likely in some kind of talks around how to handle certain things as an industry
* have bidirectional information channels with 3-letter agencies
I'm thinking they have caught wind of something that they want to prevent from happening or escalating. For example, other events (terrorist attacks? coup?) are being planned, and recruiting and coordination is taking place on their platforms.
Remember that these platforms:
* have a lot of insight that we don't, even into private (generally unencrypted) messages
* are most likely in some kind of talks around how to handle certain things as an industry
* have bidirectional information channels with 3-letter agencies
I'm thinking they have caught wind of something that they want to prevent from happening or escalating. For example, other events (terrorist attacks? coup?) are being planned, and recruiting and coordination is taking place on their platforms.
If The Public is interested in the existence of Public media, like a digital town-square soapbox, then we could use Public resources to make that exist. Like a public-broadcasting version of social media.
But if someone like a President will use private services like Twitter then they're choosing to subject themself to the rules and whims of that private service. It was a weird thing to do in the first place. There are official communication channels for the President to use.
But if someone like a President will use private services like Twitter then they're choosing to subject themself to the rules and whims of that private service. It was a weird thing to do in the first place. There are official communication channels for the President to use.
What would you recommend as an alternative? A presidential email chain?
President is not dependent on twitter, just like his predecessors were not. The president can make official and unofficial announcements.
I always wondered why Trump didn't simply create a blog at "whitehouse.gov/~djt" or the like. Now that he's been banned from Twitter, I expect he'll set up something at Trump.com. IndieWeb, indeed.
To me this is not crazy nor bad. He is actively calling for a coup. He is actively calling for his followers to harm people. It is a clear line.
In that case he should be stopped at all costs by all platforms.
If he had clearly said go march and do not try to "murder the press" or go march and not smash peoples heads in with blunt objects you would have a leg to stand on.
There is not an issue here. He is a danger.
In that case he should be stopped at all costs by all platforms.
If he had clearly said go march and do not try to "murder the press" or go march and not smash peoples heads in with blunt objects you would have a leg to stand on.
There is not an issue here. He is a danger.
I am damn sure that National security apparatus in India is running around - and planning their own splinter-net. Why do you need American intermediaries whose Terms of Service that @PMOIndia have to communicate mostly with Indians.
Within American set up, we can talk about SV and its biases, but people in New Delhi, Tel Aviv etc. who consider them regional powers are burning midnight oil, to avoid fate of Trump.
Its either Government that regulates the Big Tech or Big Tech regulate the Government, in America - the die is cast, but others, do not want foreign national curate their culture and national dialogue.
The firewalls will be up in no time.
Within American set up, we can talk about SV and its biases, but people in New Delhi, Tel Aviv etc. who consider them regional powers are burning midnight oil, to avoid fate of Trump.
Its either Government that regulates the Big Tech or Big Tech regulate the Government, in America - the die is cast, but others, do not want foreign national curate their culture and national dialogue.
The firewalls will be up in no time.
I'm very pessimistic about speech and Democracy in the United States and I believe the tech industry is contributing to a real witches brew in our society.
The consequences will play out in unpredictable and dangerous ways.
The focus is all on Trump today, but even politically distant voices are being silenced by this corporate-government alliance. For example in the most recent Ron Paul Liberty Report - they note that the Youtube censors have warned the Liberty Report and it is aggressively collecting email addresses anticipating a ban.
I favor free, unregulated speech and I recognize that I am a dinosaur.
The consequences will play out in unpredictable and dangerous ways.
The focus is all on Trump today, but even politically distant voices are being silenced by this corporate-government alliance. For example in the most recent Ron Paul Liberty Report - they note that the Youtube censors have warned the Liberty Report and it is aggressively collecting email addresses anticipating a ban.
I favor free, unregulated speech and I recognize that I am a dinosaur.
>The consequences will play out in unpredictable and dangerous ways.
What I'm wondering is what the impact of this will be in other countries. I could see a lot of other governments looking at the actions of US tech companies and going: "Hold on, they can do that? What if they do it over here?"
What I'm wondering is what the impact of this will be in other countries. I could see a lot of other governments looking at the actions of US tech companies and going: "Hold on, they can do that? What if they do it over here?"
Horrible precedent, before the dominance of big tech was implicit and now it has become explicit, in the next years we will see much more of this along with new propaganda to sell censorship.
I have heard it said that the test of a good governmental system is whether you would be ok with letting those you politically oppose run it. I feel somewhat similar here. Are we really comfortable with the tremendous power and editorial discretion that the large tech companies have, if we step back and look at it in a vacuum rather than through the emotionally charged lens that comes with Trump? I don’t know what the right solution is, or if there even is one in the near future. I do feel, however, that vesting the extreme control of information into a handful of companies seems very unhealthy for democracy to me.
These companies want nothing more than to be hands off and they tried to play the free speech card for a long time. The problem is that the large online forums with no social consequences eventually get taken over by extremists every time.
I agree this power should not be centralized in a few companies, but neither do I think we can afford to do nothing. The big problem in the modern age is that the reasonable majority is staying silent while the extremists on both sides of the political spectrum are given free rein to spout demagoguery, which is amplified by engagement-driven algorithms.
Politics and the mechanics of control aside, one thing is certain: we can not get out of this situation if someone does not start standing up for the truth. Tump's disregard for the truth was deeply unsettling, and if his tactics are seen as successful and taken up by the left, then we are in for civil war.
I agree this power should not be centralized in a few companies, but neither do I think we can afford to do nothing. The big problem in the modern age is that the reasonable majority is staying silent while the extremists on both sides of the political spectrum are given free rein to spout demagoguery, which is amplified by engagement-driven algorithms.
Politics and the mechanics of control aside, one thing is certain: we can not get out of this situation if someone does not start standing up for the truth. Tump's disregard for the truth was deeply unsettling, and if his tactics are seen as successful and taken up by the left, then we are in for civil war.
They are no longer being subtle. They are now open in supporting one party rule.
idm Twitter blocking Trump but I mind the selectiveness. They really should go after everyone otherwise it's total meaningless in my eyes.
The official government account of the Chinese Embassy in US is still tweeting about how good and liberating are the Xianjing camps and only the west are not understanding them.
Ali Khamenei also tweeting about Holocaust denial. How come he is even allowed to use Twitter considering the sanctions?
And more others.
It's just really weird.
The official government account of the Chinese Embassy in US is still tweeting about how good and liberating are the Xianjing camps and only the west are not understanding them.
Ali Khamenei also tweeting about Holocaust denial. How come he is even allowed to use Twitter considering the sanctions?
And more others.
It's just really weird.
That’s the part that I struggle with. These are private platforms and have every right to moderate.
But - they’re also very socially important, so rules should be applied clearly and equally.
But - they’re also very socially important, so rules should be applied clearly and equally.
> Ali Khamenei also tweeting about Holocaust denial. How come he is even allowed to use Twitter considering the sanctions?
Because Iran isn't threatening them with anti trust laws. It makes sense to me, not that weird tbh.
Because Iran isn't threatening them with anti trust laws. It makes sense to me, not that weird tbh.
[deleted]
I kinda think he was better off constrained.
Now, we've unleashed him and his followers (80 million to be exact) onto all manner of third party social networks, almost all of which prominently feature racism.
Way to expand the racism market, <insert your choice of epithet about nearsighted liberals here>
Now, we've unleashed him and his followers (80 million to be exact) onto all manner of third party social networks, almost all of which prominently feature racism.
Way to expand the racism market, <insert your choice of epithet about nearsighted liberals here>
kitkat_new(1)
They won't come after Biden. That guy wrote the Patriot Act. Well, the original, not the compromised second draft. And he's now proposing an expanded version. All true. Thanks for your "votes".
Anyway, good luck!
Anyway, good luck!
An unprecedented week for the tech industry! Is that what we're calling it lol?
A week in which more Americans died from covid than any week prior. The day after the insurrection over 4k people died from covid, a disease that half the country thinks is a hoax. The lame duck president (who has done his very best to spread covid) whipped an armed mob into attacking the nation's capitol building during the vote to confirm his opponent. Trump accomplished that final betrayal the old fashioned way, with a stage and a podium.
But yes, the industry sure is seeing some unprecedented stuff. Banning the president from Twitter is the biggest thing HN has ever seen because a large chunk of its users are trapped in the tiniest bubble in the country.
A week in which more Americans died from covid than any week prior. The day after the insurrection over 4k people died from covid, a disease that half the country thinks is a hoax. The lame duck president (who has done his very best to spread covid) whipped an armed mob into attacking the nation's capitol building during the vote to confirm his opponent. Trump accomplished that final betrayal the old fashioned way, with a stage and a podium.
But yes, the industry sure is seeing some unprecedented stuff. Banning the president from Twitter is the biggest thing HN has ever seen because a large chunk of its users are trapped in the tiniest bubble in the country.
It's terrifying and humiliating that corporations can do such things to a President nonetheless. And not just some banana President, but one that presides over an absolute superpower. USA looks more like decentralized China by doing this.
No issues with Trump have been fixed, dirt has been swept under the rug. Silencing someone doesn't undo their words and, ironically, it tends to amplify their message.
Impeach him, sue him, shutdown the government, rally against him persistently and systematically. That is the right way. But it takes effort, much, much, much more effort than hitting the ban button and calling it day (and achieving nothing in the process).
These corps play by the FOTM. Thinking that they aligned with your just cause is crazy. Have you forgotten they cuddle with China as well?
No issues with Trump have been fixed, dirt has been swept under the rug. Silencing someone doesn't undo their words and, ironically, it tends to amplify their message.
Impeach him, sue him, shutdown the government, rally against him persistently and systematically. That is the right way. But it takes effort, much, much, much more effort than hitting the ban button and calling it day (and achieving nothing in the process).
These corps play by the FOTM. Thinking that they aligned with your just cause is crazy. Have you forgotten they cuddle with China as well?
I don't know if private corporations should have to allow the president unfettered access to their platforms. I would be opposed if every newspaper was required to post whatever the president wanted.
The necessity of communication to the the people should be filled with an official government website that isp's have to allow access too or something. And the president should only be able to use that when acting as the president not campaigning etc.
Two issues that make this look worse are the idea that the president needs Twitter or even Facebook to communicate to people. And that the president acts solely as the president on the platform. Neither of these are really true.
The necessity of communication to the the people should be filled with an official government website that isp's have to allow access too or something. And the president should only be able to use that when acting as the president not campaigning etc.
Two issues that make this look worse are the idea that the president needs Twitter or even Facebook to communicate to people. And that the president acts solely as the president on the platform. Neither of these are really true.
> I don't know if private corporations should have to allow the president unfettered access to their platforms.
Hopefully republicans can get back in power in a few years and have the will to really 'break up' big tech. I can see trump running on this again and winning. I would vote for whoever can make this happen.
Hopefully republicans can get back in power in a few years and have the will to really 'break up' big tech. I can see trump running on this again and winning. I would vote for whoever can make this happen.
I would point out that president still can speak outside of twitter and facebook. It means the exact same way as all previous presidents did.
> Impeach him, sue him, shutdown the government
Twitter really really should not do any of those. Twitter can apply to him exact same rules non-presidential accounts are subject of. Non presidential accounts are closed either temporary or forever all the time.
> Impeach him, sue him, shutdown the government
Twitter really really should not do any of those. Twitter can apply to him exact same rules non-presidential accounts are subject of. Non presidential accounts are closed either temporary or forever all the time.
He has national emergency broadcast.
At this point I could see him using it just to really piss off the censors.
At this point I could see him using it just to really piss off the censors.
it's a private platform, I would be more worried if they were forced to host any government figurehead
They will play however the FOTM power sways them. https://twitter.com/jmpalmieri/status/1347064818944118784
Trump is indeed the President - not a king nor a dictator. His powers are limited and in this case he cannot force a private enterprise to host his private, i.e. non official, statements/comments.
Trump has a multitude of other venues to use if he wants to disseminate his statements private or official.
Trump has a multitude of other venues to use if he wants to disseminate his statements private or official.
corporate totalitarianism... but for good? 2020 is weird. The Government needs enough autonomy and power to regulate corporations. Of course, corps send in their lobbyists to control government. They'll live in a constant tug of war. What's scary is what happens when they're both evil.
I'm not sure how many more times we need to "debate" this on HN. These articles just get posted over and over, and then people hop straight into the comments to vent their feelings which aren't really unique to the article in any way.
I'm not clear what the point is, the types of comments I see in these threads aren't remotely persuasive, and I imagine the people who do have more nuanced takes have little interest in participating in these little melees. It just seems like a little whirlpool for angry people to shout their frustrations into the void again.
I'm not clear what the point is, the types of comments I see in these threads aren't remotely persuasive, and I imagine the people who do have more nuanced takes have little interest in participating in these little melees. It just seems like a little whirlpool for angry people to shout their frustrations into the void again.
This is unprecedented. For the first time in US history, there is active censorship towards the sitting president. Some people say the first amendment doesn't apply to "private enterprise" - but it does apply to the press, which Big Tech replaced with their platforms.
Twitter & Facebook act as
a) De facto spaces of prominent public debate
b) De facto news content (press)
De jure, they pretend they're in private tech business (to escape legal responsibility of a +b)
Section 230 gives them special immunity to censor any content they like, which makes them the arbiters of truth. This is incompatible with the US constitution, at last in spirit.
This is a reversion to feudalism. Roads in Europe used to be private property of Lords, you had to pay to use them. The National Republics (Nationalism) along with the Constitution (Constitutionalism) had the objective to define & uphold de jure the public space (from feudalism).
Right now, you're paying (indirectly) to use the roads of discourse and information dissemination, controlled by Twitter, Facebook and Google. This cannot continue in a democracy worth its name, and it is the opposite of what the US stands for.
[0] some quotes from https://twitter.com/_benoux_/status/1347155317516365826?s=21
Twitter & Facebook act as
a) De facto spaces of prominent public debate
b) De facto news content (press)
De jure, they pretend they're in private tech business (to escape legal responsibility of a +b)
Section 230 gives them special immunity to censor any content they like, which makes them the arbiters of truth. This is incompatible with the US constitution, at last in spirit.
This is a reversion to feudalism. Roads in Europe used to be private property of Lords, you had to pay to use them. The National Republics (Nationalism) along with the Constitution (Constitutionalism) had the objective to define & uphold de jure the public space (from feudalism).
Right now, you're paying (indirectly) to use the roads of discourse and information dissemination, controlled by Twitter, Facebook and Google. This cannot continue in a democracy worth its name, and it is the opposite of what the US stands for.
[0] some quotes from https://twitter.com/_benoux_/status/1347155317516365826?s=21
You said the first amendment applies to the press.
What does that mean? Is a news outlet obligated to run the words of a President?
I’m against the ban, but I don’t understand your reasoning.
What does that mean? Is a news outlet obligated to run the words of a President?
I’m against the ban, but I don’t understand your reasoning.
big tech platforms don't produce any content, they just host / publish what others create
This is sophistry. They can and do decide what is trending or suppressed, what passes and what gets deleted. They don't have to write anything to steer the public debate - there are millions of posts being written, selection suffices.
I think my definitions of who writes content vs who publishes it was off, my bad
I think everything you've said is correct until you get to the feudalism part of your analogy. the difference is you are still able to go and get information from others sources - creating your own if you have to. big social media platforms aren't the only "road" to travel down, there are alternatives
I think everything you've said is correct until you get to the feudalism part of your analogy. the difference is you are still able to go and get information from others sources - creating your own if you have to. big social media platforms aren't the only "road" to travel down, there are alternatives
Respect for correcting yourself, that is a rare thing to see.
> the difference is you are still able to go and get information from others sources
True. If you want to stay with the road analogy, the big and fast roads will be closed to you, you have to resort to using the narrow forrest paths where your car can't drive. Those paths aren't easily found, and they are more cumbersome to use. It is qualitatively not the same.
Also, at what point do you become a non-citizen? When Google & Amazon cut you off? Your payment processor stops working? CloudFlare kicks you off their network? Paypal freezes your funds? AWS won't host you anymore? FB & Twitter delete your accounts? Your political enemies pressure your employer to fire you?
> the difference is you are still able to go and get information from others sources
True. If you want to stay with the road analogy, the big and fast roads will be closed to you, you have to resort to using the narrow forrest paths where your car can't drive. Those paths aren't easily found, and they are more cumbersome to use. It is qualitatively not the same.
Also, at what point do you become a non-citizen? When Google & Amazon cut you off? Your payment processor stops working? CloudFlare kicks you off their network? Paypal freezes your funds? AWS won't host you anymore? FB & Twitter delete your accounts? Your political enemies pressure your employer to fire you?
In other words we replaced a pretty gatekept national media environment with one that was a civil liberties free for all on social media. Now the pendulum is perhaps feeling like it’s going back the other way where Major social media now will be more moderated around what’s considered a core set of values and facts, a little closer in feel to the boring 6:30 news of our childhood.
I don’t say that to draw judgment either way, but only to give context.