[HN Gopher] The Problem with (All) the Tech Hearings
___________________________________________________________________
The Problem with (All) the Tech Hearings
Author : tosh
Score : 33 points
Date : 2020-10-29 21:37 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (zeynep.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (zeynep.substack.com)
| mattnewton wrote:
| I think the article is good and does a good job outlining how the
| legislators have basically abandoned their regulatory position
| for showboating.
|
| I disagree that we have lost anything substantive here though, or
| that new regulation around this might even be necessary; When in
| American history would all of the major book publishers refusing
| to print someone's words mean the publishers should be made
| legally liable?
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > When in American history would all of the major book
| publishers refusing to print someone's words mean the
| publishers should be made legally liable?
|
| I'd say that tech companies a. have more power than book
| publishers, b. are more concentrated than book publishers
| historically have been.
|
| Moreover, why are we constrained by American history given that
| the challenges we face clearly are not?
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > even though they are, of course, perfectly able to post
| elsewhere on the internet
|
| My biggest concern is that the "they're private companies, they
| can do whatever they want" argument applies to ISP's, too -
| they're private companies as well. We've already seen Epik being
| "deplatformed" by PayPal (also a private company) for allowing
| controversial content to pass through their infrastructure. I'm
| not sure I agree that Twitter should be _forced_ to reinstate the
| New York Post, but I 'm having trouble disagreeing that they
| should carry more liability for what they _do_ allow if they
| refuse to.
| nostromo wrote:
| The hypocrisy on both sides of this debate shows how
| disgustingly Machiavellian American Politics has become. The
| ends always justify the means now; no consistency of ideology
| is required.
|
| A party that hates regulating business suddenly sees the light
| when powerful businesses start removing them from the public
| square.
|
| A party that pretends to be for free speech and free journalism
| suddenly has a change of heart when it benefits them going into
| an election.
|
| A party that purports to stand up to big business suddenly
| supports the largest megacorps in the history of man because
| their interests are temporarily aligned.
|
| A party that thought Citizens United was terrible because it
| gave the rights of citizens to corporations suddenly cares very
| deeply about Twitter/Facebook/Google/Apple's freedom of
| expression when used to eliminate critical voices on their
| platforms.
|
| Both parties are about power. Neither party has any remaining
| principles.
| zo1 wrote:
| Very good point! I'd like to add that potentially the reason
| why these institutions (parties) act that way is because, we
| as people that form part of them, also don't have or adhere
| to any strict principles.
|
| Edit: Grammar.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| > My biggest concern is that the "they're private companies,
| they can do whatever they want" argument applies to ISP's, too
| - they're private companies as well. We've already seen Epik
| being "deplatformed" by PayPal (also a private company) for
| allowing controversial content to pass through their
| infrastructure.
|
| This isn't new or unique to paypal. The Credit Card companies
| and banks that underly pretty much every fancy modern method of
| money transfer have and do "deplatform" people. And they've
| done it for ages. Porn companies can't use conventional credit
| card processors, and there's a long history of banks and credit
| cards refusing to do business with certain companies (https://e
| n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplatforming#Financial_servic...).
|
| Whatever your overall opinion of deplatforming, the idea isn't
| anything new or unique to twitter. ISPs were singled out (they
| aren't anymore, net neutrality was rolled back, now your
| argument only applies to phone companies).
| ravi-delia wrote:
| I guess it just comes down to a matter of degree. An ISP is way
| harder to move away from than Twitter. Switching away from
| Twitter was both free and an enormous benefit to my mental
| health; switching from Comcast to Verizon was less so. It's a
| harder argument to make when it comes to the paypal case, but I
| think that again we see that Twitter and Facebook aren't really
| utilities at all. If Twitter bans you, there are plenty of
| places to go even as a business or public figure.
| KorematsuFred wrote:
| You are being intellectually honest to admit that we can not
| have one set of rules of ISPs and another set of rules for
| Twitter.
|
| I think both of them should have the discretion to do whatever
| they want while the government should constantly work hard to
| ensure there is always more competition. It is the government
| which has made it impossible to create credible alternatives to
| Google, Facebook or Twitter. Firstly, US government will try to
| kill any foreign competitor in the name of national security or
| some other straw-man. Domestic level the regulation is darn too
| complex for anyone to succeed with reasonable capital.
| mattnewton wrote:
| I disagree- I can trivially move between social networks and
| in fact have done so recently. As a renter I have exactly one
| hardwired ISP available to me; AT&T cellular based service is
| not comparable where I live. It's the same way we have
| different rules for your electric bill and Amazon.
| mr_toad wrote:
| > they should carry more liability for what they do allow if
| they refuse to.
|
| The result would be opening up any and all moderated forums to
| a tsunami of lawsuits. Twitter would survive, they have armies
| of lawyers. HN would be shut down.
| nullc wrote:
| It's also a lot harder to move away when they actively suppress
| any discussion of or links to alternatives and even collude to
| do so. Or when they punt toxic users over but not the toxic yet
| profitable ones (such as the president...).
| spfink wrote:
| The problem with tech hearings, and generally most hearings with
| subjects at all related to engineering/science/math, is that
| Congress is old and actually trending older on average (at least
| as of 2018, we'll see soon this cycle).
|
| The hearing yesterday was always going to just be a political
| show due to the current election but remember back to Zuck in
| 2018 regarding Cambridge Analytica or earlier this year with
| Zuck, Bezos and Cook. These congressmen are just clueless about
| tech entirely and apparently aren't seeking expert help in
| advance of these hearings.
|
| As a big tech employee myself, I absolutely believe that a lot of
| these big tech companies should be broken up and I can clearly
| see things that we are doing that aren't good for the consumer.
| Congress just isn't asking the right questions and isn't asking
| for the right information.
| ponker wrote:
| The tech giants have definitely benefited from US politics
| devolving completely into Culture War. With the politicians
| completely uninterested in genuinely learning, deliberating, and
| acting in the shared interest of the country, the corporatists
| can simply give the politicians the red meat they want
| (essentially, sitting timidly in a chair while some football
| coach who had enough name recognition to win his primary yells at
| him with the Terrifying Power of the State) and then continue
| business as usual.
| [deleted]
| calimac wrote:
| Users need the power of curation. Not, algorithms built by scum
| bag tech "platforms"
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-10-29 23:00 UTC)