Comment by sametmax | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sametmax | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Exactly. And there are so many ways it can go wrong.

That's a problem with big companies. They need to please a mass of people that are very different with each others. Eventually they settle with the lowest common denominator, and eliminate more and more things that can offend.

Among them you will find:

    - new ideas which you can't know if they are bad or
      good yet and need assessment but will feel 
      inconfortable.
    - old ideas becoming relevant in our new context 
      (or that we are evolved enough to accept now) 
      that have been put asides for long because 
      of habits.
    - ideas that are important for a part of the 
      population and unsettling for another part. 
    - distrupting or creative things, arts, that just
      need to exist for humanity to keep grow, even 
      if it's not always good.
    - bad things that people need to know exist. 
      You can't exercice criticism if you don't have 
      the material to criticise. People need to be 
      able to read "Mein Kampf" so we can argument
      against it.

If you remove all the things that is offensive to everyone, the only thing left is a white sheet. Wait, not necessarily white, I didn't mean to imply... Well yes, sheets are made from trees I realize it has an impact on the planet but... Ok then there's nothing left. What do you mean I can't think outside of my white-sheetist stereotypes ? What if I identify as a nihilist ? You are offending me!

>You are offending me!

These quips about PC culture miss the mark. The rise of social networks / platforms catering to people who express their distaste for certain speech stems from their desire to further their revenue streams. I haven't heard of anyone leaving a platform because there wasn't enough offensive content.

Expect this behavior from every site that harvests user data and relies on adclicks to pay their shareholders. The monetezation of self expression -- a concern that dates back to at least the Usenet era -- is the culprit, not the speech criticizers.

"I haven't heard of anyone leaving a platform because there wasn't enough offensive content."

I have left both Twitter and Github recently, not because there "wasn't enough offensive content", but because I find thought-policing even more offensive than the allegedly "offensive" speech.

If it weren't for the fact that Facebook is used by many of my older relatives, I'd be out of there, too, and it won't take much more to get me to leave.

So... now you've heard of someone. I do not think I am unique.

>I do not think I am unique.

When those that agree with you start affecting said companies' bottom line, we'll call it a movement. Until then you appear to be in the severe minority.

The Internet is not governed, it is bought and sold; if you have any intention of affecting change, you do better to acknowledge that, at least as a start.

Realize, too, that the ability to "leave" these services is something of a privilege. Every job I've ever applied to in the tech world asks for a LinkedIn and, I've observed for programming positions, at least a presence on GitHub. It's hard to explain your free speech objections on your intro letter.

The majority don't care about democracy and trade freedom for security everyday.

The majority don't care about health and trade a healthy body for a cheeseburger everyday.

The majority don't care about ecology and trade pollution for saving a walk everyday.

Decision affecting the humanity cannot be based on the majority behavior. It should be based on the majority vote, because then you give people an occasion to step back and think. To discuss and argue. But don't base on status quo.

Cheeseburgers are healthy. It's the fries and soda that get you.

"Every job I've ever applied to in the tech world asks for a LinkedIn"

I've never seen any job that asked for a LinkedIn account, nor am I acquainted with anyone who ever got a job through a LinkedIn account. While there are undoubtedly exceptions, I don't personally know of any. In fact, that's why I left LinkedIn (long before I left Twitter and GitHub) -- way too much company spam, not enough actual usefulness.

"Realize, too, that the ability to "leave" these services is something of a privilege"

Is there anything that isn't a "privilege" nowadays?

"It's hard to explain your free speech objections on your intro letter."

There's no need to "explain" anything. Just refer them to your own public code repo, which any programmer worth his or her salt should be able to set up in a short time using an Amazon S3 bucket and one of the many utilities that exist for manipulating those buckets. Presumably the company you're applying to just wants to see some code samples. There's nothing magical about GitHub.

White sheets?? Are you in the KKK?

As in paper.

Woosh!

You can get all of that by visiting another website. You don't need to go to Facebook or Twitter to get that.

I don't get why people feel the need for Facebook or Twitter need to host those items on their own servers?

Do people not realize that these are private companies with editorial discretion?

but increasingly, the internet for people is facebook and Twitterand and Instagram, etc.

The issue is that its hard to get the message out with a few brands dominating the internets. How will one get the message out about a website if she or he couldn't blog about it on a platform like Twitter or Facebook?

p.s. I might be reading you wrong here

Let's follow that logic: the internet infrastructure is owned by private companies (i.e. Comcast), so shouldn't Comcast be able to censor and throttle anything that goes over their network?

Infrastructure isn't a free market. If it were, there would be a hundred different cable lines hanging outside your house, like what happened in the 1800's.

So, in order to prevent that situation, we allow one company a monopoly on the market. In exchange, that company is forced to follow common carrier rules, such as not interfering with speech.

I think the point here is that Twitter and Facebook increasingly look like a piece of infrastructure - it's hard to reach the general population without them, it's hard to opt out of using them, etc.

An entrenched-monopoly dominating an industry primarily controlled by network effects isn't really a free market either, free markets don't exist outside of college econ textbooks.

We all agree to use the same company for infrastructure, just like we all agree to use the same couple of companies for social media. It's just when the social media companies do things that are bad people pop up and say "they are private companies in a free market they can do whatever they want" because these companies are new and cable companies are old.

The reason Comcast is a monopoly is because if it wasn't, 21rst century networks would be like 19th century networks? Nice try, Comcast.

I agree with you that these are private companies which can, rightfully, facilitate or inhibit conversation or speech in anyway they desire: I wouldn't have it any other way. And I don't agree with the leanings of Facebook & Twitter management.

Having said that, their right to exercise editorial controls on their platforms does not mean they are somehow above criticism when they elect to do so in stupid ways. As the original comment in this thread suggested their moves in regard to speech are short-sighted and detrimental to the overall health of society, especially given the pervasiveness of use of these platforms. Still, I can recognize their right, and call them out on their foolishness, at the same time. I only cross the line when I demand force to be used against them (meaning a law written to force their hands); then I would be in the wrong. They don't have a responsibility to further discourse and I don't have a responsibility to hold my tongue when they fail in this regard.

They don't have a responsibility to further discourse and I don't have a responsibility to hold my tongue when they fail in this regard.

I would argue that anyone who takes it upon themselves to become the central hub for most discourse (or to organize the world's information) has an implied responsibility to act as a good steward of the empire they seek to control. We have no obligation as members of the public to accept whatever controls a land-grabbing (I use this term here non-judgmentally) empire builder wishes to impose; they sought to turn us into members of their empires, so we should at least have the right to demand they behave equitably, and perhaps even beneficently.

What is the source of this implied responsibility? What is the reason behind it? We might hope that they would do the right thing, but our desire doesn't bind them to deliver our wishes to us... even if it is in their best interest to do so.

When we use a Facebook or a Twitter, we (the public) accept the product they offer. True enough, if we find out we don't like the deal we can threaten to walk away if there is no change. But these companies don't have a responsibility, implied or otherwise, to better us, cater to any of us, or fulfill someone's vision of social good. It would be nice if they delivered on these things (of course my vision of what that means) but it is not their responsibility to do so. If I don't like that with sufficient intensity, my one valid recourse is stop using their services.

What is the source of their right to seek an empire in the first place? At root it's the social contract of the society whose members they seek to enlist.

The source of the implied responsibility of beneficence is the fact that without assuming such a responsibility the acts of a corporate empire are likely to be destructive to the long term interests of the society. By (for example) controlling the social network, they leave members of the society with limited choice not to participate, and thus the implied responsibility of beneficence in exchange for that removal of choice.

"The squeaky wheel gets the grease". I have heard far many times for my liking that Apple/Facebook/Twitter/Google...etc are private companies and they can do whatever they want as an argument. The same goes for products that are free. It doesn't automatically mean that we lose the right to criticize. It's necessary and healthy to raise objections and demand features that we'd like to have. It's in these companies' own best interests to listen to their customers and make decisions with their customers in mind (too). Even if these companies don't take heed, someone else would. May be another company would build something we are asking for. May be another social media company could pop up with a constitution like protection of freedom of speech.

The difference is that nobody is asking for these companies to be banned or to cease operations. They are free to do what they want and we are free to ask what we want.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com