Hacker News Reader

Comment by 21 | Hacker News Reader

What if power companies "de-platformed" you? After all you use that power to spew hate, so they are morally responsible. And there is no constitutional right to have electrical power.

You can just get yourself a generator, right.

And of course, Apple is under no obligation to sell you a MacBook. After all, being a hateful person is not a protected class.

I think it's about time we build a "bad people" list, which companies can consult before providing service. And if any company doesn't respect it, we can social media mob them into compliance.

View on HN

The crazy thing about social media mobs is how few people engage in them.

A few hundred or thousand people angrily tweet about something -- who cares, right? Wrong. Cable media cares. They pick up a few of the most inflamitory examples from Twitter (it's easier to find quotes on Twitter than it is to go outside and report) and they present these tweets as if they represent a mainstream movement involving millions.

And these angry (but tiny) mobs are having an enormous impact on private companies and public policy. The tail is wagging the dog.

See this account which is used to organize mobs. The current target is Breitbart, and apparently the campaign is quite successful (they are listing 4000 advertisers which supposedly dropped support):

https://twitter.com/slpng_giants

Wow. That account has over 180,000 unpaid followers.

That's quite literally a small army (for reference, it appears the number of active duty US marines is around 200k).

Without commenting on the causes this (or any other) army of followers believes in, it's staggering to imagine what kind of impact monetary incentives, dispersed, for example, by way of an autonomous smart contract that is funded by anonymous donors via 'x' cryptocurrency that relies on some simple proof of action for payout, could have on the frequency and magnitude of actions such groups carry out.

We really are at the beginning of a new chapter in the history of humanity.

>I think it's about time we build a "bad people" list, which companies can consult before providing service. And if any company doesn't respect it, we can social media mob them into compliance.

Who gets to decide on who goes on that list? This is a very dangerous predicament that could shut out legitimate voices and dissenters. The list itself would likely be against first amendment rights.

It was sarcasm (I think), but it’s what social media has been clamoring for for years. And yes, it’s a terrible idea. It’s only favored by those who want to curtail what people can say.

Let's be real here, there are big differences in what you're saying. The power company, or Apple for that matter can't know what you're using their products for. You could be smearing shit on twitter at work, or on the public wifi. There's no connection there. Whereas twitter, facebook, insta etc. the literal process is you send a message to the platform saying "Put X on you're website on my behalf".

A second big difference is facebook decides to de-platform groups on facebook for what they do on facebook, they aren't banning people on a shared bad people list. That would be a kind of cartel/collusion which breaches other restraints on a company's behaviour.

You are behind the times. Behavior outside Twitch can now lead to an indefinite ban:

> In a blog post on Twitch’s community board, the company said that if a streamer uses other mediums to send targeted harassment or hate toward another streamer, it will consider those actions a violation of Twitch’s policies — even though the activity didn’t happen directly on the platform.

https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/8/16988424/twitch-rules-haras...

This sounds a lot like how students in the US are treated with respect to first amendment rights in public schools

> Apple for that matter can't know what you're using their products for

Yet, Apple imperiously employs a EULA to prevent me from using iTunes to make nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons

https://www.cultofmac.com/140224/itunes-eula-wtf/

"there is no constitutional right to have electrical power"

In Germany it isn't an explicit right, but some judges ruled that your existential minimum to live includes heat and power.

And in Italy:

> Stealing small amounts of food to stave off hunger is not a crime, Italy's highest court of appeal has ruled.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36190557

No but there are many many laws restricting their ability to do so as part of regulating their natural monopolies. I'm not sure the network effects of Facebook, Youtube, etc. rise to requiring the same protections vs the monopolies of power companies.

I think that a better comparison to power companies is ISPs. Your ISP is a utility and natural monopoly, much like the power company. They shouldn’t be allowed to boot you for this (nor for alleged infringements by copyright groups but that’s a different matter)

Unless we want to start considering platforms like Facebook public spaces subject to all generalised government regulations for those spaces.

Yeah the comparison between Facebook/Youtube and power companies is painfully broken. If a power company won't sell to me there's no (practical) way to power my own home where Jones can peddle his lunacy all he want on his own site or one of the hundreds of other hosting opportunities. People have to be oh so slightly more active in seeking out his content now.

It's sad/scary that a lot of people would think that's a good idea.

That is, until they find themselves on said list.

And if this list is anything like the no fly list, its tough to get off of even of you were placed on the list in error

Sounds in the same ballpark as China's "social credit score."

Don't think this is satire that can't happen.

I can't help but notice how Poe's Law [1] is at work here, and many commenters downthread differ in opinion whether this post is satirical or serious.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

(I'm curious more than trying to make a point with the following.)

Any thoughts on the MacBook vs a MacBook with automated engraving offered by the company?

Where do cake decorators fit into this? Is the situation different if the decorating process is automated?

This is a tangent.

But no, I doubt it would matter.

A company can refuse to put your initials as "KKK" on the product they sell you, regardless of the method by which they do it.

> we can social media mob them into compliance.

But isn't the problem with the social media actors in the first place...

So, like an extension of the BBB?

> I think it's about time we build a "bad people" list, which companies can consult before providing service. And if any company doesn't respect it, we can social media mob them into compliance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin%27s_execution_list_of_J...

Ooh ooh I love building lists of dissenters! That's like crack and baseball and baseball on crack rolled into one!

Shall we get started? First: anyone that seriously advocates we the people build a list of dissenters among our own citizenry. Second: anyone that wants to gut core provisions of the Bill of Rights and US Constitution.

That's about it. We don't really need to go any further. So, ready to sign yourself up for that list? I think it is such a fantastic idea that you really can't allow this opportunity to go to waste, and well, you know, you'll go down in history! That's even better than 15 minutes of fame on TV!

I nominate yourself to be the first person on that list and your "hateful" post is my justification.

I know being barred from the networks that most people use will be an inconvenience for you, but it's for the good of society that people like yourself aren't able to easily disseminate these sorts of ideas.

In fact, I know a guy with power and influence that can expedite your blacklisting, so I think I'll mention your name to him.

Please do not resist, comrade. If you behave we may remove you from the list after a suitable number of years.

This is a hyperbolic analogy and not useful. Sale of electricity and of general purpose computers are wildly less direct than providing a purpose-built platform for speech dissemination. Now, I don't think that banishment from those platforms for anything they define as "hate-speech" is guaranteed to be right for all definitions of "right", and it deserves real scrutiny, but your argument doesn't illuminate anything.

It was refreshingly insightful. It clearly illustrates the problem with “no platforming,” a concept that is inherently censorship.

It's a common and obvious rhetorical tactic to manufacture an analogy that scales up the points you want to make and/or scales down the points you don't agree with. It's the same spirit as a strawman. I'm genuinely sad to see that called "refreshingly insightful" on HN.

Mm, a fair critique. This is one of the classic arguments where people feel strongly in one direction or another, and it takes very little effort to essentially set up a yay/nay vote.

We can find common ground, but I wish it were possible without restricting what people can say.

I would disagree. I think selling a person a computer/electricity which they use to make a podcast is as "wildly direct" as selling server hosting (social media platform) for the podcast.

What about grocery stores that sell food to the same person allowing them to exist and make those said podscasts? Are they as "wildly direct" as well?

But power companies can refuse you service. So what is your point? In the US, it's pretty well established that the corporation has a right of free-speech too, which usually translates into the right to not to business with someone.

See recent supreme court rulings.

That's not entirely true. Power companies in some states can't refuse service, or they have to jump through a bunch of hoops to do so.

I had an ex who would go 6-9 months without paying her utility bill, simply because there was nothing the power company could do about it. She was abusing the system, but the rules are setup that way so that people who really can't afford to pay their bill don't freeze to death in the winter.

> in some states

Look, power companies can cut power. Sure there are rules, but the point still stands that they can do it. But it's not even relevant because getting your power cut can affect your ability to remain alive.

Not posting on Facebook is not going to kill anyone.

That's a bit of a misconception. In the US, there are plenty of laws that state a company must do business with you in various circumstances. See all the public accommodation laws. Beyond that, actually read the SC ruling on the whole cake thing and see its implications are not quite what the hype said.

It's not even relevant because electricity is not an ISP and an ISP is not a social network, and net neutrality doesn't exist. And power companies can cut your power!

Power companies have specific rules of when they can cut someones power. Many more companies than power (e.g. restaurants, groceries, etc.) have laws that require them to service customers. See all the public accommodation laws.

If Silicon Valley keeps looking like it is coordinating its censorship, then I would expect those laws to be extended to ISPs & social networks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com