Comment by mistermann | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mistermann | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> I find the analogy between free speech (which he has, literally can say whatever he wants) and a platform being obligated to distribute _everyone’s_ content bizarre

I find it interesting how so many people are unable to stop their mind from automatically, and without their awareness, narrowing the very broad topic of the principle of free speech in general, to narrower and more specific topics like the first amendment, or obligation (by force!) to distribute unsavory ideas (neither of which were mentioned in the comment to which you are replying).

Can we agree that the network effect has reduced the majority of public, mass online communication to a relatively small number of players, most of whom are owned and heavily staffed by people who don't tend to describe themselves as centrists on the political spectrum? Considering this, can you imagine any scenario where perhaps multiple silicon valley companies work in a coordinated fashion to de-platform someone of a political persuasion that they disagree with sometime in the future?

I think we've seen large societies in the past get a little carried away when everyone starts thinking the same way, exposing their minds to only one flavor of opinions, and perhaps harming their ability to think critically. Some people might say we're living within that very scenario right now. No, this doesn't necessarily mean Alex Jones specifically has any redeeming qualities whatsoever, but can you at least see that there is at least something to be said for the general principle of free speech and diversity of ideas?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

"Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or sanction."

EDIT: Downvoters, care to share the thinking behind your disagreement? Do you think I'm wrong in thinking that the principle of free speech exists independent of the first amendment, and can be discussed with or without the existence of force being exerted on publishing platforms? Is the very idea of a conversation with those whom you may not completely agree old fashioned or unrealistic?

(FYI I didn't downvote you because you gave a thought out answer, must be other people.)

> ...most of whom are owned and heavily staffed by people who don't tend to describe themselves as centrists on the political spectrum?

The tech companies are _significantly_ right wing on any spectrum including countries outside the USA.

> Considering this, can you imagine any scenario where perhaps multiple silicon valley companies work in a coordinated fashion to de-platform someone of a political persuasion that they disagree with sometime in the future?

If you are saying tech companies should be broken up, I don't have a strong opinion on it. If you are saying that they should be forced to promote conspiracy garbage - I disagree.

> Considering this, can you imagine any scenario where perhaps multiple silicon valley companies work in a coordinated fashion to de-platform someone of a political persuasion that they disagree with sometime in the future?

I hope so, ISIS uses social media.

> I think we've seen large societies in the past get a little carried away when everyone starts thinking the same way.

I disagree that is what is happening here - when Australia's chief scientists was questioned by a conspiracy theorist he said "I like to keep an open mind, but not so open my brains fall out". I think brains fall out delusional fear mongering should be suppressed (not by suppressing free speech, just by people sense checking and only promoting what they want) by the majority, particularly when it has real world impacts like AJ. You could argue the current state of the internet (lots of garbage conspiracies) is an effect of this being short-circuited.

As well, I think your dogma towards "free speech at any cost" is an example of people getting carried away and thinking the same.

Every other western country has free-ish but not free speech, however people are more free from fear and persecution in those places than in America. Consider that AJ is banned from visiting places where quality of life, political engagement, etc is higher than in the USA.

Even if you disagree with my points, what about the company employees' free speech, don't they have the freedom to publish whatever _they_ like?

> The tech companies are _significantly_ right wing on any spectrum including countries outside the USA.

This seems like the absolute opposite of literally every single article I've ever read, I have not once heard a single person make this claim before. Am I misunderstanding something, are we not talking about the same thing?

> If you are saying tech companies should be broken up

I said nothing of the kind, the transcript of what I said is right there for your review.

> If you are saying that they should be forced to promote conspiracy garbage - I disagree.

Once again, I said nothing of the kind, the transcript of what I said is right there for your review.

> I hope so, ISIS uses social media.

Considering:

a) https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

b) What I actually wrote

....does that seem like an appropriate response?

> I disagree that is what is happening here

I am referring to the possibility that if free speech in general is restricted to the point that large portions of the population rarely hear views that might conflict with their own, one possible result might be that they lose the ability to think critically, and perhaps the ability to hold the simplest of good faith conversations with those whose actual opinions may differ only slightly.

> As well, I think your dogma towards "free speech at any cost"

If I had actually said anything of the kind, I would agree with you.

I asked some fairly reasonable questions that 10 years ago wouldn't have been considered controversial at all. I would hope that you and anyone else that comes across this exchange review the words I have written, and the words you have written in response, and try to think calmly and clearly about the nature of this situation. There is something very, very strange going on.

As for free speech, if there's no longer anyone left who is able or willing to engage in an honest discussion, perhaps there's no point in even trying to defend the principle.

1) tech companies employ people at will and engage in profit shifting

2) I did jump to two plausible solutions to what you were describing, true.

3) You did say tech companies shouldn’t be the arbiter of content people put on there. I said I _want_ then to be the arbiter given terrorists use the platform. It’s a fair point that the thing you are saying is wrong has literally been going on for years, and the only difference is that now its someone you disagree with less being censored.

I reread and feel my comments were fair, you are subscribing to free speech at “Alex Jones” cost (effectively any). As well, I am engaging in an honest discussion, we just disagree.

> tech companies employ people at will and engage in profit shifting

Your claim was: "The tech companies are _significantly_ right wing on any spectrum including countries outside the USA". Structuring your company to maximize financial returns is hardly a good representative of the complexity of right/left leaning in the aggregate.

> I did jump to two plausible solutions to what you were describing, true

That's a rather generous characterization of what you wrote.

> You did say tech companies shouldn’t be the arbiter of content people put on there.

Please quote the part where I said that.

> the only difference is that now its someone you disagree with less being censored

This is your imagination playing tricks on you again. Review everything that has been written here, and find the most compelling words I've written that substantiate this claim. I think you might be surprised.

> you are subscribing to free speech at “Alex Jones” cost (effectively any)

Once again, your imagination is projecting ideas onto your mental representation of me. To test whether this is true, review the conversation and find where I said anything remotely advocating "subscribing to free speech at “Alex Jones” cost (effectively any)".

There is a way out of this situation, but it isn't a zero effort endeavor.

mistermann 9 hours ago [-]

>> The tech companies are _significantly_ right wing on any spectrum including countries outside the USA. >This seems like the absolute opposite of literally every single article I've ever read, I have not once heard a single person make this claim before. Am I misunderstanding something, are we not talking about the same thing?

Maybe broader reading? Tech company management is predominantly "libertarian" and right wing. You often hear Sili Valley leaders extolling Ayn Rand, never hear them extolling e.g. the economic ideas of MLK or even JFK.

"Right wing" applies to many dimensions, not just economics. Companies making economic decisions to maximize returns to shareholders and themselves is pragmatism, not the exercising of fundamental "right wing" beliefs.

If you exclude the economic dimension and consider the aggregate silicon valley stance with respect to the broad realm of politics, would you still maintain there is a right-leaning philosophy?

There is no connection between Ayn Rand and pragmatism.

a) Is that an opinion or a fact?

b) Are you taking the opinion/assertion "You often hear Sili Valley leaders extolling Ayn Rand" as a fact, and believing the obligation is on me to disprove it?

I'd be happy to hear any disagreements about things I personally said though.

Your down voters are clearly proving your point.

It seems that despite HN audience comprising mostly smart people, they are no less ideologically blinkered than other forums.

I am continually disappointed that on non-tech threads, HN is just as biased (and in the same direction) as reddit.

A further disappointment is that even tech threads so often end up devolving into discussions of politics and Trump, with the predictable outcome.

Bias is to be expected, after all, even the smartest humans are filled with all sorts of evolutionary extras that may have been useful in the past.

But what's new, and should be obvious to anyone who's been on this site for 5+ years, is the increasingly bizarre nature of these disagreements. Yes, people have always gotten emotional and disrespectful from time to time, but if you pay attention, you may notice a new phenomenon where people are starting exhibit signs of not being able to distinguish the person they're communicating with from an imaginary caricature of the person. People will passionately respond to specific claims, sometimes even fairly complex, that literally haven't even been hinted at by the actual person in the actual conversation. It's like people are arguing with their imagination.

Man, if people on HN can't keep it together, I don't know what to think. It's easy to say this is just how it is online, people in the real world are much more reasonable, and there's a lot of truth to that. But at the same time, I believe the contagion is spreading, and might be even more influential in future elections. And outside of the very rare post like yours (which unsurprisingly has a dim grey color to it), there seems to be almost no support for a voice of reason, at least not ones that happen to dissent in the slightest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com