Hacker News Reader

Comment by solidsnack9000 | Hacker News Reader

Taking this together with the recent house hearings and with other material, like AOC's questioning of Zuckerberg, it seems like leftist people (a) are distrustful of the tech giants' business and wealth and don't really believe it's been beneficial; and yet (b) trust them to regulate speech and want them to do so more aggressively. It's not logical.

View on HN

Seems like your (b) is mistaken, they want them to regulate speech (the "aggressively part let's leave aside) and do so within clear parameters. It seems fairly clear that they are not trusted to regulate the speech but rather expected to and are to be closely monitored for how they do so.. the hearings themselves are evidence of that.

> and do so within clear parameters.

I'd disagree with this part pretty strongly. What clear parameters are you thinking of, besides "get rid of my enemies"? Can you formulate a "no endorsing violence" policy that keeps the current protests/riots while banning Trump's latest idiocy, or one for "no racial discrimination" that keeps White Fragility and bans "they're not sending their best... Murderers, rapists" or similar? That kicks off Infowars or Richard Spencer while leaving Malcolm X or Ta-Nehisi Coates? Sure, the political right tends to cross those lines further - but it's often a case of degree and direction, not kind.

I think it's either a really hard line to draw in a viewpoint-neutral fashion, or a huge political fight. (Whether you choose to ban Trump without the Left, or you try to ban both, people will be furious)

>Can you formulate a "no endorsing violence" policy that keeps the current protests/riots while banning Trump's latest idiocy

Yes, it’s quite simple and I’m wondering if you are intentionally or accidentally being obtuse by trying to frame the current protests as riots. There were plenty of peaceful protests all over the country - no endorsing violence simply means not highlighting peaceful protests over violent ones. It’s not rocket science except to those grasp at straws in order to equate civilians walking in the streets to Trump implying police shoot civilians.

Shouldn't people be allowed to be aware of violence going on in their home country?

But if you don't trust them, then how do hearings help? Hearings only ask questions and but don't create any change?

Often politics aren't about the person being spoken with but the people watching the conversation.

It's logical if you look at it this way: We want you to regulate the speech the way we tell you to (b), and if you don't, we'll use your shady business practices against you and take away your wealth (a). It's a basic play the government loves to play - stick and carrot, if you behave, you get beneficial regulations, if you don't, we'll regulate you into the ground.

How else would elected officials play against those who could essentially fund your opponent with collective billions of dollars?

"Government" is made up of many actors and groups, and the fundraising dynamic is that a) corporation gives to incumbent to get favors or b) gives to opponent to remove regulatory pressure from an incumbent not willing to play ball.

What you are seeing is the natural result of corporate control over elections and consequently, politicians.

The way I see it, because the government cannot censor speech AOC wants companies like Facebook to do it. Very dishonest. I would expect calls from people against any censorship, not for it.

Really, is this something AOC has said, or is it something you read on a meme with a picture of her face?

https://qz.com/1698520/free-speech-experts-school-aoc-on-soc...

A story of AOC blocking someone on Twitter is all you have.

Well, OK lol

I don't see how that article is relevant at all. What does AOC blocking people on Twitter have to do with the alleged claim that AOC wants Facebook to censor speech?

Show me something AOC has _said_, not a meme of a dubious quote with her face on it.

The relevance is a datapoint which indicates AOC does not care about freedom of speech in certain fundamental situations.

Blocking people on twitter is a "fundamental" situation? I'd love to hear what you call Trump sending in the military to clear protesters.

And again, I'd also like you to explain the logical leap between "AOC blocked some people on Twitter" to "AOC wants the power to tell Facebook who to censor".

Remember when it was ruled the POTUS blocking people was unconstitutional?

https://www.ncsl.org/blog/2019/07/23/potus-cant-block-critic...

I'm not prepared to argue this applies to her in the same way, but maybe the person who you're responding to thinks it is parallel, so perhaps more dialogue than just scoffing would be appropriate.

I feel like I'm being trolled here. The poster's claim was

>because the government cannot censor speech AOC wants companies like Facebook to do it.

Ok, AOC shouldn't be allowed to block people on Twitter. What does that have to do with the original claim?

The context of my comment was not reading the qz.com link. So now it seems redundant.

But now that I have read it, I'm confused even more about the responses.

Blocking people on Twitter is arguably (because the courts are saying so) a violation of the constitution. For an elected official at least.

If someone wants to regulate speech, and they have tried and been prevented from doing so on first amendment grounds, it seems likely motivation to search for a legal alternative method to achieve their goals.

Is AOC against Facebook regulating content then?

I don't think I see the motivation/goal attributed to her as illegitimate. Maybe everyone is taking for granted that it's a "loophole".

I know I'm splitting hairs, but the us government effectively censors obscenity, defamation, whistleblowers, inciting violence, copyrighted material etc.

>(a) are distrustful of the tech giants' business and wealth and don't really believe it's been beneficial

This is a stance I wish non lefties picked up on tbh. Even if you're rather right wing or liberal it should be obvious that larger companies being able to pay less taxes and being able to get more benefits than your local business or startup is unfair. Or that anticompetitive practices that squash smaller competitors, give unfair advantage and/or establish monopsonies is terrible for entrepreneurship, social mobility and the free market in general.

yet it's self-proclaimed 'capitalist to the bone' that I see defending it's erosion of it's dynamics and benefits.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com