Comment by dukeofdoom | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dukeofdoom | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Say you are successful tech Billionaire. Watching your other billionaire friend's hubris get the better of him, and decide to take up flying only to crash into the ground. You go through some phase of self reflection, and realize you won't live forever, and so decide you can make the world a better place. You consult some self help books, listen to some new age mysticism, and read some exciting woke ideas about gender and critical theory. You are now ready to do "good". You fund every fringe woke charity, you pay forward for the right candidates. But as hard as you try, there are still these every day common folk, simple minded kind, that don't agree with all the goodness you are trying to foist onto the world. They make rude comments in online forums, doubt your every move, and they even have candidates that plays up to their ignorance. You seeth with disgust, and a bit of despair. Finally you decide the best way forward, is to not to give these people a platform to speak their simple minds. So you censor the internet, kick of their political leaders, and decide that in order for the world to be a better place, you must control the narrative. To win, you must control their simple minds. Its you and your allies that must write the truth of what the simple minded folk should think.

A shallowly cynical take, if I've ever seen one.

What comments like this do their best to ignore, is that many people, perhaps most, agree that platforms bear some responsibility for managing misinformation and the like. But arguing that point requires targeting popular will, instead of an unpopular rich dude. Much easier to demonize someone few people like, than debate a position held by many in earnest.

I would argue many people (if not most) don't want platforms to be arbiters of truth. Because it's very hard to arbitrate truth in an unbiased manner. And more often than not truth arbiters eventually fall into the trap of promoting their own agendas.

I would argue that people don't want the platforms to adjudicate THEIR views and THEIR side. They are fine with the other side getting the shaft. The woke, mainstream media and Democrats, the groups that are succeeding in pushing Twitter and Facebook and social media to increase censorship are doing it because it's advantageous to them because either their political opponents are being suppressed, or, as is the case with NY Times and other mainstream outlets, it leads to financial advantages (more views, more clicks, therefore more money).

It's also dismaying that even those on the left (as few as they are) that are against this kind of censorship, are against it because it could be used against them in the future (and it will) ... and not because it's the moral and ethical thing to let your political opponents have a platform to make their case.

I don't know how to speak on behalf of "people" in general but I know that I personally am in favor of some solution that weeds out misinformation while still giving all political parties voices.

If you want to talk policy, values, goals, and agenda, go for it. If you want to talk hate or amplify things known to be factually untrue, you should be fact checked loudly and clearly, and if that doesn't change what you are saying, you should not get to say it any more.

Now how to achieve that is of course a completely different issue and seems quite difficult...

You can start by stuffing a sock in their mouth, if that doesn't work, cut of their tongue. If they still dare to speak their mind, well than do whats been done in the past, and off their head....if only you could be King.

>I know that I personally am in favor of some solution that weeds out misinformation while still giving all political parties voices.

The way this will manifest itself is through a left-wing 20-something low-pay intern who will be tasked to decide whether something is or isn't true. Or put another way, you're delegating what you should or shouldn't see to that intern. Are you OK with that? Because I'm not. I neither want you, nor that intern, to decide for me.

>If you want to talk hate or amplify things known to be factually untrue, you should be fact checked loudly and clearly, and if that doesn't change what you are saying, you should not get to say it any more.

And who will arbitrate this?

And the context behind a statement like this is that your side is truthful and the other guys are liars because nobody thinks THEIR speech should be curtailed. For example, when Hillary Clinton went around and claimed Trump was an illegitimate President who stole the 2016 election [1] - should she be banned from all social media? By the way, most major media outlets have echoed this sentiment as a 'fact' many times since the 2016 election - the vast majority of which turned out to be bunk. Should the NY Times be banned for that? Or are you OK with only the NY Post being banned for reporting on a true story against Hunter Biden and his laptop?

How about when Democratic politicians and Democratic base claim that Republicans steal elections due to voter suppression, voter id, and gerrymandering - is that grounds for a ban? This happens after every major election Democrats lose. This is so normal you probably don't even notice it. Even today, there are outright lies being promulgated against Georgia's new elections laws by Democrats for partisan reasons - is that grounds for a ban? Or do you just want a laser focus on what Republicans are saying?

Right now on YouTube if you try to cast doubt on the outcome of the last election, it's an outright ban. OK. Let's make it so that this rule applies equally ... but then, I'm watching Sam Seder and he's got a video titled "How GOP Legislatures are already trying to steal the next election" [2] (which is one video in a long series of videos across years making this claim) - I guess it's OK to assert election theft as long as you just assert the Republicans are the ones doing the stealing (and by the way, Democrats have asserted the 2000, 2004 and 2016 presidential elections were stolen - "coincidentally" the ones they lost). Would you be OK with one set of standards by which everyone gets banned? Or do you want double-standards?

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ITlaEXJGVk

There are way too many strawmen here to rebut, but I'll take on a couple.

> The way this will manifest itself is through a left-wing 20-something low-pay intern who will be tasked to decide whether something is or isn't true.

I mentioned above that I don't know if this ideal can be met, but I still think it is ideal to me. I do believe there are other ways beyond your suggestion (was it as serious one? You couldn't think of any other ways?)

> How about when Democratic politicians and Democratic base claim that Republicans steal elections due to voter suppression, voter id, and gerrymandering - is that grounds for a ban?

Be careful... I never called for banning sides or people, only statements. And yes, saying things that are proven untrue should not be allowed by anyone in government or politics or public positions. (It isn't relevant but I'm not a Democrat, fyi).

People say that in the abstract, but in practice they actually do want that.

It's the same way Americans want the government to be small and non-interfering until you're talking about specific policies that actually sound pretty good, like stimulating the economy by handing people money.

People don't want Facebook to be arbiters of truth, until you get people spreading dangerous anti-scientific conspiracy theories and the like; then suddenly they believe Facebook should've done more.

That may be, but looking back through recent history, there were plenty of powerfull people that fell into the grips of the fashionable, obscure and laughably wrong ideas, and ideologies. And imposed them on society through fiat, murder, and force.

The price of being wrong, always seems to pass down in society. Those at the bottom suffered the most in wars.

Just because you are INTJ, a billionaire with funds, and a fashionable reading habit, does not make you a qualified social engineer.

Generally, the masses going about, acting in their own self interest, talking to each other freely, makes for a better world, than one imposed upon them, through the dictates of a King.

This misses the part where Facebook got massive complaints and government investigations over not doing anything to prevent the spread of certain information. You can't have it both ways.

Having watched and listened to most (though not yet all) of last Thursday's House Energy and Commerce hearings on disinformation in social media[1] does show considerable concern from both GOP and Democratic members.

Though the specific tenor of complaints differs.

Democrats for the most part are concerned with disinformation and racial, ethnic, and gender bias.

Republicans tend to raise issues of perceived political bias, disrespect to sitting / former electoral officeholders, social values issues (notably transgender and other LBGTQ+ matters), bullying, suicide, and policies concerning what is perceived as legitimate legal terminalogy concerning immigration.

I see frustration and anger largely equal on both sides. The underlying factors however differ by parties.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw6wJ7dFiPs

You say this all as a joke or as a way to impress upon people the risks of wokism - but every type of justification for someone having more power over another comes down to someone claiming that their form of running the state is better than others - and that uneducated idiots shouldn't hold power.

This isn't leftism gone wrong - this is the allegory of the cave.

Some people advocate for authorities to have less power over others.

And no one wants to elect them. How do anarchists and libertarians do in elections? Oh right pretty terrible everywhere. You know it's bad when your best counterarguments are the zapistas or like catalonia circa the 1930s

No. This is revisionist.

This isn't Zuckerberg's doing. Up until recently Zuckerberg wanted as little moderation and censorship as possible. This mirrors the libertarian ethos of all the founders of modern tech companies. All of them (from Facebook, to Twitter, to Reddit, etc.) wanted to be just a platform for ideas. After Trump's election there became a concerted pressure campaign by woke culture, mainstream media and Democratic party against Facebook and other social media companies to moderate and ban anybody who doesn't conform to their particular narrative. Social Media was blamed for Hillary's loss. Social Media was blamed for Russian misinformation. Social Media was blamed for giving a platform to right-wing media and Trump supporters. We saw the end-result of this in the run-up to last year's election where Facebook and Twitter actively banned and suppressed Hunter Biden stories (which was applauded by many here as well). Stories that were true, by the way.

So no. Don't think for a second this is Zuckerberg. He never wanted this. None of the tech companies wanted this .. but here we are.

This argument might be more appealing if we hadn't just come through a pandemic that an unnamed group of people were more than happy to describe as a hoax.

There's the myth of election theft if you needed a second example.

There really is a lot of 'misinformation' (outright lying) on social media.

This is a great illustration of the point I'm making. Thank you for providing a crystal clear example of how we got here.

>This argument might be more appealing if we hadn't just come through a pandemic that an unnamed group of people were more than happy to describe as a hoax.

Yes. If you give people a platform they'll say all kinds of things, true, untrue, and, partly true.

Regarding COVID, what's interesting is social media companies decided that anything that goes against WHO guidelines is a hoax, even if you have credible epidemiologists having a discussion. WHO is staffed by very good people who are experts in their fields, but WHO is a human organization that is susceptible to political influence and regular human faults. For example, I don't fully trust any conclusion the WHO reaches when it comes to COVID and China. I just don't. I'm glad WHO exists and they do a lot of good work, but I don't want WHO dictating (directly or by proxy) which opinions I am allowed to hear.

The implicit argument you're also making is that if you just ban your political opponents promulgating views you think are false (and some many be false), those views will go away. That's not going to happen. All you did was increase mistrust and increase conspiracy thinking.

>There's the myth of election theft if you needed a second example.

By who exactly? Because up until this election, EVERY election that Democrats lost was because of election theft, through either Russian misinformation, or voter suppression, or gerrymandering, or voter id, or systemic racism or unicorns. EVERY.SINGLE.ONE. Trump's election was deemed as stolen by huge swaths of Democratic politicians (including Hillary) and voters.

Oh but those are credible 'election theft' allegations because they come from YOUR political side. It's the other side that gets everything wrong. Your allegations against 'election theft' shouldn't be suppressed, but theirs should. Right?

>There really is a lot of 'misinformation' (outright lying) on social media.

And you're afraid that your reasoning abilities are so feeble that you don't trust yourself to see this misinformation lest you be affected by it? And therefore you need a low-paid, 20-something, intern-censor to tell you what you should and shouldn't see.... You may be OK with that, but I'm not.

Hillary conceded literally in day one. The democrats who said "not my president" shut up and stopped protesting after a month.

You're trying so hard to make it seem like this is a both sides problem but we all know that it isn't. Political rehtoric is far different than actually taking the capital over.

Plus - the democrat lost elections due to it being "stolen" narrative you claim is being fostered by the democrats is more likely being fostered by the democrats political enemies. I don't believe bernie sanders is begging his supporters to stay home because bernie got screwed on super delegates in 2016 or 2020. Most of the "not my president" crap might as well have been from russian bots with how effective it is for democrats. So, maybe you should celebrate democratic incompetence since you dislike them so much...

>Hillary conceded literally in day one.

She did ... and since that time has been going around claiming Trump is an illegitimate president and the election was stolen. Here's one source[1] but honestly, there are hundreds.

>The democrats who said "not my president" shut up and stopped protesting after a month.

No. That's a lie. Huge swaths of Democratic politicians, voters and media have made direct claims about the 2016 election being stolen (and any election they lost).

>Plus - the democrat lost elections due to it being "stolen" narrative you claim is being fostered by the democrats is more likely being fostered by the democrats political enemies.

No. That's a lie. Even now the new Georgia election law is being characterized by Democrats as a way to steal future elections. But these kinds of claims were being made after every election as far back as I can remember (I can remember the claim of presidency being 'stolen' in the 2000 election, certainly the 2004 election with voting machines being hacked, up until now). Stacy Abrams lost by 50 thousand votes and still claims that election was stolen. It's so normal for Democrats to make those claims nobody even bats an eye anymore. It's so accepted.

You have a blind spot for your side. You can see everything the other guys are doing wrong, but you don't see your guys doing anything wrong. And that's the problem here. You don't want tech companies to censor everyone by the same standards. You want double-standards. You want them to censor by YOUR standards.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum...

"Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com