Hacker News Reader

Comment by curiousgeorgio | Hacker News Reader

How is this okay, people? Seriously, how can people turn a blind eye to this, when it's not even a secret operation or a conspiracy theory? When the administration openly describes how they're colluding with a private company to censor speech (and obviously not the kind of speech that isn't protected), without any apology or promise to correct the course, you know we're in serious trouble.

Have we really forgotten the countless times this has played out in history, and where it leads?

Also: mods - if this article is flagged for being "too political", I urge you to reconsider this one. I don't care which administration did this, but I certainly feel like it represents a major historical point in the conversation around free speech.

View on HN

Because misinformation is rife, dangerous, and is being weaponized.

Ideally any measures to control misinformation - like societal restrictions during the pandemic - are temporary and rolled back when the situation is more stable.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that climate change denial, addictive pharmaceuticals, unsustainable energy production and the potential for human suffering as a result of any and all of those are areas where malignant (and often well-funded) actors see potential opportunities.

Many folks on HN here love the concept of "free speech" without restrictions because we've been drawn into a world of binary outcomes and absolutes. That's not the way the world works, and it shouldn't be used as an excuse to permit destructive behaviour for profit.

I'm glad to see democratically elected representatives of the U.S. take up their responsibilities rather than pandering to corporate and oligarchical interests.

I do agree with you wholeheartedly that this topic should not be flagged.

>I'm glad to see democratically elected representatives of the U.S. take up their responsibilities rather than pandering to corporate and oligarchical interests.

This isn't some noble representative getting a bill passed through Congress to stick it to Big Tech for profiting off of outrage media, click-bait, surveillance capitalism, etc etc (I wish it were thus). This is the executive branch of an administration colluding with those corporations to provide "guidance" on what the permitted narrative is.

>Many folks on HN here love the concept of "free speech" without restrictions because we've been drawn into a world of binary outcomes and absolutes. That's not the way the world works, and it shouldn't be used as an excuse to permit destructive behaviour for profit.

I mean, sure. But we aren't talking about the traditional restrictions on free speech, which have fairly well understood legal precedents and have laws about them. I don't even know what "permit destructive behaviour for profit" means, since one person's destruction is another person's creation (just look at the ad ecosystem on the internet).

If 9/11 was the justification for an ever-expanding state surveillance/security apparatus, then the Pandemic will be the justification for ever-increasing collusion between the "democratic" government of an ostensibly free country and the massive multi-national tech companies who have the means to control what is and isn't said on the internet. The people who warned us about the PATRIOT Act turned out to be right.

> This isn't some noble representative getting a bill passed through Congress to stick it to Big Tech for profiting off of outrage media, click-bait, surveillance capitalism, etc etc (I wish it were thus). This is the executive branch of an administration colluding with those corporations to provide "guidance" on what the permitted narrative is.

That's a valid perspective, yes - but I can almost guarantee you that it's a team of people using evidence, data and analysis to determine what they believe is best for their population, in co-operation (rather than collusion) with a business. A business that would quite happily take the reins of power, sure, but a business that is nonetheless under the legal remit of the U.S.

>but I can almost guarantee you that it's a team of people using evidence, data and analysis to determine what they believe is best for their population, in co-operation (rather than collusion) with a business.

That you can't guarantee this is reason enough to not permit this activity.

I sorta get where you're coming from, but not sure I completely understand. What do you think this post flagging activity will lead to, and do you feel confident that those outcomes are worse than the impact of the flagged content?

I think we're obviously coming from slightly different perspectives. I don't really have any trust, at all, in the ability of unelected bureaucrats to operate in a benevolent matter (especially in secret). While "eliminating COVID misinformation" may, to some, sound like a noble goal, there is no limiting principle for the use of this power. Either statutorily, or otherwise. What's to say that social media companies won't be pressured under the very same reasoning ("this misinformation leads to death!") to remove "misinformation" about gun violence, or climate change, or abortion? Since gun violence is a "public health issue", surly the same reasoning would apply. Psaki said yesterday if you're banned on one platform for COVID misinformation, you need to be banned on all. Where's the boundaries of what constitutes a social media platform? Does that include payment networks like Venmo? Do you see how easy this can cascade, both in terms of content and in terms of the in-scope platforms?

>and do you feel confident that those outcomes are worse than the impact of the flagged content?

I genuinely don't understand this question, but that's likely because I don't understand social media to be the proximate cause of vaccine skepticism, and I suspect it's an easy political target for missing vaccine goals. A much more likely explanation is upstream from media itself, and sits with political leaders who continue to act as if taking the vaccine doesn't change anything, or they explicitly told the public they wouldn't take it if it was developed under Trump.

Thanks for responding honestly. There's some more information out there now regarding the original story:

It looks like there are twelve individuals who have been responsible for large amounts of the disinformation that is a concern, and they're the ones whose content is being removed (I believe they still retain their user accounts).

Here's an article including a report that the White House has cited: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/17/covid-misinfor...

The report[1] is quite readable; here are two quotes from the executive summary:

"Analysis of a sample of anti-vaccine content that was shared or posted on Facebook and Twitter a total of 812,000 times between 1 February and 16 March 2021 shows that 65 percent of anti-vaccine content is attributable to the Disinformation Dozen."

"Despite repeatedly violating Facebook, Instagram and Twitter’s terms of service agreements, nine of the Disinformation Dozen remain on all three platforms, while just three have been comprehensively removed from just one platform"

> Since gun violence is a "public health issue", surly the same reasoning would apply.

That is an insightful comment. My opinion is that guns and people with guns kill people, so this could warrant further exploration.

> Where's the boundaries of what constitutes a social media platform? Does that include payment networks like Venmo? Do you see how easy this can cascade, both in terms of content and in terms of the in-scope platforms?

> I don't understand social media to be the proximate cause of vaccine skepticism

Yep, I think you're right; it's individuals and their behaviour (especially folks who can attract, charm and influence a large audience, regardless of social setting) who are closer to the cause, not necessarily the platforms themselves.

But that said: the platforms are well aware of these kind of people, and have been for years. That they don't do anything about them, I expect, is down to the fact that those people are vital for the growth and engagement of their platforms.

They know the root causes and I am fairly certain that that knowledge will be well documented (or, if they are more careful, known and discussed without being written down) within their company growth strategies.

[1] - https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21011322/disinfo-doze...

>attributable to the Disinformation Dozen

I appreciate the back and forth, but there's something extremely creepy about the government(s?) branding private citizens with a nom de guerre as if they're an organization with enemy-of-the-state status.

I don't know that I was clear enough when I said I "don't understand social media to be the proximate cause" of vaccine skepticism. I do not think it's 12 people who manage facebook groups with <1M shares (over a 6 week period!) of their anti-vaccine content. Relative to the volume of posts that go out on these platforms, that is a laughably small amount of reach. It's especially small when you compare it to the reach of the people who dole out vaccine guidance and information, who themselves say one thing about its efficacy and then act in a manner contrary to those same pronouncements. These things get noticed (for the record, got both shots as soon as I could but that should not be relevant), and then feed into the anti-vaccine content itself. Or, and perhaps especially, they say things in one time period for political expediency[1] and then act surprised when some people actually followed the advice.

[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/kamala-harris-s...

........

This is a very strange situation to me. When someone makes a claim about social media and it's negative effects on society, there's usually a good-sized cohort who jump in to say "prove it" with data. I'm not saying that here, necessarily, and I do hate social media for other reasons - but it is a little odd that we are attempting to attribute the cause of missing vaccination goals to literally 12 people with a facebook account, when there's dozens (no pun intended) of other confounding variables, and then justifying a pretty significant crossing of the Rubicon in allowing a more heavy-handed approach for letting the executive directly engage with these companies on what is and isn't allowed to be said.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com