Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by eli_gottlieb 3500 days ago
And additionally, in a democracy, isn't one voice per human being the only appropriate principle? Why should the angriest, shrillest people with the deepest pockets get to swing public discussion by just bombarding the rest of us with their propaganda until we regurgitate it?
1 comments
E6300 3500 days ago
If everyone must speak at the same volume, then broadcasting or any kind or public speaking are impossible. All communication must consist of 1-on-1 conversations or among small groups. If you allow broadcasting, then eventually some voices will be louder than others.
link
eli_gottlieb 3500 days ago
>If everyone must speak at the same volume, then broadcasting or any kind or public speaking are impossible.

No, you can have one voice broadcasting, and as long as it's still one very loud voice, it's only one voice. This is part of the psychology of how people measure veracity of information: through apparent public consensus. So you can have CBS broadcast something, and that's fine, but it becomes problematic when CBS buy themselves a thousand Twitter bots with names like "Joe Smith" or "DankMemes88", thus giving the false impression that thousands of people are all in consensus.

link
E6300 3500 days ago
Alright, fair enough. How could you fix that, though?
link
d_e_solomon 3500 days ago
I think the point is that if a voice is speaking louder, than it has a larger responsibility to the public. If the voice is automated on a platform, and isn't serving the public good, then the platform has a responsibility to prevent it.
link
E6300 3500 days ago
The main point of eli_gottlieb's comment was that money is effective at swaying public opinion. This is obvious. It's the whole point of advertising and marketing. I think whether the source is automated or not is a secondary concern, since all broadcasting involves some automation.

I don't agree that a broadcaster has a responsibility to their audience. If a broadcaster starts screwing up consistently -- for example, by relaying false or unsubstantiated information -- the audience has the choice to move on to the next guy.

I also don't agree that it's necessarily the platform's responsibility to control what's on it, although it has that option.

link