Silicon Valley companies should censor more content?
No - that's not what they're saying.
If you want to, go read the respective acceptance speeches, in their original form. Actually the only relevant one (for this thread) is Maria Ressa's speech; Dmitry Muratov's speech didn't mention technology or the internet at all, despite what may have been implied in the NPR article.
As to Ressa's speach -- it's quite clear she wasn't advocating censorship, per se. A fair reading of what she was saying is that these companies should stop using algorithms that structurally promote hateful and inflammatory simply because it is more "engaging" -- as they have been caught doing red-handed, basically.
But that is, strictly speaking, different from advocating outright censorship of that material. In my view, quite obviously so.
Indeed. I think the actual entity to be scorned here is NPR, not the laureates. They seem to be twisting the meaning of the speech to promote some other agenda, and in one case outright fabricating the connection.
Social media algorithms amplify whatever is most profitable to amplify. Unfortunately, amplifying sht flinging turns out to be the most profitable. Social media companies have encoded this preference into their algorithms from the very beginning and optimised - a/b tested- for profitability along the way.
Social media are deliberately hiding gems under piles of - pardon my french- sht. How do we call this? Censorship, a specific subset of censorship, or something not quite censorship but very similar? We need to know, because fighting an enemy with no name is difficult! Are there any existing words? What about "deluging"? Any other suggestions?
How do we help people survive the drowning-in-sht effect of this social media deluge? That is the key question! Agency for the social media consumer will be a key part of the answer. In human-speak: "no sht in my feed!".
If, hypothetically, there were 1/3 people who are legitimately easy to manipulate online, then in that hypothetical scenario, what would be a good response that didn’t involve censorship?
What comes to my mind is that it’s largely the algorithms fault. They hyper optimize for strong emotional reactions and not at all for truth or value. It’s the social media companies that are forcing this insane content down peoples throats, it’s not like you can hide the YouTube recommendations panel. Every time I turn off auto play, it turns itself back on (Firefox fixes this). When I turn on my vpn, the things I get targeted with are bonkers
The article is factually incorrect. For instance, the Russian journalist did not mention Silicon Valley companies nor did he intend to mean that social networks are promoting authoritarianism and waging war.
Instead, he referred multiple times to the mainstream media in Russia that is tightly controlled by the state and is acting as a propaganda device that serves short-term goals of the ruling elite, promoting war in Ukraine and anti-western sentiments along the way.
NPR took pretext of an event to present an opinion.
npr takes every story as pretext to present opinion and dogma, and avoids stories that impede that. they've always been biased, but at least 8-10 years ago, they veered directly into outrage and propaganda, probably because they'd have lost donor funding without it. that is, their real donors, the big corps and foundations, not the little pledge drive donors. pledge drives are for collecting demographic data to attract deeper-pocketed advertisers.
it's critical to the survival of the traditional news businesses that social media remains under attack, otherwise the grip that outlets like npr has on the collective zeitgeist will weaken into irrelevance. that's what they're fighting for, not freedom of speech or journalistic integrity. it's for relevance, which translates into money and power.
This should be the story itself. NPR and most other US commercial media establishments are arsonist-firefighters. Is there a link to a non-skewed story that could be shared to replace this one?
Seems like the title is based on Ressa’s quote:
"Silicon Valley's sins came home to roost in the United States on January 6 with mob violence on Capitol Hill," she said. "What happens on social media doesn't stay on social media."
That’s how I read it too. It’s interesting to see how platforms’ freedom to moderate as they please is being assaulted from all sides—some groups are claiming they must be forced to moderate more or be punished for what their users post, while others are claiming they must be forced to moderate less (or not at all) or be punished for what their users post.
The people calling for that have really not thought their positions through. The SV companies have a lot of flaws, but they do appear to be genuine in their belief that their censorship is helping. That is arrogant and not good enough ... but there isn't going to be a better option. The alternatives to them having control enable people who are more arrogant, less able and do more damage when mistakes inevitably get made.
I can't take "censorship" arguments seriously on 2 accounts. Firstly, information is not egalitarian: Information is better supported and more relevant than others. No one saying a baby screaming in a movie theater is being censored.
Secondly, social media has its own rules for speech almost diametrically opposed to government and academic. I regularly come across crazy claims from anti-vaxers like "the virus 2 microns. too small for masks to capture." am i being censored when my assertion that they are wrong by a factor of 10 because it's saliva that carries viruses and that they should give my voice equal time in their echo chamber?
>"the virus 2 microns. too small for masks to capture."
This is literally true; it's just incomplete given the relationship with saliva as you noted.
The solution here is to reply and spread more true knowledge.
You can cite super-narrow cases constructed to make censorship seem like a great idea. Within the limited bounds of those examples, the argument may seem to hold water. But in reality, there is no way to limit the power of censorship to the places where it's right to use. It will always be abused, and today it is being abused massively to suppress reasonable ideas from millions of people because they don't flatter the values of the people who happen to hold power.
I think, it's about the opposite of censorship: selective amplification by recommendation, governed by engagement metrics.
(What would have once been a mere footnote or a tiny bar fight, is now amplified by bringing in the equivalent of entire cities to the scene. What was small becomes big, and what would have been big goes unseen. This is a manipulation of social discourse in dimensions previously unknown.)
One of the key criticisms of "The Algorithm" (I wouldn't really phrase it this way) is that "sharing" as we understand it today shouldn't exist. There shouldn't be a quick little button I can press on Facebook to put an article into 500 people's news feeds.
By this metric, everyone's personal opinions/worries/etc. are anti-democratic. The only pro-democratic material, with all the 'facts' and data, would be that put forth by the people with access to said information, which in this case is people working in the government.
I can think that somebody is a bad person, even suspect that is a criminal. This is a personal opinion. Not problem with it.
But If I say in a public media that a known public figure is a criminal or eats children alive for dinner, and I repeat this for months with a clear purpose of obtaining a personal benefit for me. If I do this while refusing to show any real proof of it and, when cornered by the truth, I claim that it was just my opinion and should be respected... well, this is a different issue.
We would be moving in the field of defamation. Libel can destroy lives and is not a thing to be taken lightly.
> You would say other thing if it was somebody from "your party"
Or maybe not. This is a perfect example of your opinion about a strange on internet. I really couldn't care less about if who says it is red, blue or multicolor.
> If I do this while refusing to show any real proof of it and, when cornered by the truth, I claim that it was just my opinion and should be respected... well, this is a different issue.
If that 'public figure' is the government itself, or a member thereof, then making 'false' statements was, at one point, criminalized in the Sedition Act of 1798 [1]. This was extremely unpopular, and while never directly ruled upon in the Supreme Court, is roundly assumed to be unconstitutional [2].
Making up shit about the federal government is simply a protected right of free speech in the USA.
> > You would say other thing if it was somebody from "your party"
Not sure where this is coming from, but I think you are responding to someone else.
> If you can show solid evidence, or any evidence, supporting your claim, not.
There was no evidence suggesting Trump's election win was not valid. The wild delusional conspiracy theories about how Trump colluded with Putin to hack the election under Obama's nose were not evidence, mind you.
So all those people, politicians, corporations, celebrities, and "journalists" peddling the Trump Russia conspiracy theories and false claims without evidence were anti-democratic pro-authoritarian? Or will there always be some excuse when "your" side does it?
So basically what the democrats and corporate media did from 2016 to 2020. Or is it that you/they are the deciders of exactly what constitutes bad behavior and by some incredible coincidence they always happen to define it so precisely and arbitrarily as to not be subject to it themselves?
That's a great way to not be authoritarian and anti democratic I guess, is to anoint yourself the decider of what is authoritarian and anti demicratic. Especially when you can move the goal posts around as necessary. How about inventing wild conspiracy theories, lying to voters, and recruiting your corporate media allies to spread these baseless claims that your political opponents are traitors who colluded with spooky foreign enemies to gain power?
Big Tech ( well arguably only Google and Apple ) has been painting themselves as so righteous and they have now painted themselves into corners. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I always knew the day would come for Google. I just never imagined how things changed under Tim Cook.
As it says in the article you linked, this type of situation js practically the opposite of what was described in Popper's book:
"Nonetheless, alternative interpretations are often misattributed to Popper in defense of extra-judicial (including violent) suppression of intolerance such as hate speech, outside of democratic institutions, an idea which Popper himself never espoused. The chapter in question explicitly defines the context to that of political institutions and the democratic process, and rejects the notion of "the will of the people" having valid meaning outside of those institutions. Thus, in context, Popper's acquiescence to suppression when all else has failed applies only to the state in a liberal democracy with a constitutional rule of law that must be just in its foundations, but will necessarily be imperfect."
I'm not sure how Facebook posts are literal physical violence. Also, it's so weird to keep seeing this supposed paradox cited (incorrectly) ad nauseum to justify basically any infringement on free speech when it was barely a concept he wrote about in passing, with very little thought put into it by Popper himself. Even if it was used correctly, It's just a very small thought exercise written by an author almost a century ago, it's not a natural law lol.
The problem is not that everybody can access information. The problem is that click-bait false information is pushed by ranking algorithms more and more in front of the eyes of people who are ready to believe in them. The information bubble then is making people more and more radicalized.
All the news / post / article I read on Facebook or Twitter are retweets / forwarded by people I followed. It means ultimately I am the one who is actually selectively sourcing all these information. "ranking algorithms" just rank them in better orders.
It doesn't matter how good your blackbox algorithms are. Junk in And Junk out.
Social media always censors in a way by promoting certain content and burying other content. It is mediated communication not direct communication, and these platforms are neither fair nor open. They haven’t been since the advent of algorithmic timelines and engagement maximization.
The most worrisome part is that we have a perfect example in history of the casino/gaming industry being censored essentially to the point of irrelevance. Can you imagine what Las Vegas would look like if speech in the form of gaming machine design had been allowed to flourish instead of squashed?
Now even free games on an Iphone run circles around the kind of engagement a meatspace casino can garner.
It's a bit unnerving to see this stuff so often, really. Demands to censor speech you don't like, and which almost uniformly comes from your political opponents, in the name of fighting authoritarianism is blatantly contradictory. It'd startling how popular this sort of thinking has become.
Nobody is "saving democracy" by denying people the right to participate in the democratic process. In fact, it does quite the opposite by destabilizing the political discourse. The "solution" is to stop trying to control people.
Systemic lopsided moderation (i.e. censorship) of one political viewpoint is absolutely denying people the right to participate in the democratic process. Just because we disagree with their viewpoint does not make censorship justified, nor does it take away from the fact that it is currently happening.
Can you plese define what that political viewpoint is you're talking about?
Is it saying that the government should be smaller and not involved in everyday life, or is it doing things like claiming an election was stolen, which has led to real world harm (poll workers receiving death threats), or calling for violence?
These are the same social media companies that allowed, nay promoted, a Russia truther narrative that Vladmir Putin personally stole the 2016 election to install his sleeper agent in the US presidency. The same truther narrative whose architects have since been arrested for propagating it.
Clearly, in a democracy you should be allowed to argue that an election was stolen, even if the evidence for your case isn’t strong. You can also argue for astrology or homeopathy or natural cures or any other in a long list of things that I think are pretty obviously untrue and harmful if propagated.
>Systemic lopsided moderation (i.e. censorship) of one political viewpoint is absolutely denying people the right to participate in the democratic process.
I still see plenty of content from various political viewpoints, far left to far right, on every forum and social media platform I visit. This "systemic lopsided moderation of one political viewpoint" you're referring to doesn't really exist apart from right-wing propaganda.
“This "systemic lopsided moderation of one political viewpoint" you're referring to doesn't really exist apart from right-wing propaganda.”
if what youre saying were true, then uncensored forums would look like twitter. but obviously they look like the exact opposite. uncensored forums are full of right wing shit because it’s not allowed on twitter. obviously
To what? People discussing and voting for their favorite candidate? Before it got censored as fake news, parts of social media were pretty damn correct on the pandemic and its origins. All of regular media followed the narrative, some afraid of the truth, because Trump may have ran with it.
> How can you have election integrity if you don't have integrity of facts?
This is about integrity/virtue of opinion. Conflate facts with opinions or political views and you lose right to talk facts. People voting in an authoritarian do not believe they are voting in an authoritarian, but an opposing voice to the evil socialist. It is poignant to defend democracy and at the same time complain of the rise of authoritarianism brought about by democracy.
In so many ways, you are then saying people are voting on the wrong people, because they do not read your newspapers, but their Facebook timelines.
Level 0 thinking, you do not even know the value of your cards. Such sophistry could only work on similar-leveled people. So if I engage, I'd be bluffing, and this is not a good idea to do with players who are basically no better or worse than random search.
Find all facts and circumstantial evidence for and against lab-leak and zoonosis. Then form your own opinion. That's my claim, and only that. That may even be an opinion worth engaging with, for as long as the "we still" in your world-view includes a couple of thousand Chinese internet trolls, and discredited conflicted scientists who despite this still seem to make it to the Lancet and NYT.
It is censorship by definition. The question here is if this form of censorship is currently permitted or not permitted by law, and if it should or should not be permitted by law.
When a newspaper editor decides a story has insufficient credible sources, or lacks any of a variety of qualities that constitute good and responsible journalism, and so does not publish or broadcast it today, that is an editorial decision, it is not censorship.
When an algorithm or human decides that a story has the same qualities, or that it has insufficient 'engagement metrics', and refrains from amplifying it across millions of accounts, that is also not censorship.
By your definition, if I post something and it doesn't make good 'engagement' metrics and FB/Google/YouTube doesn't promote it, that's censorship — Nonsense— it is an editorial decision. And, restricting or boosting amplification based on a metric of sourcing, value, truth, moral compass, is also an editorial decision.
These decisions are already being made thousands of times per second. It is past time that the deciders become responsible for their decisions.
> There are also a few websites, whose entire domain is banned in Facebook Messenger. It was discussed here previously. thedonald.win is a political example of such censorship.
Besides, "no, IT is a X" is not a valid counterargument to "IT is a Y" unless "is a" is a relationship of IFF (which it is not in this case) or X and Y do not intersect (which they do).
>>I guess you missed this debacle ...entire domain is banned in Facebook Messenger... a political example of such censorship.
If you are an absolutist about free speech, you should be loudly cheering this decision. Facebook Messenger is a private company — they should be fully free to say or not say, broadcast or not broadcast, serve or not serve, anything/anyone they want. Did I miss some governmental agency ordering them to not broadcast that source or set of messages? Should HN be unable to ban bad actors?
>>Besides, "no, IT is a X" is not a valid counterargument to "IT is a Y" unless "is a" is a relationship of IFF (which it is not in this case) or X and Y do not intersect (which they do).
Not quite. It is true that an IFF relationship would establish it absolutely. If not, it's still in a fully arguable area, and my argument is not to have some govt censorship bureau, but a requirement for more responsibility, that the tech companies, who now make editorial decisions at a scale and scope that dwarfs any newspaper ever, are held as responsible for their content as any newspaper or broadcaster.
(And, if they want to go back to being a 100% straight carrier, with zero 'recommendation' engine, and preseinting only a chronological timeline of posts from your actual contacts, & similar restrictions, then they can go back to being carriers.)
> If you are an absolutist about free speech, you should be loudly cheering this decision. Facebook Messenger is a private company
What? The freedom you are talking about is the freedom of association, not the freedom of free speech.
> ...
Doesn't matter if you call this stuff "recommendation engine" or "editorial decisions", it is still censorship by definition. This is the newspeak George Carlin had a relatively known take on.
Stop calling the censorship "editorial decisions". We are not debating the "editorial decisions" part, we are debating the censorship part.
This is known as the paradox of tolerance and was figured out right after WW2 by Karl Popper, an Austrian philosopher who witnessed the rise of the Nazis.
Authoritarians use the framework of a free society to rise to power until they are strong enough to topple it. A free society must be able to defend itself against that approach, even if it might seem contrary to its own values.
Here's the way he formulated it:
> Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
> In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
You say this was “figured out” like you think it’s some kind of natural law that was discovered by scientists. It’s not. It’s a value judgement. It’s not at all clear the trade-off is worth it and the very quote you supplied argues for “intolerance of intolerance” as a kind of a last resort, once things turn violent.
Second, as a practical matter, it’s not at all clear what constitutes intolerance. If you think the state has standing to adjudicate intolerance, then I can’t imagine you’ve been paying attention to the kind of routine social errors that are labeled intolerance on social media. The notion that it’s a legitimate function of the state to weigh in on these banal disagreements is risible.
The state does not, in fact, render judgement on most of the mundane details of your everyday life. You get in disagreements, sometimes people are hateful, people say things you don’t like, and on and on, and the state has no opinion on any of it.
I am Austrian. We suffered the history. We know where this goes. This is figured out, the only alternative is the descent into fascist totalitarianism.
> the very quote you supplied argues for “intolerance of intolerance” as a kind of a last resort, once things turn violent.
As it already did on Jan 6th and in Charlottesville.
We've seen all of this before. Instead of brown shirts, we have red hats. The ideas and the approach are the same.
> Second, as a practical matter, it’s not at all clear what constitutes intolerance. If you think the state has standing to adjudicate intolerance, then I can’t imagine you’ve been paying attention to the kind of routine social errors that are labeled intolerance on social media. The notion that it’s a legitimate function of the state to weigh in on these banal disagreements is risible.
All of these minor quibbles are irrelevant. There's a violent fascist movement forming and growing stronger by the day.
The Beer Hall Putsch [0] already happened on Jan 6th, the "cultural bolshevism" [1] bogeyman has been slightly rebranded to "cultural marxism" and is being used for propaganda purposes all over the place again. A new Big Lie [2] has been set up in the form of "Trump won!". Mainstream conservatives are behaving like Von Papen. [3]
Obsta Principiis!
If we don't nip this in the bud right now, we will soon see the new version of the Enabling Act [4] and all the horrors that followed.
I understand you might lack the perspective as you most likely don't have the same history to compare it to. Please heed the warning of somebody who does. These things sneak up on you and you won't be able to realize it until it's too late. This excellent excerpt from Milton Mayer's They Thought They Were Free talks about this phenomenom, I implore you to read it. [5]
Yes, but either the current situation is like Germany in the 1920s or it isn't and either way it remains the case that it's what the Germans said in the late 20s, so it doesn't actually help us to know that that's what they said, since it will have been what they said even in the case where our situation is absolutely nothing like theirs.
If the content leads to destabilizing social life for the majority, passing laws that give government control of peoples health, advocates for violence, then yeah.
Freedom from some other twats mental illness means more to me than their freedom to be a twat.
Stop oversimplifying like a child. There are real impacts to enabling systemic bias.
If you want moral relativism because maybe subjugating people out of your view is ok, why waste effort when you’re the cohort being abused?
Honestly reading the title, I assumed the article would argue the exact opposite since that's already one of the most authoritarian things Twitter et al. is doing right now.
No - that's not what they're saying.
If you want to, go read the respective acceptance speeches, in their original form. Actually the only relevant one (for this thread) is Maria Ressa's speech; Dmitry Muratov's speech didn't mention technology or the internet at all, despite what may have been implied in the NPR article.
As to Ressa's speach -- it's quite clear she wasn't advocating censorship, per se. A fair reading of what she was saying is that these companies should stop using algorithms that structurally promote hateful and inflammatory simply because it is more "engaging" -- as they have been caught doing red-handed, basically.
But that is, strictly speaking, different from advocating outright censorship of that material. In my view, quite obviously so.