"""Let’s go all the way back to 1996 and talk about Section 230. I think historians are completely in agreement that this is the law that made the internet what it is today.
We thought it was going to be helpful. We never realized it was going to be the linchpin to generating investment in social media. We envisioned that the law would be both a sword and a shield. A shield so that you could have this opportunity, for particularly small and enterprising operations to secure capital, and then a sword [by allowing them to moderate without facing liability over the practice], which said you’ve got to police your platforms. And what was clear during the 2016 election and the succeeding events surrounding Facebook, is that technology companies used one part of what we envisioned, the shield, but really sat on their hands with respect to the sword, and wouldn’t police their platforms."""
https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/24/17606974/oregon-senator-r...
I think that what's happened here is a normalization of deviance. Moderation action that should have been taken a long time ago has now been delayed so long it will be painful. Instead of setting strong expectations about what is and isn't okay up front (like say, Hacker News); these companies have gotten lax and will now pay a hefty price to use the sword.
What wasn't foreseeable 20 years ago is that protection shouldn't really apply to recommended content that the platforms' algorithms push forward onto users, especially in the case of something like YouTube where they auto-play. Those are editorial decisions made in the company's own voice, and you shouldn't be allowed to disclaim all responsibility for what your platform actively recommends.
CDA 230 doesn't give platforms the right to host content without reviewing or moderating it. That seems to be a very common misperception. Platforms already had that right - that was what was implied by the Cubby and Stratton Oakmont cases [0]. What CDA 230 did was allow platforms to moderate their content without assuming liability for it. If you're saying "there isn't enough moderation, so let's kill CDA 230" in my opinion you've got things completely backwards.
One of the huge fails here is that early Facebook was actually a nice and civil place to be. I’m talking way early, circa 2004-2007, when it was you and your real life friends in college. Compared to the free for all backwater that was MySpace, it felt like a refreshing online community where people acted decently because everything was tied to your real identity. There were no followers or any of the gamified attention seeking nonsense that FB eventually turned into. That was a big part of why it blew up. Because it really felt like an amazing product and community.
You could say that Facebook got lax about moderation, but I think it’s worse than that. As far as I can tell some time around 2008 onward the management made a calculated decision to prioritize growth above everything else. You can see the fruits of this philosophy in the infamous “Boz” memo from earlier this year. But it started years ago, and you better believe this attitude came straight from the top ie Zuck. It’s part of what made the company so ridiculously successful. But now facebook will finally pay the price.
It’s a shame because I think they could still have taken over the world and managed to enforce positive social norms. Focusing on moderation and community quality would definitely have slowed down growth, but after 2008 there wasn’t really any chance for a competing social network. Trust me, I worked at Bebo (#3 social network at the time) before it was acquired by AOL and we already knew before the acquisition that we were getting steamrolled by FB along with all of our competitors. All that to say, Facebook’s competitive advantage meant that it could have afforded to take its time and continue focusing on quality over growth. But company management got greedy and stopped caring about anything other than DAUs.
It’s easy to say in hindsight of course, it’s hard to make these kinds of product decisions when you’re crushing it as hard as Facebook was. And then it IPOs and all the early people are worth 10s of millions in their twenties, which can kind of mess with your head and make you think that you’re basically omnipotent. And for many years it looked like they were.
I’m glad to see the backlash finally hitting where it counts. It’s not that I want Facebook to fail - I drank the koolaid hard early on and genuinely loved the product. Also turned down a PM offer from them in 2007, but that’s another story. But I’m really sad to see what could have been a world changing product for good turn into an absolute cesspool of manipulation, misinformation and narcissism. I view the current backlash as a forest fire, clearing away all the crud that’s been piling up over the years in order to make space for a new vision of online community at scale. If Facebook needs to burn to the ground in order to create that future, so be it. More constructive would be a complete management overhaul where Zuck and co would be replaced by leadership who genuinely cares about the wellbeing of the community. That is unlikely to happen until the stock craters enough that investors will finally revolt and demand change. My prediction is that it will get way, way worse for Facebook and its shareholders before it gets better.
When 3 CEOs get to define who are "decent people" and when they control all 4 sides of the Overton window, you have a problem. They're just too big
Here's the difference: Alex Jones can go create his own video site easily, but he can't create his own worldwide ISP.
People have to take action and opt in to watching something on YouTube. They have a choice. If people don't want to hear someone they never have to.
Youtube doesn't provide the means for publishers to interrupt what you are currently watching (well there's ads but that's a bit different as ads have increase scrutiny).
And if he used an existing infrastructure like AWS, I would hope AWS would kick him off of it.
If they would manage their brand as well as Apple, people would probably praise the end of net neutrality.
Or do many of these companies have commitees that guides such decisions?
Not saying it's ideal, just questioning how the decision was made.
Whatever the case this doesn't make it any better. I imagine Johannes Gutenberg pondering whether to publish the whole bible or censor the parts he didnt like. Whether he decided on his own , or in a party of 5, it's equally evil.
This feels like yet another instance of programmers applying a programming mindset to human problems. When presented with an instance of a problem, we want to solve the general case. That’s fine for code but often falls flat for people. If somebody is doing something terribly wrong, it’s ok to look at the individual case while you figure out how to handle it in general.
Who says they don't? Every time a right wing nut gets chopped you need an equivalent pound of flesh from the left? This just seems like whataboutism to me.
>But the current language is very vague and only emboldens people seeking censorship and coddling.
People always seek whatever they want, it doesn't mean they will get it. Sort of like how you're seeking absolute fairness in equality in corporate censorship. Good luck...
> Let’s see how they come down on censoring holywood blockbuster movies.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, seems apples and oranges to me. I think in this case safe means, "we're not going to tolerate bigoted assholes anymore". Not try and adhere to everyone's possible definition of safe.
I can't say I have any problem with this particular move, but man, you can't just assert that as if that's an obvious fact.
I guess you're asserting that they didn't…
I don’t understand why you’d write this response without looking into the man first. If you’d rather not examine him, I totally get it, but then maybe don’t defend him?
> I don’t understand why you’d write this response without looking into the man first.
I did. I know who Alex Jones is. But of course I didn't read every single one of his rants, I have much better ways to spend my limited time on this Earth, thankyouverymuch. I also think if somebody argues for his exclusion from all major platform, they should already have the examples of the violent calls ready, just saying "yes, he did that, trust us, we wouldn't lie to you would we?" shouldn't be enough.
> but then maybe don’t defend him?
People still can't get an idea that demanding someone to be treated fairly is not the same as liking them or defending them. I mean, we're doing this thing for millenia, the Bible (and I mean the old, Jewish one, not even the newer one) talks about just courts - for criminals, not for good nice people - as one of the basic requirements, and we still don't get it through that being just to someone and defending someone is not the same. How long will it take? Will the collective conscience in year 9000 get it?
"1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN IF YOU TRY TO TAKE OUR FIREARMS!"
Note that the second one is directly connected to Sandy Hook, since he tells everyone that it was a hoax done with the purpose of taking people's guns away. He's basically telling people to rise up in armed revolt. He tells his audience that the victims' parents are actually part of a conspiracy to take their guns, tells them that armed revolt is the proper response....
You're not demanding that he be treated fairly. Being treated fairly would mean that if he's advocating violence he should get kicked off these platforms. You're defending him by saying you don't think he does this. That's not being just or fair, that's being counterfactual, and even worse it's coming from a position of deliberate ignorance.
OK you got this one. It's in the middle of the large and mostly incoherent rant, so I missed it, but that's encouragement of violence (even though Jones would probably call it rhetorical figure, but he should have used different rhetoric in this case). For this he does deserve condemnation. Doesn't make him a "threat to our democracy", as one not-very-smart Senator recently proclaimed.
> "1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN IF YOU TRY TO TAKE OUR FIREARMS!"
This is not a call to violence - not only nobody is trying to take our firearms, but most gun control proponents specifically and emphatically reject the suggestion that this is their goal. And even if they were lying, it's a predictive, not normative statement, about a very hypothetical situation at that.
> He's basically telling people to rise up in armed revolt.
If "they" try to "take our firearms", which nobody is doing. On the contrary, Supreme Court repeatedly recognized firearms ownership as a personal right (even though some locations have trouble recognizing it). Saying "if you do this policy, people will revolt" is a common rhetorical figure, which is very far from direct encouragement of violence.
> He tells his audience that the victims' parents are actually part of a conspiracy to take their guns,
This is despicable and loathsome. But not a call to violence.
> tells them that armed revolt is the proper response....
If his conspiracy proves true and people actually come to take his guns - which of course it won't and they won't (unless he commits a felony, which is different business).
> You're not demanding that he be treated fairly.
Yes I do. I am kind of an expert on what I am demanding, you can believe me at least on that.
> Being treated fairly would mean that if he's advocating violence he should get kicked off these platforms.
So far we've seen he advocated violence once, and even that in kinda rhetorical (though no doubt very objectionable) fashion, along the lines of "punch the Nazi" that we've heard so much recently, or one press member expressing a desire to "wring the neck" of one press secretary for not giving responses to this press member's liking. I've seen the same and way worse literally on every platform that banned Jones, with no consequence to speak of, certainly not total ban (maybe sometimes short suspension). This is certainly what should be condemned, but way below total ban. So I continue to think he was not treated fairly.
I leave you with this quote from Noam Chomsky:
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
I don’t see how your quote applies. Inciting violence is not typically considered protected speech, and even if it is, getting kicked off of YouTube is not a restriction on one’s freedom of expression.
I didn't say it doesn't count. I said it is not a call to violence.
> there is a large, active conspiracy to take their guns. They believe him.
They may be believing him there's a conspiracy (though with people jumping around calling for repeal of Second Amendment I'd say the conspiratorial part of it is rather weak) but they can't believe somebody has already came to take their guns. For a simple reason that nobody did, they'd notice something like that. And, I don't think there was a single instance of violence caused by the fact that somebody listened to Alex Jones and thought somebody came to take their gun and reacted violently. Either Alex Jones is very bad at his job (which is not hard to believe - but then why ban him?) or maybe whoever listens to him does not interpret his message in this way?
> In that context, saying to be violent if they take their guns is a call to violence.
No, it is not. For example, I would consider if US (or any other) government starts rounding up Jews and putting them into concentration camps, violence to resist such governmental action is justified (and, I think, morally necessary, if there's no other way to stop it). This is not "calling to violence" in any sense that relates to current discussion - because nobody is actually rounded up and put into concentration camps. Confusing two situations - discussion of something that might happen (and what we want and hope to prevent much earlier than there would be even close to the theoretical situation) and what would be proper action in that theoretical case of an unacceptable infringement of the rights, and call to violence right here, right now, in our current situation (which we consider acceptable enough that our society condemns calls to violence) - is completely erroneous.
> Inciting violence is not typically considered protected speech, and even if it is, getting kicked off of YouTube is not a restriction on one’s freedom of expression.
Simultaneously kicking him from all major platforms is clearly designed to limit his freedom of expression and suppress his message (as much as non-governmental bodies can). You can argue that it is a good thing, but if you argue this is not the goal you are either very naive or willfully ignorant. And one count of rhetorical "incitement" we've seen so far can not be a reason for such action. People routinely say same and worse things online and do not get banned from everything (some even get hired to work in major newspapers).
It is clear that Jones was banned not because of one or two occasional (and very rare if in all his very prolific expression so far we've found one or maybe, maybe two such instances) references to violence. But because of his despicable character and his despicable message. It is clear that a lot of people consider silencing him be a good thing, a desirable thing to happen.
After all, nobody is forced to download his stuff from Apple or go to his pages on Facebook. If somebody wanted to just ignore him, it's very easy to do - I did it for decades without even trying a little bit. But people don't want to just not hear him - people want him silenced. And thus my quote is very relevant.
And yes, it most certainly is when mainstream politicians get banned.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/heng-gets-facebook-blo...
https://twitter.com/h3h3productions/status/10280470081440808...