Is there speaker detection?
314 karma · joined February 1, 2017
In 2020, the Wall Street Journal reported that FTC officials in 2012 had concerns about the deal raising antitrust issues. However, they were apprehensive about potentially losing an antitrust case in court if they sued to block the deal.[2] If they would lose then on the merits of trying to enforce the Clayton Act, it would set a precedent that likely could not be undone.
[1] https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/facebook-instagram-deal-down-747m-...
[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/tech-ceos-defend-operations-ahe...
Indeed, their idea of being coherent is not only maintaining the status quo that enables those two things, but doubling down. When challenged, they nest in the politics that the Republicans once espoused and have left behind, than realizing that there's a reason those messages and values have shifted by the maga right's successes. It should come as no wonder then that they lose ground year after year from desperate people looking for comfort from the political class.
1_ Platforms should NOT get immunity for content they're PAID to promote. If Facebook, X, or any other platform is making money by amplifying harmful content through ads, they should be held accountable like any other publisher. Why should they get special treatment when newspapers have always been responsible for the ads they publish?
2_ Companies need to be responsible for their product design choices. Their recommendation algorithms aren't neutral - they are actively designed to maximize engagement, and sometimes that means promoting harmful content or connecting dangerous people. Friend recommendations, "watch next" features, group suggestions - these aren't random! They're deliberate design choices that are outside the standard "user content" that Section 230 was designed to protect.
To do this you need legislation that: clearly defines "paid promotion" versus organic content; is clear which product design elements and algorithmic features would lose immunity, and; sets very clear standards for what constitutes harmful content in these contexts.
There have been a number of bills introduced in previous congresses, like the Protecting Americans from Dangerous Algorithms Act - which would have moved the needle forward. At this point something, ANYTHING, however small is necessary. The US is undergoing a full-blown tech oligarchy coup.
When systems fail, people step in to fix them. Sometimes, the failure is a person, and their supervisor or colleague is the safeguard. Replacing that with AI/ML is political offloading -- shifting responsibility from elected officials to code that can’t dissent, negotiate, or care. You’re lucky if it can even explain itself.
I know I’m on HN, where this isn’t the prevailing mindset. But public systems aren’t startups. They don’t get to fail. The common good isn’t about efficiency; it’s about endurance. It’s about ensuring society functions for everyone -- not just those with money, power, or influence. Public systems safeguard the commons, whether it’s infrastructure, social services, or even the basic principles of justice. They exist to serve not just the people you identify with, but those you ignore, fear, or even condemn. Bureaucracies, with all their flaws, aren’t meant to be efficient, they’re built to endure.
The challenge is harnessing technology while strengthening these essential human capacities. Anything otherwise erodes public trust and sows division.