I think it's a great illustration of how much power private interests have over public discourse, and it is a very scary world we live in. But watching conservatives saying all the things they...
I think it's a great illustration of how much power private interests have over public discourse, and it is a very scary world we live in. But watching conservatives saying all the things they called me a "commie" for countless times in the past without a shred of irony has been incredible schadenfreude.
These tech companies are the new robber barons. While people may be cheering their action on Trump now, no one should forget that they did so based on profit/loss calculations and not for the...
Trump’s social media exile represents, in some ways, a libertarian dream of a wholly privatized public sphere, in which corporations, not government, get to define the bounds of permissible speech.
These tech companies are the new robber barons. While people may be cheering their action on Trump now, no one should forget that they did so based on profit/loss calculations and not for the benefit of society. And like @bloup said, the fact that these corporations have been able to amass so much power over public discourse in the first place is a huge problem and needs to be a major focus for voters. It is far too easy for corporations to abuse that power, and the incentives for them to do so are irresistible.
Some of this is reading the political winds by these companies. The Dems are about to control both the Senate, the House, and the White House. These corporations are looking to "be good" after...
Some of this is reading the political winds by these companies. The Dems are about to control both the Senate, the House, and the White House. These corporations are looking to "be good" after years of failing to act to avoid regulation.
This is my impression as well. "Look, we can regulate ourselves; we can provide oversight to ourselves!" Additionally, I can't imagine that all this political upheaval and violence is good for the...
This is my impression as well. "Look, we can regulate ourselves; we can provide oversight to ourselves!"
Additionally, I can't imagine that all this political upheaval and violence is good for the business community so it's in their interest to try and abate it. I can also see it potentially affecting the value of the USD.
I haven’t seen evidence of these profit/loss calculations, just people repeating it. Maybe eventually someone will write a story covering how the decisions were made. In the meantime, let’s not...
I haven’t seen evidence of these profit/loss calculations, just people repeating it. Maybe eventually someone will write a story covering how the decisions were made. In the meantime, let’s not treat suspicion as fact?
I don't think it's about profit/loss specifically, just that banning trump now won't bring large companies any repercussions because Democrats control congress so they'll just do it.
I haven’t seen evidence of these profit/loss calculations
I don't think it's about profit/loss specifically, just that banning trump now won't bring large companies any repercussions because Democrats control congress so they'll just do it.
I'll put it this way: I've got to hear first-hand the discourse for a college, including legal, PR, marketing, and the C-suite to discuss the cost/benefit of the work needed to prevent...
I'll put it this way:
I've got to hear first-hand the discourse for a college, including legal, PR, marketing, and the C-suite to discuss the cost/benefit of the work needed to prevent accidentally outing trans folks by using preferred name instead of legal name as much as possible.
Car companies do analysis all the time to see if correcting a known problem in a car is more or less expensive than paying out settlements for deaths caused.
Banning one of the highest-profile people on the planet from Twitter was not done lightly. It almost certainly involved a very long meeting for the C-suite with lots of charts and projections. There would have been consultation with PR and marketing to insure that this move would not destroy their userbase.
Ignoring that is being wilfully blind to the workings of organizations...even non-profit ones.
I am sufficiently convinced that you and I could probably have a beer and talk specifics about my employer. Either that, or this pattern repeated itself almost verbatim across numerous colleges. I...
My college has an ERP system which it uses to, among other things, relate students’ billing profiles to their meal plans. This is, of course, a critical function, as it allows us to eat on campus. The ERP system has a “preferred name” field, but it was added after the critical integrations were made. Therefore, I am “Leonora” to residential life, my professors, and the person who swipes my ID at the student commons.
I am sufficiently convinced that you and I could probably have a beer and talk specifics about my employer. Either that, or this pattern repeated itself almost verbatim across numerous colleges. I would rather not go further details, as it will make it even easier to pinpoint my identity. But there was at one point a speech from legal why implementing exactly what you outlined in your article was important, and the effort was undertaken in part of fear of the PR hit a hypothetical discrimination lawsuit would entail.
Well, I don't disagree. I'm sure they had plenty of meetings and looked at data of some sort. Charts might be involved. But cost/benefit analysis is a more informal process. It's not doing a...
Well, I don't disagree. I'm sure they had plenty of meetings and looked at data of some sort. Charts might be involved. But cost/benefit analysis is a more informal process. It's not doing a calculation.
Some might want to quantify things like some car companies got caught at, I just don't think it's possible in this case.
Also, that car company analysis is naive if it doesn't also take into account the risk of bad publicity, and how do you quantify that? It's still going to be a judgement call in the end.
You can be both cautious and not naive by talking about your suspicions as suspicions. It’s fine to speculate about how you think big tech is making these decisions and we can talk about what...
You can be both cautious and not naive by talking about your suspicions as suspicions. It’s fine to speculate about how you think big tech is making these decisions and we can talk about what seems plausible. We all speculate. But it’s not reporting, and doesn’t seem to be based on reporting.
It’s unfortunately common for suspicions to get upgraded to fact because people feel very strongly about something, or it sounds cooler to talk confidently about what’s going on in places of power, and pretend that we are in the know. This is how the naive get sucked into conspiracy theorizing.
But it is naive to pretend that, sitting at home, without reporting via a leak, we can know what’s going on during some video calls when such decisions are made. We are not in the loop. We were not in the room where it happened and we aren’t going to deduce it from arguments based on plausibility.
It’s implausible to me that they made a spreadsheet, because what sort of calculation could you do about how fast-changing politics will play out and how that will affect your numbers? The math would be garbage in, garbage out. So I would guess it’s more of a gut decision. But I don’t know, maybe someone did do a calculation.
If you don't think that Twitter and Facebook have spent substantial resources over the last four years attempting to asses the financial risk/reward of (de)platforming Trump, I don't think our...
If you don't think that Twitter and Facebook have spent substantial resources over the last four years attempting to asses the financial risk/reward of (de)platforming Trump, I don't think our dialogue will be productive.
He wasn't banned because Dorsey and Zuck suddenly grew consciences - these are corporations beholden to their stockholders and governmental regulations, and the calculus shifted such that banning him was the right business move.
My default thought pattern is that all of these people are greedy assholes, and whereas you need evidence that the decision was based on finances, I need evidence that it wasn't. Neither of us has this, so it's speculation all around.
I agree: they're taking action based on a high level, long-term business strategy. Unless I misunderstood this entire thread, skybrian was arguing that we should give Twitter/Facebook the benefit...
I agree: they're taking action based on a high level, long-term business strategy.
Unless I misunderstood this entire thread, skybrian was arguing that we should give Twitter/Facebook the benefit of the doubt that they acted for the benefit of society instead of on a business calculus (which, ultimately, is a decision of what will create the most profit), which struck me as naive.
Well, I don't think we're that far apart. I made two arguments, and it seems like you agreed with both of them at certain points, that "it's speculation all around" and by agreeing with Rez just...
Well, I don't think we're that far apart. I made two arguments, and it seems like you agreed with both of them at certain points, that "it's speculation all around" and by agreeing with Rez just now.
I still disagree on your use of the word "naive" since I think you got it backwards, and I didn't make any particular argument for company managers acting "for the benefit of society." I wasn't arguing for giving anyone the benefit of the doubt, I was just arguing for doubt, full stop.
Doubt is good, it means you hedge your bets. Putting all your chips on one possibility is naive.
I would expect that they spent substantial staff time debating it over the years. Employees who wanted the ban earlier probably spent some time writing docs and making presentations, to little...
I would expect that they spent substantial staff time debating it over the years. Employees who wanted the ban earlier probably spent some time writing docs and making presentations, to little effect until now. Some of those arguments might have been about how they wouldn't be losing all that many users. They might talk, vaguely, about the risk of advertiser boycotts. There may have been graphs, which were probably treated with appropriate skepticism unless they were really well done. Maybe they made contingency plans.
My default assumption is that these are organizations made of people with various opinions and there is an internal political process based on the management hierarchy. When making presentations to the boss, they use arguments that they think he will buy, and "we will make more money" isn't the only argument that works though it's a good one.
I put a few more chips on financial calculations being a minor factor in this decision, but I would need good evidence in either direction to stop hedging.
Scott Galloway's most recent blog post is pretty over-dramatic (as they often tend to be), but I have to agree with his point that it's ridiculous that the government and other institutions are...
Scott Galloway's most recent blog post is pretty over-dramatic (as they often tend to be), but I have to agree with his point that it's ridiculous that the government and other institutions are now so utterly ineffective that we have to beg corporations to save us.
If there is any question that big tech is our new government, then register that these are the only entities whose actions seem to have a meaningful impact (or what we view as meaningful). Which has had more impact? Futile discussions about the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, or Facebook and Twitter suspending President Trump’s accounts and Shopify closing MAGA stores? Applaud these actions if you like, but accountability for sedition should not be meted out by private companies (in the case of Shopify, a foreign one). We should not be pandering to part-time CEOs to save the nation they demonstrate no regard for.
I dunno, I think it's worth celebrating. Not because I disagree with Trump, but because he was clearly inciting violence and spreading dangerous misinformation. I have no objection to online...
I dunno, I think it's worth celebrating. Not because I disagree with Trump, but because he was clearly inciting violence and spreading dangerous misinformation. I have no objection to online communities having rules against either of those things. I don't see the point in having rules if you aren't going to enforce them. And I certainly don't think any politician should be exempt from those rules, regardless of political affiliation.
If some rando was on Twitter inciting violent mobs but without a political motive, nobody would bat an eye when they get banned.
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m in support of the fairly strict moderation here. Twitter has been very slow to react in other situations, and it’s not just Trump himself. I’m talking about the...
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m in support of the fairly strict moderation here. Twitter has been very slow to react in other situations, and it’s not just Trump himself. I’m talking about the precedent, as @xnaas below mentioned.
Have all major tech platforms and even commercial tech companies banned certain left people and communities at scale and all at once? I understand you have a personal experience, but that’s not...
Have all major tech platforms and even commercial tech companies banned certain left people and communities at scale and all at once? I understand you have a personal experience, but that’s not exactly generalizable.
Another example: #BlueLeaks was banned on almost every single platform, even though it clearly showed the widespread use of fusion centers by police to target leftist activists.
Another example: #BlueLeaks was banned on almost every single platform, even though it clearly showed the widespread use of fusion centers by police to target leftist activists.
(for clarity, I agree with you) I think another example of this, though perhaps others will disagree, was the marking of LGBTQ+ content on youtube as adult content. Is it as bad as being banned?...
(for clarity, I agree with you)
I think another example of this, though perhaps others will disagree, was the marking of LGBTQ+ content on youtube as adult content. Is it as bad as being banned? No. Is it an example of a tech company limiting the reach a marginalized group is able to have on their platform based on the content they create? Yes. I don't think its 1-1, but I'd argue its an example of a tech platform quieting a traditionally left-leaning community at scale.
I think this is where we disagree the most. I wouldn't cheer and certainly don't think it's the right thing to do.
If someone slits my tires a few times and gets away with it, but never does the same to the jerk across the street, you can be sure I'll cheer when that guy gets his tires slit too, even if I think tire-slitting is bad.
I think this is where we disagree the most. I wouldn't cheer and certainly don't think it's the right thing to do.
It is a bad metaphor, but I get tindall point. A better one would be, I get a speeding ticket once for driving too fast once down my street, but my asshole neighbor who is always revving his...
It is a bad metaphor, but I get tindall point.
A better one would be, I get a speeding ticket once for driving too fast once down my street, but my asshole neighbor who is always revving his engine, peeling out, and speeding down the street finally gets a ticket. I'm gonna have a little bit of schadenfreude with that outcome.
What's concerning to me is how many people seem to believe that private entities should be forced to become government mouthpieces (or really have to post or publish or amplify anything against...
What's concerning to me is how many people seem to believe that private entities should be forced to become government mouthpieces (or really have to post or publish or amplify anything against their will). Compelled speech is just as much a gross violation of the principle of freedom of expression as censorship is.
This oligopoly should have been prevented from coalescing this power to begin with. This has been a problem since well before social media, and the USA has been rolling back media ownership regulations since George W. Bush. The FCC tried to prevent a similar thing with TV/Print media but largely failed. Same problem as everywhere.
It's a failure of how few limits there are to speech in the US constitution (although many seem to forget how many exceptions there actually are). The framers simply couldn't imagine modern mass...
It's a failure of how few limits there are to speech in the US constitution (although many seem to forget how many exceptions there actually are).
The framers simply couldn't imagine modern mass communication. It'd be absolutely insane to suggest someone in the late 1700s should even envision how such a society could change and what it'd require legally speaking.
The constitution is also way too hard to change, so it's never been fixed. Subsequent legislation all suffers.
It's like - on the one hand, it is scary how much power big tech has. But for some of us, it was even MORE scary to see how much power big tech was giving to Trump. I think it's fair to have...
It's like - on the one hand, it is scary how much power big tech has. But for some of us, it was even MORE scary to see how much power big tech was giving to Trump.
I think it's fair to have complicated feelings on the matter! I don't think big tech should have so much power, but I also don't think Trump should either. In the moment, I think it's better that Trump loses his power than tech does. It's not ideal though, preferably we wouldn't be in this spot in the first place.
Trump had a private dinner with Zuckerberg at one point. It's definitely scary because Trump is so easily manipulated and always willing to sell out his office anyway.
it was even MORE scary to see how much power big tech was giving to Trump.
Trump had a private dinner with Zuckerberg at one point. It's definitely scary because Trump is so easily manipulated and always willing to sell out his office anyway.
Not directly, most are neutral in just pointing it out, but most imply that it’s only a good thing or should have been done sooner rather than questioning the wisdom of it and the long term...
Not directly, most are neutral in just pointing it out, but most imply that it’s only a good thing or should have been done sooner rather than questioning the wisdom of it and the long term effects. Generally the discussions here are quite levelheaded but by no means moderate (let alone conservative).
Oh yes, but I’m talking about forums with mainly left-leaning users, not organizations that actually watch for this (that’s a given). Heck, even the ACLU called out Twitter and Facebook for the bans.
Oh yes, but I’m talking about forums with mainly left-leaning users, not organizations that actually watch for this (that’s a given). Heck, even the ACLU called out Twitter and Facebook for the bans.
I suppose the question is if they're actually implying that at all, or if that's a misread based on them only expressing one side of the coin in those comments while holding back the other for a...
I suppose the question is if they're actually implying that at all, or if that's a misread based on them only expressing one side of the coin in those comments while holding back the other for a more appropriate discussion area.
I've been railing against social media and its influence since around 2010 when I perceived attention spans dropping across the internet and then across real life as more and more people got sucked into social media. But in the last few days, I was only doing a merry little jig over Trump getting banned finally. But my overall feelings towards social media and its insidious power over society hasn't changed at all, they're just two different concepts at the moment.
I think it's rational to argue that the de-platforming of Trump should've come sooner, given that Twitter is/was applying its own Terms of Service differently to different users. I respectfully...
I think it's rational to argue that the de-platforming of Trump should've come sooner, given that Twitter is/was applying its own Terms of Service differently to different users. I respectfully disagree with their choice to allow him to remain as an exception when so much of the content he generated was not befitting to the President of the United States and was outright inflammatory or false.
As for the long term effects, hopefully this raises a large and actionable conversation about the power that these companies have amassed, thus leading to substantial regulation to prevent this power from being abused. Right now, tech companies act when their users are a press liability, not necessarily when it's the ethically correct decision.
I am glad for it and would be glad for them to go further. But at the same time I welcome new regulations that could make communication platforms treated like utilities.
I am glad for it and would be glad for them to go further. But at the same time I welcome new regulations that could make communication platforms treated like utilities.
I feel like there are real issues with #BigTech, but they are not actually fullfilled by both the ejection of Trump and the removal of Parler. First, I think there are two angles: one, certain...
I feel like there are real issues with #BigTech, but they are not actually fullfilled by both the ejection of Trump and the removal of Parler.
First, I think there are two angles: one, certain tech companies are so large, that they have a oversized amount of power; by threatening refusing service to a customer, they can exert great influence on those customers. Two, that there should be some kind of 1A like Free Speech regulation applied to media companies.
I really don't think "monopoly" really matters for de-Trumping, because it wasn't one company - it was like 20 companies that decided to throw Trump off. If Facebook were split into Facebook and Instagram and Whatsapp, no company would have more than 30% of Social media marketshare. Yet it would change absolutely nothing, as instagram would likely also ban Trump from their platform independently anyway.
Additionally, what really muzzled Trump is the Twitter ban, which makes no sense because he has literally an entire press room besides Twitter like y'know every other President has used instead but regardless, and Twitter is far from a monopoly. According to Pew, only 22% of Adults in the US use Twitter, and that's "use at least once this year". It's really a very small site compared to actual social media giants - ffs it's slightly below linkedin.
So I think there are real issues, in particular with Apple having the appstore is the only gateway to the iPhone and Zuck's control on social media advertising, but only Apple kinda matters in the Parler situation. But again, Parler's demise came from, as their CEO says, every service from server to SMS to their old lawyers ditching them. That's not monopoly power.
--
This is just a whole ass rabbit hole. First, let's examine what would happen if blanket 1A-style regulations were on all media platforms. Well, Instagram couldn't prevent porn from being posted anymore, and it would no doubt flood the site. The subreddit dedicated to knitting couldn't prevent people talking about politics. The only things you could prevent were hate speech about protected groups.
Okay, probably not a great idea - so it needs to be finely grained regulation. Add political alignment as a protected class and enforce no bans for that reason, perhaps? But who decides what is actually a political alignment issue? If I say my political alignment is based on the belief that football is better than basketball, is banning me from /r/nba legitimate when I talk about that?
Is there a government agency that watches over bans? Does the banned user have to sue in civil court?
The Government having finely grained control over who is and isn't banned is also a Free Speech issue, and I'd argue it's an even bigger one! It's literally a 1st amendment violation, right? I have yet to see an actual proposal of regulations that is not a huge 1st amendment issue wherein the government has this giant say in the speech of online communities.
The first part of your post is very clear regarding the argument of monopoly power. But, can you clarify the second part? I think I'm understanding that you're advocating against the...
The first part of your post is very clear regarding the argument of monopoly power. But, can you clarify the second part? I think I'm understanding that you're advocating against the implementation of 1A protections on tech?
Yes, I think blanked 1A protections would be a disaster - because there's a laundry list of mundane reasons why users are banned. A simple one is being off-topic: if you want a community that's...
Yes, I think blanked 1A protections would be a disaster - because there's a laundry list of mundane reasons why users are banned. A simple one is being off-topic: if you want a community that's dedicated to cat pictures, should you not be able to do remove posts that are not about cat pictures? Or being obscene - should sites that want to be PG 13, not be able to remove obscene content?
And finely grained speech regulation is a first amendment issue because the government is now controlling speech. Controlling bans is like 50% of the way there to controlling speech.
Yeah, imagine a group of nazi sympathizers/fascists here on Tildes, with no power to remove them or do anything because of some internet 1A rule. Tildes would be forced to host content they don't...
Yeah, imagine a group of nazi sympathizers/fascists here on Tildes, with no power to remove them or do anything because of some internet 1A rule. Tildes would be forced to host content they don't agree with/don't want.
It seems reasonable to have some sort of law against banning entire accounts for bad behavior in an unrelated service. So, for example, behaving badly on YouTube shouldn’t mean you lose access to...
It seems reasonable to have some sort of law against banning entire accounts for bad behavior in an unrelated service. So, for example, behaving badly on YouTube shouldn’t mean you lose access to Gmail or Photos.
But the question is how to define “unrelated.” If it’s too fine-grained then it becomes a game of wack-a-mole where every Reddit group needs to ban the same user each time.
There is a question about how information about bad users is shared, both within a company and across companies. When should people be able to escape their reputation?
It doesn’t really apply for celebrities the whole world knows about, though. You don’t need a credit score when you can read the news.
But that really gets at the source of moderating power - namely that it's arbitrary. Twitter and FB make a show of applying rules, but those are self-applied rules. The actual source of power is...
But that really gets at the source of moderating power - namely that it's arbitrary. Twitter and FB make a show of applying rules, but those are self-applied rules. The actual source of power is my way or the high way. Which, again, is the same power that allows my cat pictures blog and comments to ban dog pictures.
So when it really comes down to "I don't want you here", how does regulating against being banned for bad behavior on another platform work? If I just don't like you, if you weren't banned by Youtube, I could ban you because I don't like you, but now that you were banned by Youtube, I am liable for it? Is there a statue of limitations when it's no long correlated?
For most reasonable cases, antitrust would most massage this. In the case of inciting violence, and having abhorrent, wildly disagreeable rhetoric, it wouldn't, but that's because you're universally abhorred. And even then Parler still found a new nameserver and host.
Yes, I don't think it really works for unrelated sites. I was thinking more for the big tech sites that group a lot of unrelated services under a single login, including third-party sites. It...
Yes, I don't think it really works for unrelated sites. I was thinking more for the big tech sites that group a lot of unrelated services under a single login, including third-party sites.
It seems like only partially disabling suspect accounts would minimize damage in case of a false positive? Like, revoking sharing privileges, but you can still look at and download your own photos, and third-party logins still work.
But then, what if the third-party site decides to block all logins from partially-disabled accounts because that's a pretty strong signal? I guess that's up to them.
At issue here is the ability of people who have moderating power to outsource their decision-making. As soon as you allow delegation, centralization can happen if they all delegate to the same place.
The problem would still exist without big tech. Centralized decision-making is often a deliberate response to the problems of decentralization. This is what credit scores are for, to share...
The problem would still exist without big tech. Centralized decision-making is often a deliberate response to the problems of decentralization. This is what credit scores are for, to share information allowing small businesses to know more about new customers than they can learn on their own. (The big companies have more data to begin with.)
There are similar issues with spam block lists and ad block lists. The maintainers of a list have a lot of power, if it's used widely. Who appointed them? The people who use the list.
(Do Mastodon sites have lists like this yet?)
Even if you had a totally decentralized algorithm making the decision, who fixes the algorithm when it goes wrong?
You know that doomer guy on the street corner with the megaphone that can’t be stopped because of the first amendment? Should we take that imbalance of power where the speaker trumps the listener...
You know that doomer guy on the street corner with the megaphone that can’t be stopped because of the first amendment? Should we take that imbalance of power where the speaker trumps the listener and apply it online, too?
I like this phrase. I'm stealing it. I will re-use it. I do not like this hyperbole. A quick research seems to indicate that at least 5 billions Earthlings do not have access to the internet, let...
a handful of callow young tech titans
I like this phrase. I'm stealing it. I will re-use it.
social media tools available to most other people on earth
I do not like this hyperbole. A quick research seems to indicate that at least 5 billions Earthlings do not have access to the internet, let alone to Fakebook et al.
Fair, but I think more important chart for these discussions is this one - percentage of users by country. In the US, it was 87% in 2014, and I don't think it went down over the past 6 years....
A quick research seems to indicate that at least 5 billions Earthlings do not have access to the internet, let alone to Fakebook et al.
Fair, but I think more important chart for these discussions is this one - percentage of users by country. In the US, it was 87% in 2014, and I don't think it went down over the past 6 years. Sure, it was 10% in Bangladesh, but Bangladesh also doesn't have nukes, or an outsized influence on global economy and culture.
I think it's a great illustration of how much power private interests have over public discourse, and it is a very scary world we live in. But watching conservatives saying all the things they called me a "commie" for countless times in the past without a shred of irony has been incredible schadenfreude.
These tech companies are the new robber barons. While people may be cheering their action on Trump now, no one should forget that they did so based on profit/loss calculations and not for the benefit of society. And like @bloup said, the fact that these corporations have been able to amass so much power over public discourse in the first place is a huge problem and needs to be a major focus for voters. It is far too easy for corporations to abuse that power, and the incentives for them to do so are irresistible.
Some of this is reading the political winds by these companies. The Dems are about to control both the Senate, the House, and the White House. These corporations are looking to "be good" after years of failing to act to avoid regulation.
This is my impression as well. "Look, we can regulate ourselves; we can provide oversight to ourselves!"
Additionally, I can't imagine that all this political upheaval and violence is good for the business community so it's in their interest to try and abate it. I can also see it potentially affecting the value of the USD.
I think you're right, but I can't imagine that tech companies will avoid regulation after doing (in my opinion) the bare minimum post-riot.
I also doubt they won't successfully avoid regulation, but they're making the attempt here.
especially since how much traffic twitter was getting for having trump. they certainly profited on everything he said, good or not.
I haven’t seen evidence of these profit/loss calculations, just people repeating it. Maybe eventually someone will write a story covering how the decisions were made. In the meantime, let’s not treat suspicion as fact?
I don't think it's about profit/loss specifically, just that banning trump now won't bring large companies any repercussions because Democrats control congress so they'll just do it.
Correct, this was a risk management strategy by the companies not some bold leader initiative.
I'll put it this way:
I've got to hear first-hand the discourse for a college, including legal, PR, marketing, and the C-suite to discuss the cost/benefit of the work needed to prevent accidentally outing trans folks by using preferred name instead of legal name as much as possible.
Car companies do analysis all the time to see if correcting a known problem in a car is more or less expensive than paying out settlements for deaths caused.
Banning one of the highest-profile people on the planet from Twitter was not done lightly. It almost certainly involved a very long meeting for the C-suite with lots of charts and projections. There would have been consultation with PR and marketing to insure that this move would not destroy their userbase.
Ignoring that is being wilfully blind to the workings of organizations...even non-profit ones.
I am sufficiently convinced that you and I could probably have a beer and talk specifics about my employer. Either that, or this pattern repeated itself almost verbatim across numerous colleges. I would rather not go further details, as it will make it even easier to pinpoint my identity. But there was at one point a speech from legal why implementing exactly what you outlined in your article was important, and the effort was undertaken in part of fear of the PR hit a hypothetical discrimination lawsuit would entail.
Well, I don't disagree. I'm sure they had plenty of meetings and looked at data of some sort. Charts might be involved. But cost/benefit analysis is a more informal process. It's not doing a calculation.
Some might want to quantify things like some car companies got caught at, I just don't think it's possible in this case.
Also, that car company analysis is naive if it doesn't also take into account the risk of bad publicity, and how do you quantify that? It's still going to be a judgement call in the end.
I agree that it's good to be cautious, but let's not be naive either.
You can be both cautious and not naive by talking about your suspicions as suspicions. It’s fine to speculate about how you think big tech is making these decisions and we can talk about what seems plausible. We all speculate. But it’s not reporting, and doesn’t seem to be based on reporting.
It’s unfortunately common for suspicions to get upgraded to fact because people feel very strongly about something, or it sounds cooler to talk confidently about what’s going on in places of power, and pretend that we are in the know. This is how the naive get sucked into conspiracy theorizing.
But it is naive to pretend that, sitting at home, without reporting via a leak, we can know what’s going on during some video calls when such decisions are made. We are not in the loop. We were not in the room where it happened and we aren’t going to deduce it from arguments based on plausibility.
It’s implausible to me that they made a spreadsheet, because what sort of calculation could you do about how fast-changing politics will play out and how that will affect your numbers? The math would be garbage in, garbage out. So I would guess it’s more of a gut decision. But I don’t know, maybe someone did do a calculation.
If you don't think that Twitter and Facebook have spent substantial resources over the last four years attempting to asses the financial risk/reward of (de)platforming Trump, I don't think our dialogue will be productive.
He wasn't banned because Dorsey and Zuck suddenly grew consciences - these are corporations beholden to their stockholders and governmental regulations, and the calculus shifted such that banning him was the right business move.
My default thought pattern is that all of these people are greedy assholes, and whereas you need evidence that the decision was based on finances, I need evidence that it wasn't. Neither of us has this, so it's speculation all around.
I agree: they're taking action based on a high level, long-term business strategy.
Unless I misunderstood this entire thread, skybrian was arguing that we should give Twitter/Facebook the benefit of the doubt that they acted for the benefit of society instead of on a business calculus (which, ultimately, is a decision of what will create the most profit), which struck me as naive.
Well, I don't think we're that far apart. I made two arguments, and it seems like you agreed with both of them at certain points, that "it's speculation all around" and by agreeing with Rez just now.
I still disagree on your use of the word "naive" since I think you got it backwards, and I didn't make any particular argument for company managers acting "for the benefit of society." I wasn't arguing for giving anyone the benefit of the doubt, I was just arguing for doubt, full stop.
Doubt is good, it means you hedge your bets. Putting all your chips on one possibility is naive.
I would expect that they spent substantial staff time debating it over the years. Employees who wanted the ban earlier probably spent some time writing docs and making presentations, to little effect until now. Some of those arguments might have been about how they wouldn't be losing all that many users. They might talk, vaguely, about the risk of advertiser boycotts. There may have been graphs, which were probably treated with appropriate skepticism unless they were really well done. Maybe they made contingency plans.
My default assumption is that these are organizations made of people with various opinions and there is an internal political process based on the management hierarchy. When making presentations to the boss, they use arguments that they think he will buy, and "we will make more money" isn't the only argument that works though it's a good one.
I put a few more chips on financial calculations being a minor factor in this decision, but I would need good evidence in either direction to stop hedging.
Scott Galloway's most recent blog post is pretty over-dramatic (as they often tend to be), but I have to agree with his point that it's ridiculous that the government and other institutions are now so utterly ineffective that we have to beg corporations to save us.
It also worries me that this is frequently being celebrated on left-leaning forums such as Tildes. We could use some more sobriety.
I dunno, I think it's worth celebrating. Not because I disagree with Trump, but because he was clearly inciting violence and spreading dangerous misinformation. I have no objection to online communities having rules against either of those things. I don't see the point in having rules if you aren't going to enforce them. And I certainly don't think any politician should be exempt from those rules, regardless of political affiliation.
If some rando was on Twitter inciting violent mobs but without a political motive, nobody would bat an eye when they get banned.
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m in support of the fairly strict moderation here. Twitter has been very slow to react in other situations, and it’s not just Trump himself. I’m talking about the precedent, as @xnaas below mentioned.
Have all major tech platforms and even commercial tech companies banned certain left people and communities at scale and all at once? I understand you have a personal experience, but that’s not exactly generalizable.
Another example: #BlueLeaks was banned on almost every single platform, even though it clearly showed the widespread use of fusion centers by police to target leftist activists.
(for clarity, I agree with you)
I think another example of this, though perhaps others will disagree, was the marking of LGBTQ+ content on youtube as adult content. Is it as bad as being banned? No. Is it an example of a tech company limiting the reach a marginalized group is able to have on their platform based on the content they create? Yes. I don't think its 1-1, but I'd argue its an example of a tech platform quieting a traditionally left-leaning community at scale.
I think this is where we disagree the most. I wouldn't cheer and certainly don't think it's the right thing to do.
It is a bad metaphor, but I get tindall point.
A better one would be, I get a speeding ticket once for driving too fast once down my street, but my asshole neighbor who is always revving his engine, peeling out, and speeding down the street finally gets a ticket. I'm gonna have a little bit of schadenfreude with that outcome.
What's concerning to me is how many people seem to believe that private entities should be forced to become government mouthpieces (or really have to post or publish or amplify anything against their will). Compelled speech is just as much a gross violation of the principle of freedom of expression as censorship is.
This oligopoly should have been prevented from coalescing this power to begin with. This has been a problem since well before social media, and the USA has been rolling back media ownership regulations since George W. Bush. The FCC tried to prevent a similar thing with TV/Print media but largely failed. Same problem as everywhere.
It's a failure of how few limits there are to speech in the US constitution (although many seem to forget how many exceptions there actually are).
The framers simply couldn't imagine modern mass communication. It'd be absolutely insane to suggest someone in the late 1700s should even envision how such a society could change and what it'd require legally speaking.
The constitution is also way too hard to change, so it's never been fixed. Subsequent legislation all suffers.
It's like - on the one hand, it is scary how much power big tech has. But for some of us, it was even MORE scary to see how much power big tech was giving to Trump.
I think it's fair to have complicated feelings on the matter! I don't think big tech should have so much power, but I also don't think Trump should either. In the moment, I think it's better that Trump loses his power than tech does. It's not ideal though, preferably we wouldn't be in this spot in the first place.
Trump had a private dinner with Zuckerberg at one point. It's definitely scary because Trump is so easily manipulated and always willing to sell out his office anyway.
Not directly, most are neutral in just pointing it out, but most imply that it’s only a good thing or should have been done sooner rather than questioning the wisdom of it and the long term effects. Generally the discussions here are quite levelheaded but by no means moderate (let alone conservative).
I agree. I’m just saying that so far only one side of the opinion has been visible, at least to me.
Oh yes, but I’m talking about forums with mainly left-leaning users, not organizations that actually watch for this (that’s a given). Heck, even the ACLU called out Twitter and Facebook for the bans.
I suppose the question is if they're actually implying that at all, or if that's a misread based on them only expressing one side of the coin in those comments while holding back the other for a more appropriate discussion area.
I've been railing against social media and its influence since around 2010 when I perceived attention spans dropping across the internet and then across real life as more and more people got sucked into social media. But in the last few days, I was only doing a merry little jig over Trump getting banned finally. But my overall feelings towards social media and its insidious power over society hasn't changed at all, they're just two different concepts at the moment.
I think it's rational to argue that the de-platforming of Trump should've come sooner, given that Twitter is/was applying its own Terms of Service differently to different users. I respectfully disagree with their choice to allow him to remain as an exception when so much of the content he generated was not befitting to the President of the United States and was outright inflammatory or false.
As for the long term effects, hopefully this raises a large and actionable conversation about the power that these companies have amassed, thus leading to substantial regulation to prevent this power from being abused. Right now, tech companies act when their users are a press liability, not necessarily when it's the ethically correct decision.
I am glad for it and would be glad for them to go further. But at the same time I welcome new regulations that could make communication platforms treated like utilities.
I feel like there are real issues with #BigTech, but they are not actually fullfilled by both the ejection of Trump and the removal of Parler.
First, I think there are two angles: one, certain tech companies are so large, that they have a oversized amount of power; by threatening refusing service to a customer, they can exert great influence on those customers. Two, that there should be some kind of 1A like Free Speech regulation applied to media companies.
Additionally, what really muzzled Trump is the Twitter ban, which makes no sense because he has literally an entire press room besides Twitter like y'know every other President has used instead but regardless, and Twitter is far from a monopoly. According to Pew, only 22% of Adults in the US use Twitter, and that's "use at least once this year". It's really a very small site compared to actual social media giants - ffs it's slightly below linkedin.
So I think there are real issues, in particular with Apple having the appstore is the only gateway to the iPhone and Zuck's control on social media advertising, but only Apple kinda matters in the Parler situation. But again, Parler's demise came from, as their CEO says, every service from server to SMS to their old lawyers ditching them. That's not monopoly power.
--
Okay, probably not a great idea - so it needs to be finely grained regulation. Add political alignment as a protected class and enforce no bans for that reason, perhaps? But who decides what is actually a political alignment issue? If I say my political alignment is based on the belief that football is better than basketball, is banning me from /r/nba legitimate when I talk about that?
Is there a government agency that watches over bans? Does the banned user have to sue in civil court?
The Government having finely grained control over who is and isn't banned is also a Free Speech issue, and I'd argue it's an even bigger one! It's literally a 1st amendment violation, right? I have yet to see an actual proposal of regulations that is not a huge 1st amendment issue wherein the government has this giant say in the speech of online communities.
The first part of your post is very clear regarding the argument of monopoly power. But, can you clarify the second part? I think I'm understanding that you're advocating against the implementation of 1A protections on tech?
Yes, I think blanked 1A protections would be a disaster - because there's a laundry list of mundane reasons why users are banned. A simple one is being off-topic: if you want a community that's dedicated to cat pictures, should you not be able to do remove posts that are not about cat pictures? Or being obscene - should sites that want to be PG 13, not be able to remove obscene content?
And finely grained speech regulation is a first amendment issue because the government is now controlling speech. Controlling bans is like 50% of the way there to controlling speech.
Yeah, imagine a group of nazi sympathizers/fascists here on Tildes, with no power to remove them or do anything because of some internet 1A rule. Tildes would be forced to host content they don't agree with/don't want.
It seems reasonable to have some sort of law against banning entire accounts for bad behavior in an unrelated service. So, for example, behaving badly on YouTube shouldn’t mean you lose access to Gmail or Photos.
But the question is how to define “unrelated.” If it’s too fine-grained then it becomes a game of wack-a-mole where every Reddit group needs to ban the same user each time.
There is a question about how information about bad users is shared, both within a company and across companies. When should people be able to escape their reputation?
It doesn’t really apply for celebrities the whole world knows about, though. You don’t need a credit score when you can read the news.
But that really gets at the source of moderating power - namely that it's arbitrary. Twitter and FB make a show of applying rules, but those are self-applied rules. The actual source of power is my way or the high way. Which, again, is the same power that allows my cat pictures blog and comments to ban dog pictures.
So when it really comes down to "I don't want you here", how does regulating against being banned for bad behavior on another platform work? If I just don't like you, if you weren't banned by Youtube, I could ban you because I don't like you, but now that you were banned by Youtube, I am liable for it? Is there a statue of limitations when it's no long correlated?
For most reasonable cases, antitrust would most massage this. In the case of inciting violence, and having abhorrent, wildly disagreeable rhetoric, it wouldn't, but that's because you're universally abhorred. And even then Parler still found a new nameserver and host.
Yes, I don't think it really works for unrelated sites. I was thinking more for the big tech sites that group a lot of unrelated services under a single login, including third-party sites.
It seems like only partially disabling suspect accounts would minimize damage in case of a false positive? Like, revoking sharing privileges, but you can still look at and download your own photos, and third-party logins still work.
But then, what if the third-party site decides to block all logins from partially-disabled accounts because that's a pretty strong signal? I guess that's up to them.
At issue here is the ability of people who have moderating power to outsource their decision-making. As soon as you allow delegation, centralization can happen if they all delegate to the same place.
I get where you're coming from but a law like this would quickly make the internet unusable.
The problem would still exist without big tech. Centralized decision-making is often a deliberate response to the problems of decentralization. This is what credit scores are for, to share information allowing small businesses to know more about new customers than they can learn on their own. (The big companies have more data to begin with.)
There are similar issues with spam block lists and ad block lists. The maintainers of a list have a lot of power, if it's used widely. Who appointed them? The people who use the list.
(Do Mastodon sites have lists like this yet?)
Even if you had a totally decentralized algorithm making the decision, who fixes the algorithm when it goes wrong?
Ah, I see more clearly. That's what I figured, in which case I agree. Free-speech absolutism leads to exactly what kind of behavior occurs on Parler.
You know that doomer guy on the street corner with the megaphone that can’t be stopped because of the first amendment? Should we take that imbalance of power where the speaker trumps the listener and apply it online, too?
I like this phrase. I'm stealing it. I will re-use it.
I do not like this hyperbole. A quick research seems to indicate that at least 5 billions Earthlings do not have access to the internet, let alone to Fakebook et al.
Fair, but I think more important chart for these discussions is this one - percentage of users by country. In the US, it was 87% in 2014, and I don't think it went down over the past 6 years. Sure, it was 10% in Bangladesh, but Bangladesh also doesn't have nukes, or an outsized influence on global economy and culture.