[HN Gopher] Silicon Values
___________________________________________________________________
Silicon Values
Author : danaris
Score : 63 points
Date : 2022-08-29 14:19 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (pxlnv.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (pxlnv.com)
| burlesona wrote:
| The author asks us to consider if social media is so large it
| should be a state regulated entity, then concludes with an
| implicit argument for decentralization, or perhaps more
| specifically anti-trust.
|
| So we have two mental models: (1) ubiquitous social media like
| YouTube is so large and important that it has become a public
| service, or (2) ubiquitous social media like YouTube is so large
| and dominant that it has become a monopoly.
|
| The weird part about the "public service" argument is that it's
| hard to say I would ever want tax dollars funding "video
| distribution," while I don't have those qualms around
| distributing water and electricity. Content feels different to
| me. But maybe future generations will look back on that and
| laugh.
|
| The weird part about the monopoly argument is that the barriers
| to entry for video hosting and distribution are low, and there
| are many different social media platforms, so the only thing
| YouTube has a monopoly on is... being YouTube. But perhaps that's
| enough?
|
| Ultimately I'm more sympathetic to the anti-trust argument, that
| we should take action to break up mega platforms (although I'm
| not sure what that action should be).
|
| What has more appeal to me personally is establishing a
| Constitutional Right to Privacy, then apply that right to ban
| surveillance capitalism. (US-centric framing, sorry; I would
| advocate all democracies adopt such a right.)
|
| Such a right would mostly break up social media, with the side
| effect being an unknown degree of harm to online platforms in
| general since it's pretty hard to operate the server-client model
| without tracking your clients. But we could work around that,
| perhaps with local-first software, or by common-sense provisions
| like the idea that a store can keep a record of your purchases,
| it just can't share that record with others.
|
| There's no obvious easy solution here, but this is a big society-
| shaking problem so I think there's no doubt we _will_ take steps
| to solve it, the only question is which path will we choose, and
| how will it work out in the end?
| NCC1701DEngage wrote:
| Social media should be considered common carriers, like
| telephone companies, delivery services, or transportation
| services.
|
| An airline or UPS cannot just say "We don't like your politics
| so we will not ship your packages."
|
| Social media is extremely similar to all these common carriers
| in that they are a "content" delivery mechanism. They do not
| decide what item is in a box or what message is in a phone
| call, they just distribute the box or phone call from the
| originator to the consumers. Similarly with social media
| content the social media company distributes content they have
| little control over through its distribution network. There is
| little different from a social media account than a (teletype?)
| conference telephone call with answering machines.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier
| triceratops wrote:
| Or...we can let ISPs be common carriers. As they used to be
| in the US, until the "free speech" party decided to kill it.
|
| Surely you'd agree that ISPs are closer to telephone
| companies than social media is. So many telephone companies
| _are_ ISPs.
|
| I love another comment I read on here: "Speech is free, reach
| isn't." Your ISP shouldn't be able to disconnect you because
| of your words. But equally you aren't entitled to an audience
| on MyFaceTubeTwit.
| nickheer wrote:
| An airline or UPS can absolutely say "we don't like the
| contents of what you are shipping so we refuse to transport
| it". UPS will not ship marijuana, even for medical purposes,
| even in Canada where it is entirely legal. It won't ship
| watches over $500 or ammunition.
|
| I disagree with turning platforms into common carriers. As I
| wrote, I think this misses the issue: a protocol should be a
| common carrier, but a specific provider has no obligation to
| host things it doesn't want to or do not make sense for
| certain territories.
| NCC1701DEngage wrote:
| >An airline or UPS can absolutely say "we don't like the
| contents of what you are shipping so we refuse to transport
| it".
|
| Cf.:
|
| >An important legal requirement for common carrier as
| public provider is that it cannot discriminate, that is
| refuse the service unless there is some compelling reason.
|
| ibid
|
| I suppose you can make "compelling reason" arguments for
| some things, but the default is carry.
|
| Like, you may as well say "Well there are 'compelling
| reasons' exceptions so theoretically people can do the
| exact opposite of what the law says."
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _The weird part about the monopoly argument is that the
| barriers to entry for video hosting and distribution are
| low..._
|
| They're low for Google, but prohibitively high for any
| potential competitors. To me, this supports the argument that
| YouTube is a monopoly.
|
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/04/cheaper-bandwidth-or...
|
| _" Remember YouTube's $2 million-a-month bandwidth bill before
| the Google acquisition? While it wasn't an overnight
| transition, apply Google's data center expertise, and this cost
| drops to about $666,000 a month."_
| yazzku wrote:
| It certainly does feel that The Rest of the World currently must
| choose between one empire's surveillance machine or another's.
| You point out that many of TikTok's employees come from Chinese
| state media, but many higher-ups in Silicon Valley similarly come
| from CIA or defense. The big platforms are an unofficial
| extension of government to exert power and control.
|
| > The question of how to apply more local customs and behaviours
| to a global platform is, I believe, the defining challenge of the
| next decade in tech.
|
| Government involvement aside, banning targeted advertising could
| be a start. Twitter and Facebook and others are centralized shit
| shows primarily because that maximizes their advertising revenue.
| kareemsabri wrote:
| > But platforms like Rumble which trumpet their free speech
| bonafides are missing the point: moderation is good, normal, and
| reinforces free speech principles. It is right for platform
| owners to decide the range of permissible posts.
|
| This is a very Canadian take.
| decebalus1 wrote:
| I find it funny when people who spend most of their waking
| hours under a de facto totalitarian leadership (the workspace)
| expect that companies extend the same rights to their userbase
| as the US constitution.
| NavinF wrote:
| > de facto totalitarian leadership (the workspace)
|
| Can't relate
| kareemsabri wrote:
| I don't.
|
| I wouldn't consider most workplaces I've been in totalitarian
| - though maybe you've lived in some pretty nice totalitarian
| countries I'm not aware of. But I also don't see why
| customers shouldn't demand what they care about from
| companies.
| decebalus1 wrote:
| Do you have any say in employee compensation?
|
| Do you have any say in employee perks/benefits? I mean a
| real say, not preferences which are allowed by some
| benevolent analyst from HR.
|
| If the CEO goes rogue and the company is private, can rank-
| and-file employees oust them?
|
| Can you vote out your manager or your manager's manager? Is
| there even a process in place to do that?
|
| Do you follow orders from management? What happens if you
| don't?
|
| What happens if you disobey your manager in a public
| setting?
|
| Can you get fired without notice? How about laid off?
|
| Can you get fired because you said something?
|
| Do you have a dresscode? What would happen to your
| employment if you dressed like a clown in customer
| meetings?
|
| Do you risk getting fired if you start talking about
| unionizing?
|
| Do you get fired if you sue the company?
|
| Can you bring a gun to work?
|
| Does your employee handbook say something about how your
| run your personal life? Does your employer have rights over
| IP created outside of working hours? Can you get fired over
| a DUI outside of company hours? Can you get fired for
| smoking cigarettes in your free time?
|
| etc..
|
| Some literature for you:
| https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32889465-private-
| governm...
| tqi wrote:
| You're just describing any structure with a formal
| hierarchy.
| kareemsabri wrote:
| I've listened to enough Richard Wolfe debates to know the
| talking points. Dropping a book link isn't really helpful
| in the context of this discussion, I'm not going to go
| read your favorite book before I reply to you.
|
| Yes I'm aware that corporations set up a legal hierarchy
| in which management has more power than labor within the
| corporation. I'm not going to go through your specific
| questions one by one, since they're largely rhetorical,
| though some of them don't have the answer you hope for.
| Some people seem to interpret the lack of formal,
| democratic processes with a totalitarian dictatorship.
| I've personally witnessed the firing of C-suite execs in
| response to employee revolts.
|
| A totalitarian system requires _complete_ subservience.
| Depending on your position in the labor market, your
| leverage may vary. My objection isn 't to the notion that
| the employer-employee power balance is lopsided in many
| cases, to the point where some sectors of the economy are
| exploitative, but rather that an office by it's nature is
| akin to a totalitarian dictatorship. Maybe you're just
| using that phrase for effect, or maybe you genuinely
| think that working at Google and living in Egypt under
| President Mubarak is a good comparison. To me it comes
| off as a bit out of touch.
| decebalus1 wrote:
| There's no point in getting defensive, that's not my
| favorite book and nobody expects you or anyone to
| actually read it, let alone before replying. It's just a
| reference to the ideas I mentioned, put in a more
| academic format.
|
| > maybe you genuinely think that working at Google and
| living in Egypt under President Mubarak is a good
| comparison
|
| Nice way of picking two extremes to make a point. Also,
| not sure what you're comparing here. Nobody is gonna kill
| you at Google. You can get fired though (which is more or
| less like some sort of corporate execution or something)
| and if you're at the wrong end of a recession you're
| gonna have a bad time.
|
| Fine then, it seems I struck a nerve here. How about
| authoritarian? Is that better? And maybe Russia instead
| of Egypt. Would that be more palatable?
|
| I did live under a totalitarian government myself. And to
| be honest, I see a lot of the behaviors I grew up with,
| in the current corporate culture (at least in the US). Do
| I live a better life? Sure, of course, there's no doubt
| about it. But that's solely because I submit to that
| culture. But I will be kicked off the gravy train at the
| first sign of dissent (same as under said dictatorship).
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| > Nice way of picking two extremes to make a point. Also,
| not sure what you're comparing here. Nobody is gonna kill
| you at Google. You can get fired though (which is more or
| less like some sort of corporate execution or something)
| and if you're at the wrong end of a recession you're
| gonna have a bad time.
|
| You're the one claiming "totalitarian". But when someone
| brings in _real_ totalitarian, you say "hey, that's too
| extreme". Um, yeah, that's the point. Your claim of
| "totalitarian" is a bogus over-the-top rhetorical
| flourish, and you have now pretty much agreed that it is.
| decebalus1 wrote:
| > You're the one claiming "totalitarian". But when
| someone brings in real totalitarian, you say "hey, that's
| too extreme".
|
| I was referring to the comparison itself to be extreme.
| There's a difference.
|
| Can you define your view on what totalitarianism means?
| And please don't use countries as examples. I think
| there's a disconnect here and people are arguing
| semantics and language accuracy while missing the
| original point, which still stands.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Nope. You chose the word; you made the claim. It's _your_
| definition we 're arguing about; mine is irrelevant.
|
| So if you've got a definition where your claim makes
| sense, state it. Then we can argue about whether _your_
| definition is reasonable. My definition is a distraction.
| (I don 't know whether you were trying for a distraction
| or not, but my definition isn't the point.)
| kareemsabri wrote:
| Fair enough. My defensiveness is based on the assumption
| prevalent in these sorts of discussions that if you don't
| share a viewpoint you are just suffering from
| insufficient education on it.
|
| I'm picking extremes because the OP made a blanket
| statement about life in workplaces. They didn't say, life
| as an Amazon warehouse worker is exploitative for
| example. The statement was extreme to begin with. There
| are lots of different types of workplaces in America. You
| didn't really strike a nerve beyond I guess that I'm not
| a huge fan of hyperbole / sloppy language.
|
| I don't really think you'll get kicked off the gravy
| train if you dissent at all. There's a good bit of anti-
| capitalism, "tear down the system" type talk in tech.
| That said, I agree with you that corporations are not
| democratic organizations.
|
| My first corporate job was as a cashier at a grocery
| store. Yes, if I refused to wear the uniform, or ring up
| customers when they stood in my line, I'd probably be
| written up and after 3 write ups, fired. I guess you
| could call that authoritarian. I don't see how it gets
| you much though.
| thundergolfer wrote:
| Check out Philosopher Elizabeth Anderson and her work on
| workplace democracy for more on how modern corporations are
| like dictatorships and at least certainly anti-democratic.
| Her New Yorker profile is very good, for an intro.
| kareemsabri wrote:
| I don't think they're all that democratic. But there's a
| world of difference between democratic, which itself has
| degrees, and being totalitarian.
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _I wouldn 't consider most workplaces I've been in
| totalitarian_
|
| Where did you work where you could vote for the CEO?
| multiplegeorges wrote:
| Not voting for the CEO doesn't make something
| totalitarian.
| ben_w wrote:
| Ironically, I think one could argue that the military of
| any democratic nation would pass that test despite being
| a lot closer to totalitarian states[0] than almost all
| modern companies.
|
| [0] Not a judgement call, I think that is necessary given
| what they do and the risks they have to be ready to face
| the moment they are ordered to do so
| kareemsabri wrote:
| I don't think that's what totalitarian means.
| multiplegeorges wrote:
| Peace, order, and good government.
|
| There's something to it. More people will be able to express
| themselves fully and openly if a tiny minority isn't screaming,
| throwing excrement, and/or threatening violence.
| kareemsabri wrote:
| So goes the argument. I don't think the author has really
| proven it, it was pretty theoretical. It's not clear the tiny
| minority won't just weaponize the powers that be to silence
| those that disagree with them even further.
|
| That said, I don't think free speech is a utilitarian
| principle (greatest good for the greatest number) but rather
| a deontological one, that it is wrong to muzzle an
| individuals right to express themselves as a first order
| effect. The author's argument describes second or nth order
| effects.
| JacobThreeThree wrote:
| Do people think that Rumble doesn't have a moderation policy
| and moderation team?
|
| https://rumble.com/s/terms#policies
| nickheer wrote:
| For what it is worth, Rumble is Canadian and I linked to an
| American writer in justifying the latter part of my argument.
| kareemsabri wrote:
| Yeah, it was a bit tongue in cheek. I'm also Canadian.
| nickheer wrote:
| Sorry I missed that. Whoops. Sorry.
| SQueeeeeL wrote:
| >At the beginning of the book, York points to a 1946 U.S. Supreme
| Court decision, Marsh v. Alabama, which held that private
| entities can become sufficiently large and public to require them
| to be subject to the same Constitutional constraints as
| government entities.
|
| We actually live beyond a time where this is possible. The
| political conditions of the US have basically deteriorated to
| where any meaningful regulation of corporations can't really
| happen because of the changing laws around how corporate
| contributions to political campaigns work. It actively hurts
| whichever political party attempts to regulate (by reducing
| finical contributions/increasing them to the other party or
| rivals in primaries who "stay in their lane".)
|
| The only group who benefits from regulation are individuals who
| live in the country, which really isn't enough to get laws
| passed.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > The political conditions of the US have basically
| deteriorated to where any meaningful regulation of corporations
| can't really happen because of the changing laws around how
| corporate contributions to political campaigns work.
|
| It's also probably worth drawing distinctions around the
| different meanings of "corporate." The sense of "large for-
| profit, limited liability business entity" has eclipsed all
| other meanings, which is a shame.
| fintechjock wrote:
| > The political conditions of the US have basically
| deteriorated to where any meaningful regulation of corporations
| can't really happen because of the changing laws around how
| corporate contributions to political campaigns work.
|
| I've run a US Senate campaign. We raised tens of millions of
| dollars, and I can confidently say that corporate donations
| made no impact in any policy decisions - on the campaign or the
| official side.
|
| That extends to individual donations as well. The caps are
| ~$10,000 per couple. Considering the cost of a federal
| campaign, no person or corporation can buy a campaign when
| costs are in the tens of millions and contribution caps are in
| the thousands.
| CartyBoston wrote:
| I agree with your assessment as of today, we can accomplish
| some amazing things by electing different leaders over time
| though. I read this as a call to activism.
| whatshisface wrote:
| If contributions to both parties get reduced equally, what's
| the issue?
| spamizbad wrote:
| I actually think the biggest hurdle won't be political
| obstacles but judicial ones. The courts have been reshaped to
| be extremely deferential to the interests of business/capital.
| And these court decisions cannot be narrowly interpreted enough
| to say "These laws apply to Twitter (a website the vast
| majority of Americans do NOT use), but cannot apply to Walmart
| (A business a majority of Americans _do_ utilize) "
| jmeister wrote:
| This is wrong and out-of-date for multiple reasons.
|
| 1. Corporate spending in politics has had negligible impact
| after Citizens United: https://www.nber.org/papers/w30352
|
| 2. These days, the ostensibly pro-business party(GOP) gets more
| of its money from individuals and SME donors than the
| Democratic party.
|
| Your real problem is public opinion itself. The public in
| America simply trusts corporations over government
| institutions(except maybe the military). David Shor has
| great(but damning for progressives) analyses of this
| phenomenon.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| Your NBER resource is specific only to the impact of
| corporate spending on _state-level tax policy_ , not
| "politics" writ large.
| lbwtaylor wrote:
| While the article you cite does not identify changes to US
| state taxation, in this period we've had an incredible
| reduction in corporate taxation at the federal level, so I'm
| not sure I find the research paper convincing for the larger
| point being discussed.
| dnissley wrote:
| Ironically the above take about money in politics is _so
| popular_ that the narrative around it is basically impossible
| to change at this point (at least among people left of
| center). I don 't think any amount of evidence could change
| most people's minds, and I've tried many times.
| [deleted]
| jacobolus wrote:
| Hint: when you say "Democrat party" rather than "Democratic
| Party" you are giving away your game too easily. This is what
| GOP partisans call the party as an intentional slight. The
| only ordinary people I ever hear use this name are those who
| habitually watch Fox News.
| jefftk wrote:
| Context and history:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
| jmeister wrote:
| I didn't know the history behind the pejorative usage.
| Thanks for pointing out.
|
| EDIT: I'm a recentish immigrant, so help me out with this
| inconsistency: Why Democrats and not Democratics? Why
| Republicans and not Republics?
| pc86 wrote:
| Democrat is a noun, Democratic is an adjective.
| Republican is both (depending on context).
|
| "Republican" and "Democratic" are modifying the noun
| "Party" when referring to the political organizations, so
| you use the adjective in those cases.
| jmeister wrote:
| Thanks!
| [deleted]
| ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote:
| There is no game to be given away, this is not sports and
| these are not teams to be cheered for or jeered against.
| The modern version of the Godwin's law is people bringing
| up dog-whistling in a conversation.
| peteradio wrote:
| And yet Democrat's party or party of Democrats is entirely
| correct. How exactly is it supposed to be interpreted as a
| slight in this day and age?
| jwond wrote:
| Seems like tilting at windmills to me.
|
| Republicans are members of the Republican party
|
| Democrats are members of the Democrat party
| wpietri wrote:
| > meaningful regulation of corporations can't really happen
|
| Isn't that overstating the case?
|
| I agree corporate lobbyists have an outsized and often harmful
| impact. But just recently we have seen California moving toward
| ending sales of gasoline-powered cars. Or at the federal level,
| greenhouse gasses are now legally a pollutant that the EPA can
| regulate. With just one more Democratic senator, we would have
| seen the end of the carried-interest loophole. And organized
| labor, which serves as an important check on corporate power,
| has been on the rise, in part due to Federal support.
|
| I'll also note that places like Facebook, although not yet
| particularly regulated, are running scared from a lot of
| proposed legislation, and so are increasing transparency and
| reducing harm in hopes of heading it off. That too checks
| corporate power, and is a strong sign that they don't see
| themselves as untouchable.
|
| Personally, although the challenges are large, I think there's
| a fair bit of cause for optimism.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > The problem is that I should not be able to find so many
| similarities in the use of technology as a form of soft power,
| and certainly not for spying, between a democratic nation and an
| authoritarian one.
|
| This sums up my feelings nicely. Western governments are quietly
| outsourcing surveillance to private companies. "Social credit" as
| a formal system may be limited to China, but between government,
| insurers, and employers using data from data brokers to make
| decisions about people in the west, we're not far from building
| our own ad-hoc version.
| peteradio wrote:
| A difference is that in a market driven economy it may turn out
| to be a losing strategy (fingers crossed).
| Cyberdog wrote:
| Sadly, government behavior is rarely reigned in by the
| market.
| Bakary wrote:
| I often have periods of anglosphere fatigue where hearing about
| the same values, debates, and cultural norms every day starts to
| take its toll. That's why learning languages is so
| psychologically helpful.
| Cyberdog wrote:
| Are you saying all Anglophones have the same values and norms?
| That's an odd take.
|
| I mean, foreign language learning is great and I'd definitely
| encourage people to do it, but if your true goal is just to
| break out of whatever echo chamber of ideas you find yourself
| in, there's easier ways to go about it.
| bovermyer wrote:
| I wonder if the takeaway here is that we should be less global
| and more local in all of our interactions with each other.
|
| If one of the problems here is that the one-size-fits-all
| approach is dangerous and counterproductive in social networks,
| then it seems an experiment in local-only networks is worth
| investigating.
| RichardCNormos wrote:
| > an experiment in local-only networks is worth investigating.
|
| That's what church is. The experiment has been successful for
| at least 2,000 years.
| [deleted]
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| For definitions of 'success' so narrow as to be useless, if
| not harmful. Having been raised and spent decades in
| churches, even the most liberal are toxic places that pollute
| the mind with fallacies, platitudes, or worse.
| shitpostbot wrote:
| Eupraxias wrote:
| It's a good model, and more active church communities would
| likely be a net positive for society. But the model does come
| with some nasty side-effects, not the least of which is a
| required subscription to the invisible-friend belief service.
| CharlesW wrote:
| As a former Catholic, subscription authentication is not
| strict. It's also apparently not difficult to get admin
| privileges -- one of the priests teaching at my tiny high
| school was gay, and the pastors of both churches in my
| small midwestern town were eventually discovered to have
| been uncomfortably handy with children.
|
| In the faith, the joke is that all Catholics are "a la
| carte Catholics" to some degree or another. Many will even
| dismiss papal _ex-cathedra_ statements that they don 't
| like, even though papal infallibility is Catholic dogma.
| Eupraxias wrote:
| This is among the reasons I very nearly converted to
| Catholicism, though doesn't everyone have to at least
| believe in the divinity of Jesus?
|
| I've always thought that churches should solicit people
| of the same general morality to participate, regardless
| of god-belief. As such, it's sad that there isn't
| something like a community church that filled this need
| for those of on the outside.
|
| Speaking of admin privies, I can verify. I had a close
| friend many years ago who was a card-carrying member of
| the Church of Satan. He went on to become a Catholic
| priest, swear to God.
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| I understand some Unitarians only ask of their congregants
| that they believe in _at most_ one god.
|
| Edit: upon reflection, the side-effects are probably
| contained in the etymology of the english adjective
| 'parochial'
| invalidOrTaken wrote:
| Empirically, that side effect is in actuality an
| engineering constraint.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-29 23:01 UTC)