Right... shells age. They blow up in the barrel, things like that. Maybe they even intentionally blow up in the barrel. Not that I would suggest sabotage. There's no way South Korean intelligence could possibly infiltrate North Korea ;)
But even so, if there was a serious threat of war, which is unlikely because China would stop North Korea, the US would place assets in the region and as we got close to a confrontation the US and South Korea (and as things are looking, probably Japan) would begin an aerial and missile bombardment to destroy in place North Korean offensive capabilities. Some would get through of course, perhaps thousands or tens of thousands of South Korean casualties, but in the context of a conventional war North Korea's capabilities would be quickly overwhelmed, at least in my opinion.
But honestly, the current status quo works pretty well for everyone except the people of North Korea, but there's not much we can do. It's a tragedy and the blame for that falls squarely on the Soviet Union and Chinese Communist Party.
... And the US, who razed every building in North Korea and killed more than 10% of the entire population of North Korea (that's entire population, including civilians).
Nope. US was there under a UN banner, and the UN force was winning until China threw manpower into the war. Never mind Soviet support. The blame goes to the communists and them alone. Without them Korea would have been likely unified under what is now the democratic South Korea we know today, but the communists in China couldn’t have a democracy so close to them, so they fought to win and establish the brutal regime that we have today in North Korea.
Things change. Allies just used to be threatened in private. Even today, the UK, Canada, and others are supporting the US and Israel in taking down the regime.
I’m not suggesting things haven’t or can’t change, but I am suggesting we haven’t seen any pivotal turning points, at least not yet.
We have, they were just a long time ago, and people are only just now noticing because Obama and Biden were relatively restrained and Trump I was simply incompetent.
But all the things that allow Trump to do that he's doing happened a long time ago
I get where you're coming from. Every US administration has been corrupt, flaunted the constitution, started illegal wars (at least in the last 100 years or so)
It does kind of drive me nuts that people don't remember Bush very well, and give Obama and Biden passes on their own crimes.
That said, i do honestly believe that Trump has taken the level of corruption and abject cruelty to a new level. But this was inevitable; both parties have spent 50 years building this reality. I won't be surprised when the next Democrat also deports millions and starts illegal wars.
I don't disagree with you, in general. My point here only was that I don't think the specific language used is correct. For me a turning point would be like, the Japanese declaring war on the United States and attacking Pearl Harbor, or Napoleon being defeated by the Duke, or the French Revolution, or something more along those lines. Bombing Iran (we've done stuff like that before), arresting Maduro - Noriega (sp?), federal vs state standoffs - yep done that before. Largely this is the routine mess of democracy, and it's heightened and more exposed because it's the United States of America and also because our republic has 340 million people from all over the world - there's going to be some differences of opinion.
Of course "this time" can be different for these things but I'm not sure I've seen anything I'd construe as a turning point or significant change or anything quite like that.
We're doing really complicated stuff. And think about it though, in the 60s/70s we had one organization - NASA. That was it. Today, we have RocketLab, SpaceX, Blue Origin, and NASA, plus Boeing I guess.
For what it's worth I actually took "SFBA" and Googled it because I wasn't sure either. I've always heard of it referred to as SF or SV. Learn new stuff every day.
Well when you're giving away your product for free... maybe open-source maintainers who want payment for their "free" products should consider going to business school?
I'm in favor of funding the arts, for example, but I'm not sure open-source is something we should tax/fund for. There is real business value in the projects that are created, but open-source maintainers insist on "giving them away for free". Start charging and then we don't need to fund/tax.
We have a bunch of socially minded people providing free value in the form of open source that enjoy the gift they are giving to others. When they become aware that their charity disproportionately benefits selfish people who have opposite inclinations - who employ people to search for exploits, without fixing them, to suck up as much wealth as possible - I'm not surprised they would want to take a step back and ask for a share of that.
And that's totally fine under the same market mechanics you're recommending. If you want maintainers to stop complaining and filing potential petitions asking for funding via taxes etc, just pay them.
> If you want maintainers to stop complaining and filing potential petitions asking for funding via taxes etc, just pay them.
That's exactly what I want. If you want to give your product away for free, that's great! You're a better person for doing so. If you want to sell it, that's great too! You should be rewarded and compensated for building great stuff just like anyone else is.
But what I do not want to see as a citizen and taxpayer is "we want to build this for free, ope now we want to get paid and it's totally not fair that Meta took our free thing and did something productive with it and we need taxpayer dollars.". That's not fair to anyone, and solving that by "mandating" or "requiring" things is anti-free market, and against the free spirit of human creativity and entrepreneurship.
> When they become aware that their charity disproportionately benefits selfish people who have opposite inclinations
Let's not call it all charity though. You get invited to conferences, you get job opportunities you otherwise wouldn't get, you get to feel great about the thing you are working on - there's a lot of unpaid benefits, and under-the-table ones too.
I'm saying if the populace wants taxes to fund open source and votes for it, and maintainers just stop working on open source otherwise that's also the free market. Doing stuff for free and then complaining about when it benefits greedy folks in an outsized way is a negotiation tactic with the public that people are allowed to do.
Sure, people can do anything. As a person/citizen/voter I would probably vote against using tax dollars for open-source work. I'd prefer a less convoluted and more honest approach. Doing something for free and then complaining about not getting paid for it later is super cringe and passive aggressive regardless as to whether or not "greedy people" are using it.
Being an open-source maintainer is just some thing people decide they want to do. There's nothing special about it. If you want to get paid, figure out that arrangement for yourself. If you want to do it for free and give it away because you love it, that's great too. That's what free association is all about.
Taxing me to pay for other people to fund their hobby seems ripe for 2 bad things: 1. if the government is funding it, the government gets a say - doesn't bode well for open-source, and 2 it creates market inefficiencies in a bad way - we fund thing we shouldn't fund and we do so to support a lifestyle or hobby instead of what is truly economically valuable for all.
Copyright isn't being circumvented - the content of the website is made available for the public and the website just grabs what is publicly available.
Redistributing copyrighted content is the literal definition of copyright infringement. Using it for your own purposes, without distribution, is another story.
This link was posted with intent to facilitate the distribution of copyrighted material. The person who posted it justified posting the link by saying some people don't have a subscription.
I understand that some people think copyright shouldn't exist, but it clearly is being circumvented here.
I'll start caring about copyright when the government starts caring about my personal information that is being traded around the internet (with the help of journalism). Information is money, and we're all being stolen from.
In the context of use on hacker news, I think the fair use exemption for public comment is a sufficient justification, which is likely why they allow its use.
Legally it's infringement but I don't have a lot of sympathy for semi-porous paywalls getting circumvented. If they don't want free readers, they can set up a hard paywall. If they offer free samples and I occasionally take one I'm not going to feel bad about it, or worry about that specific type of copyright infringement making it more difficult for journalists to make a living.
I think copyright should exist, but it only exists in that you can put a gate around it. The website makes the content available freely for the public, just use incognito mode or something or change your IP address and you get access to it.
If this was, for example, was only content behind a paywall that would make more sense to suggest there is a copyright violation here.
“Who is left on Facebook besides dopamine junkies and bots?”
“I only use it in this limited circumstance”
You are on Facebook. That’s who. It’s like saying you’re not a drinker because you have a glass of wine every once in a while. Sure you’re not an addict (probably) but you still drink.
> Take a 2002 Times/CNN poll on the eating habits of 10,000 Americans. Six percent of the individuals surveyed said they considered themselves vegetarian. But when asked by the pollsters what they had eaten in the last 24 hours, 60% of the self-described "vegetarians" admitted that [they] had consumed red meat, poultry, or fish the previous day.
> Six percent of the individuals surveyed said they considered themselves vegetarian
In any casual poll like this, every number has a large margin of error. When 6% of respondents select an answer, some of those were mis-clicks, people who misread the answers, or people who were just clicking through randomly. The latter happens a lot when bad UX means the only way to see the results is to take the poll.
So the more likely explanation is not that people were calling themselves vegetarian but also eating meat recently, it’s that around half of those reporting vegetarians were either mis-clicks or people blindly clicking things. It happens a lot in online polls.
> So the more likely explanation is not that people were calling themselves vegetarian but also eating meat recently, it’s that around half of those reporting vegetarians were either mis-clicks or people blindly clicking things. It happens a lot in online polls.
No, you're just making things up. For one thing, these are telephone polls, not online polls.
You say that, the the psychology today deliberately does not link to the study. It links to several studies but not the one they're writing about. The most they identify it as is a 2002 Times/CNN survey.
If you have the actual study please share it. Right now, I doubt the veracity of psychology today's claims.
In fact I've done more digging since posting this and the only other people talking about this survey is citing psychology today as their source. I can find no primary sources.
You can find other Time articles that cover their methodology, which involves paying a polling (or consulting) firm to run the poll.
> It links to several studies but not the one they're writing about.
Which one do you think is "the one they're writing about"? The Psychology Today piece opens with a description of the current state of affairs.
You might or might not have noticed that immediately after the mention of the Time poll, Psychology Today links to a survey published by the USDA finding that, among self-described vegetarians, 64% reported eating meat within the last 24 hours. Why do you doubt the Time poll?
So its a real survey but we're not allowed to see it? Can't see methodology can't see the actual numbers, can't see their margin of error or the questions.
I'm sorry, but science doesn't happen in the dark. "Trust me" isn't the path to data
I wonder what the breakdown between meat/poultry and fish was. I know it isn't the dictionary definition, but I think the common definition of "vegetarian" in the US includes people who only eat fish. I don't know anyone that uses "pescatarian" in conversation or identifies as that, even if it's accurate.
Vegetarian = no meat, no chicken, no fish, no crustaceans, no dead animals, no meat/fish broth, no lard. Nothing derived from a dead animal. Or as my little sister used to ask: “did this have a face?”
But that’s what “vegetarian” means to me. I guess that’s a “strict vegetarian”?
Time didn't break down their results between meat/poultry and fish, but they did break them down between "red meat" and poultry/fish; 37% of vegetarians had eaten red meat within the last day.
Like humanity in general, there is a lot of variety. My dad has been a pescetarian for 30+ years, so I'm aware of the term and use it at least two or three times a year. Personally, I'm a flexitarian and eat a reduced animal flesh diet. I know quite a few vegetarians, and they don't all eat the same diet (one does eat eggs on a weekly basis and still calls himself a vegetarian, which is somewhat controversial according to the other vegetarians that I talk to). Most vegetarians I know don't consume fish or dairy.
I'm happy they've been able to build a $1,660,000,000,000 company on the back of me logging in once every two months, scrolling 3 posts, getting disgusted with slop, and closing the tab. Gives me hope that my harebrained ventures may also succeed!
I keep mine alive a) to squat on the account for my identity, b) just because I know there are family members that will do posts/messages once in awhile instead of sending me a direct SMS, so I log in every few months
I've used my Facebook account once in the last decade, still keep it open as I have no reason to delete it and give up my parked identity (I share a name with a nationally recognizeable politician).
You overestimate the amount of a crap I give about cleaning up accounts I don't use! It also helps prevent someone from credibly impersonating me, which is something that has happened to a few people I know.
It's for messaging with old people. It's like having a telephone doesn't mean you're talking all day. It's for people to be able to contact you and vice versa.
That is about right for me. I scoll a little longer but as soon as it changes from people I care to follow to slop I'm gone for a couple more months. there is value in following distant friends but it isn't worth hours per day of sorting through slop to find it. When it is only every month or two the non-slop still seems to rise to the top. (But God only knows what non slop they choose not to show me) I wish there was a way to block all 'so-and-so shared' as that is where most of the slop comes from. (Ads at least I can say is how they pay the bills and so I accept a few as non-slop)
Absolutely lol - as a human in tech; I like to try and live like it is 1999 - and the 1999 where I wasn’t inside writing Perl but 1999 like when I was outside roller blading, skateboarding, bmxing, before I had a cell phone.
Never connect with anyone you haven’t met. If a work colleague or someone is on a call and doesn’t use video, no connection either. Don’t upload and store your resume on LinkedIn. There is no reason to do so.
Also, I don’t recall where this setting is, but make the default behavior such that if someone finds you and tries to connect with you, they actually follow you instead. This cuts down aggressively on spammers because in order to actually connect with you they would have to view your profile, open the … menu, and then click connect. If they aren’t paying attention they’ll just follow you instead of connect which means you can broadcast to them but they can’t broadcast to you.
Why? It's pretty useful for connecting with recruiters in my experience, and I don't think anyone can actually do anything just because they have a connection with you.
I do ignore the connections from random students though tbf.
Connecting with recruiters is mostly a waste of time, and generally anyone can just fake being a recruiter. Once someone has a connection with you they can see your extended network, they know where you work, they find out all information you have shared with on your profile, &c. The recruiter may be using you to connect with someone else. You also start to consume their content since you are connected. Better to let them follow you and then when it's time to reach out to offer you a job/send an in-mail.
Generally speaking, unless you operate at an elite level or at an elite institution, you're not getting a ton of worthwhile cold intros from recruiters.
> Connecting with recruiters is mostly a waste of time
Probably depends on the field but this definitely isn't always true. I've got my last two jobs through recruiters, and speaking to colleagues a lot of them do too.
> they can see your extended network, they know where you work, they find out all information you have shared with on your profile
This is public anyway though? Isn't that the point of LinkedIn?
> You also start to consume their content since you are connected.
I don't because I don't read LinkedIn. I pretty much only use it to get jobs. Although I have actually started posting technical stuff I've done there because people actually read it (I guess other people do read LinkedIn tbf!)
> Generally speaking, unless you operate at an elite level or at an elite institution, you're not getting a ton of worthwhile cold intros from recruiters.
I'm definitely not elite level and I would say ~20% of the jobs I get from LinkedIn recruiters are of interest. That's pretty good! Almost all of them are at least relevant to my field (silicon verification). Sometimes I get stuff about mechanical engineering validation, or software jobs that aren't relevant but that's pretty rare. It must depend on the field. Maybe the country too?
> This is public anyway though? Isn't that the point of LinkedIn?
You can limit this. I don't think it's necessarily the point of LinkedIn - i.e. for others to connect with you and then have full visibility into all of the details of everyone you know and whatever you have on your profile. It's a bit naive to assume that operating in this manner doesn't make you a prime target for scammers, social engineers, hackers, &c., or even worse - solicitors.
> My experience is different
Yea, everyone has different experiences. I'm just describing how the platform generally works, as a matter of fact.
> Also the irony considering recent moves by the US government in terms of control of the internet and free speech.
Well you've got plenty of countries doing it, including France, Iran, the United Kingdom, Germany, China, Brasil, Australia, you name it. Not that it's good, but a criticism for the goose is a criticism for the gander, as a manner of speaking.
As to which, why or why do we care so much about this? Idk, same reason our government funds tens of thousands of initiatives and cares about lots of different things that people find equally important or unimportant.
I think it's mostly easy to identify anyone if you actually want to - if you buy anything online you are 100% identifiable for example.
Given the pros/cons in context, I think I'm in favor of it for social media, at least. I'd actually argue you would want to go further and you should have your full address, employer, and more available online. LinkedIn is a cesspool of awful salespeople, but you know what it's not? A massive Russian/Chinese/Maga disinformation site. Maybe you should think twice before saying something online you wouldn't say while standing in front of your house or at work.
Anonymity on social media has brought a lot of problems and I'm not sure what the benefits are. Some point to a small percentage of folks who would be "outed" but, given that the alternative seems to be an emerging dystopia of bots, malicious actors, propaganda, and more, maybe actual transparency is better even taking into account potential harmful effects.
I'm open-minded on this and see pros/cons either way. Though I think if you find yourself worried about this stuff you can just delete your accounts and move on with your life. Trust me you aren't missing out on anything.
Fortunately your opinion doesn’t trump the Constitution or settled law. Anonymous (or at least pseudonymous) speech has been a feature of American discourse since before the Revolution.
Without anonymity, you lose whistleblowers, effective criticism of the powerful from the weak, and “public interest” leaks like the Snowden revelations. You lose outlets where the abused can ask for help and advice in escaping bad situations. You lose any/all criticism of employers current and past; who wants to hire a complainer? You silence people who are afraid to give their opinion because of their employer or parent.
> Fortunately your opinion doesn’t trump the Constitution or settled law.
Neither does yours? This is a nonsense claim.
> Anonymous (or at least pseudonymous) speech has been a feature of American discourse since before the Revolution.
You're just cherry-picking which ideas you like from the founders or early America. Slavery was also a feature of the United States. Whether we had something in the past or not isn't necessarily a good enough argument to keep doing it.
> Without anonymity, you lose whistleblowers,
We can figure out other ways to have whistleblowers without social media.
> effective criticism of the powerful from the weak, and “public interest” leaks like the Snowden revelations.
Snowden, who is living in Russia.
> You lose outlets where the abused can ask for help and advice in escaping bad situations.
The only way to do this is on social media, anonymously? If so, we have a much bigger problem. An emergency, even.
> You lose any/all criticism of employers current and past; who wants to hire a complainer?
I complain about past employers all the time. I don't think you lose this.
> You silence people who are afraid to give their opinion because of their employer or parent.
I don't think so. And both left and right political blocks have gotten plenty of people fired, even those who post anonymously.
> Slavery was also a feature of the United States.
Yes, and it required a Constitutional amendment to remove it. You’re welcome to try and push through an amendment to limit free speech rights, but it won’t pass!
> We can figure out other ways to have whistleblowers without social media.
I doubt it! The media is mostly dead or coopted, and the powerful won’t willingly set up a system where you can rat them out.
> Snowden, who is living in Russia.
Yes, to avoid retaliation. Your point?
> The only way to do this is on social media, anonymously? If so, we have a much bigger problem. An emergency, even.
Good, you’re getting it.
> I complain about past employers all the time. I don't think you lose this.
The popularity of anonymous outlets for this shows that most people don’t share your opinion. It would have a chilling effect.
> I don't think so. And both left and right political blocks have gotten plenty of people fired, even those who post anonymously.
Thanks for making my point for me. It’s even easier to target people when they are not anonymous. A number of left and right wing commentators are having to pay for private security because of threats. The ones who successfully remain anonymous don’t have to do this.
> Yes, and it required a Constitutional amendment to remove it.
Yea but I can think of lots of other examples. You are missing the point.
> You’re welcome to try and push through an amendment to limit free speech rights, but it won’t pass!
I'm in favor of free speech so I wouldn't want to limit it.
> I doubt it! The media is mostly dead or coopted, and the powerful won’t willingly set up a system where you can rat them out.
Sounds like defeatism.
> Yes, to avoid retaliation. Your point?
He's not just there in Russia because of that. My point is he is either an actual traitor, or someone who was duped into doing what he did.
> Good, you’re getting it.
Haha I think you missed the point, but I can explain it for you. If you are relying on social media for these things, you have already screwed up. Regulating them one way or another is immaterial, because the dependency is a far greater problem.
> The popularity of anonymous outlets for this shows that most people don’t share your opinion. It would have a chilling effect.
I don't think it'll have a chilling effect. People publicly complain about their employers all the time using their real information. The popularity of something isn't an acceptable argument to me.
> Thanks for making my point for me. It’s even easier to target people when they are not anonymous. A number of left and right wing commentators are having to pay for private security because of threats. The ones who successfully remain anonymous don’t have to do this.
Maybe you shouldn't say things that result in you needing private security? It's no different than walking down the street yelling vulgar or offensive things. You might get punched. I see much more harm done by anonymous broadcasting here than I see benefits. Plus you are never truly anonymous on these platforms. Sure it's slightly more difficult for someone to identify you, but if you make enough people mad you will be identified and no amount of "anonymity" will save you. If the government itself wanted to identify you it can do so at the snap of a finger.
> Maybe you shouldn't say things that result in you needing private security? It's no different than walking down the street yelling vulgar or offensive things. You might get punched.
Maybe you shouldn’t have spoken up. Maybe you shouldn’t have walked down that street. Maybe you shouldn’t have worn that dress.
This is one of those things that sounds really nice and makes you feel morally good/superior, but it misses the point and the analogy fails. Speaking up, isn't offensive. Walking down a street, isn't propaganda. Wearing a dress, is your right as a person and it doesn't offend anyone. This isn't what's being discussed.
But, let's say you are right and we should maintain anonymity on social media platforms.
I don't think that kid who was wearing a t-shirt or sign or whatever supporting ICE should have been punched or face any consequences whatsoever. He should be free to exercise is right to free speech and/or protest, face no repercussions in public or private life, and when he goes home he should be allowed to hop on TikTok or Facebook or whatever, and post the most vile, hate-filled stuff he can think of, anonymously.
That's the world we live in today, and the status quo you are advocating that we maintain. Don't you think that warrants further discussion? I do.
I do agree that most people are able to be easily identified, and that anonymity has created problems, but people should be able to both use the internet and remain anonymous as without the anonymous or pseudonymous transmission of information a democracy can't function and makes it trivally easy for the state to further limit the rights of an individual
No it wouldn't. Accounts would be identified right so you would know that some account is a China bot farm or Russian military or whatever. And then when Jane down the street starts talking about the need to kill "insert group here" well you know who they are and you can go down and have a talking to them or tell their employer, or whatever. If you say crazy stuff maybe there should be repercussions. Today there are none. It has a moderating effect when there are consequences.
> And then when Jane down the street starts talking about the need to kill "insert group here" well you know who they are and you can go down and have a talking to them or tell their employer, or whatever.
This works the other way too. You tell others online "hey maybe we should stop killing X people" or maybe expose that X people are being killed without the public knowing and the people in favor of killing X people can and will ruin your life.
We in fact saw more of this happening in the past few years than the opposite.
That's just the messy fundamentals of democracy. I think it comes down to perception of what the threat is. I think groups like white nationalists, Antifa, pro-Hamas, pro-Russia, &c. are a much greater threat now than the potential downside of supposedly silencing people who "speak up".
How valuable is speaking up anyway? It's all good to argue when you see the positive case or the one you agree with, but do you also give sympathy to folks who are "speaking up" about white replacement theory or "speaking up" about avoiding COVID-19 vaccines, or other such nonsense?
> You're supporting a systematic chilling effect on free speech.
No I'm not.
~~~~~~
There's no point in free speech if the only free speech is from bots and propagandists. Social media platforms aren't free speech platforms either, you're subject to their terms and conditions.
> There's no point in free speech if the only free speech is from bots and propagandists. Social media platforms aren't free speech platforms either, you're subject to their terms and conditions.
You're absolving the social media companies of why they continue choosing to amplify bots and extremist content in one big "community", rather than working towards creating smaller communities that can have social trust and social regulation.
That is the core perverse incentive here that actually needs to be addressed, and by sidestepping that you're then going off into the weeds with some mistaken idea that we can approach the problem by purifying who can use such websites.
I think we should just ban social media companies. If you want to create a small community walk outside and create one with your neighbors.
> and by sidestepping that you're then going off into the weeds with some mistaken idea that we can approach the problem by purifying who can use such websites.
On the other hand we have what we have today, propagandists, bots, hatred, &c.
It's like you're complaining about potential problems, but ignoring the current problems happening today are those potential problems.
I am also not "going off into the weeds" because I'm just responding to the OP.
> I think we should just ban social media companies.
Sure, great! Go right ahead! I honestly think sec 230 was a mistake. Not in that I want to see it reversed so the fascists currently in power can use the dynamic as a club to go after speech they don't like. But rather that I think the Internet would have developed healthier without it, and what it has enabled.
> On the other hand we have what we have today, propagandists, bots, hatred, &c.
You seem to be pigeonholing all of the problems into one bag. "Hatred" does not go away with real-name policies.
> It's like you're complaining about potential problems, but ignoring the current problems happening today are those potential problems.
No, I am pointing out that you're approaching this from the wrong angle. The core dynamic of the Internet has always been "don't trust what you read on the Internet". The lack of needing permission to communicate is precisely what has enabled so much innovation. Defining context is the responsibility of higher layers.
What changed from that core dynamic? The social media companies showed up, took unvetted and unfiltered streams of content, and presented them to the public as trustworthy finished products. "We'll figure out a better system than naive voting later". Well later never came, did it? At least Slashdot tried.
Facebook relies on real names, creating lists of bona fide friends, and can (could?) show you only posts from friends-of-friends, right? How does this differ from what you're proposing? If you're seeing Facebook posts from bots, you've either friended bots or Facebook is responsible for showing them to you, right?
> Facebook relies on real names, creating lists of bona fide friends, and can (could?) show you only posts from friends-of-friends, right? How does this differ from what you're proposing? If you're seeing Facebook posts from bots, you've either friended bots or Facebook is responsible for showing them to you, right?
I think I am just more aligned with, for example, the French president on his criticisms: https://archive.ph/JMrd4 (archive link to avoid Bloomberg paywall)
"“Having no clue about how their algorithm is made, how it’s tested, trained and where it will guide you — the democratic consequences of this bias could be huge,” Macron said Wednesday in New Delhi. “Some of them claim to be in favor of free speech — OK, we are in favor of free algorithms — totally transparent,” Macron said. “Free speech is pure bullshit if nobody knows how you are guided to this so-called free speech, especially when it is guided from one hate speech to another.”
I think this idea that social media companies are free speech platforms or should be treated as such, is incorrect and it's leading to bad outcomes. They are product companies selling you an experience of "being connected" and engaging with them is a matter of terms of service, not exercising a constitutional right.
> Sure, great! Go right ahead! I honestly think sec 230 was a mistake.
I would but it's not up to me. I am not sure Section 230 was a mistake, at least in principle. But if you think Sec 230 was a mistake what would social media companies do in response? Verify you. Which the government has access to...
> I think this idea that social media companies are free speech platforms or should be treated as such, is incorrect and it's leading to bad outcomes. They are product companies selling you an experience of "being connected" and engaging with them is a matter of terms of service
Yes I wholeheartedly agree with Macron's quote, and basically agree with your interpretation of it. Maybe you can see we have some common ground here and re-read what I wrote before? My critique isn't trying to reject that there is a problem. Rather I'd say my critique is that your proposed solution is specious and will enable worse things
> not exercising a constitutional right
Except individual users are also exercising a constitutional right. That's the problem - users' main modern ways of partaking in their constitutional rights are being modulated by corporations!
(Just to be clear though, I think the legal system's current framing of the owners/workers of Facebook having a "constitutional right" to control users' speech is utterly disingenuous)
> if you think Sec 230 was a mistake what would social media companies do in response? Verify you
Now that the situation has been set up, maybe, and maybe users would stand for this. But verification wouldn't actually resolve their problem when Joe Judgementproof posts fascist hate, they'd become jointly responsible for publishing it. The point is that the moral hazard created by sec 230 is precisely what has allowed the centralized social media industry to grow to the point it has.
>The point is that the moral hazard created by sec 230 is precisely what has allowed the centralized social media industry to grow to the point it has.
That's exactly the opposite of what Section 230 has done.
Section 230 doesn't stop anyone from suing folks who defame or otherwise break the law. Rather, it specifies that those who say such things are the proper target, not the platforms that host such third-party speech.
And that's the important point. Section 230 covers third-party speech. Because litigation is expensive. As such, it mostly protects the little guy who doesn't have the resources to fight tens, hundreds or thousands of lawsuits because some folks don't like the restaurant/movie reviews or opinions about the quality of book plots or political speech or the Epstein Files or a myriad of other things that folks don't like and wish people would shut up about.
Nothing stops an aggrieved part from suing an individual for the things that individual says. But Section 230 says you can't sue the platform (say the website, Matrix or XMPP server you personally host) for the speech of a third-party who uses that platform.
In the absence of Section 230, huge, deep-pocketed companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, et. al can pay for legions of lawyers to fight such lawsuits.
Do you have such deep pockets? Not all Internet content exists on those huge, deep-pocketed platforms. Many useful and interesting sites hosted by individuals or small businesses exist, but would be put out of business in a week if Section 230 didn't exist.
Getting rid of Section 230 would only cement the huge platforms' dominance and make them more unaccountable and powerful. Is that your goal? Not saying it is, but it's important to think through the impact of Section 230 beyond the (false and misleading) pronouncements of those who want to control you, your speech and the means of disseminating that speech.
I agree that removing section 230 today would have an even more centralizing effect. We've already got huge tech companies that would happily shoulder such liability, and lots of small sites that would find themselves in an uncomfortable position.
My point was that if we never had section 230 to begin with, then we would have kept the strong incentive against setting up sites revolving around centralizing speech in the first place. There would have been more emphasis on protocols, and keeping communication under the control of the person speaking.
>My point was that if we never had section 230 to begin with, then we would have kept the strong incentive against setting up sites revolving around centralizing speech in the first place.
Where did you get that idea? Section 230 never provided any preference or privilege to large organizations over small ones.
In fact, it did exactly the opposite for reasons I discussed. You say that without Section 230:
...lots of small sites that would find themselves in an uncomfortable
position.
That doesn't even come close to covering it. Without Section 230, your aunt would take down her knitting pattern discussion website/chat room/mailing list/whatever within half a day, with whoever it was posting something objectionable (or just off topic) and when your aunt deletes it, file a lawsuit claiming censorship.
How long is your aunt going to keep the completely free and volunteer site up when she has to pay lawyers $5-10K every week? And if she doesn't delete it, continue to flood the site with garbage until it's unusable, turning a knitting discussion site into 4/8chan.
All while doing nothing to stop the big boys from creating a dystopian hellhole because they have legions of lawyers on staff.
In fact, without Section 230, $BigCorp and/or other bad actors wouldn't even need to buy out their competition or wage costly efforts to destroy them, just post oceans of objectionable/off topic stuff, sue if it's taken down or wait for it to go under because its awash in garbage they posted there to make it unusable.
If we never had, or got rid of Section 230, your preferred candidate or issue advocacy group could trivially be taken down through these tactics, stifling free expression. Think fake DMCA take downs, but without recourse except through $500/hour lawyers and the courts.
Not sure where you got the idea that Section 230 ever was some sort of "giveaway" to big companies to encourage centralization. It was not, and even today it primarily protects the little guy, just as it did 30 years ago.
Do you have your mind made up and no amount of actual evidence will change it?
> Without Section 230, your aunt would take down her knitting pattern discussion website/chat room/mailing list/whatever within half a day, with whoever it was posting something objectionable (or just off topic) and when your aunt deletes it, file a lawsuit claiming censorship.
I don't want "my aunt" to be running a knitting pattern discussion website! I want "my aunt" to only be publishing/hosting what she herself writes, while her discussion partners each publish/host what they themselves write. I then want all of these messages stitched together to form a cohesive presentation on each person's computer, by software that represents their interests.
There was the better part of the decade after the CDA passed that the tech community was still focused on protocols that worked this way. Section 230 immunity made sites that centralized user content feasible rather than legally radioactive. Centralized sites then took off because they were easier to develop, and investment-wise they caused Metcalfe's law power to accrue to the entity running the site rather than to an abstract protocol.
I do agree that in the current context, there is a strong path dependence here - neutering section 230 would not rewind the clock. And the present political push is from a movement that wants to censor speech even harder than corpos already currently do. I'm talking about what could have been.
>There was the better part of the decade after the CDA passed that the tech community was still focused on protocols that worked this way.
Which protocols? I was designing and implementing networks throughout the 90s and aughts and I really don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps I wasn't in the right place at the right time?
Email mailing lists? IRC? Instant Messaging? NNTP? Those all would have been vulnerable to frivolous and malicious lawsuits without Section 230.
Honestly, I'm at a loss here. Please do enlighten me as to which protocols you're referring.
>I then want all of these messages stitched together to form a cohesive presentation on each person's computer, by software that represents their interests.
Sounds like you want personal ActivityPub platforms. I'm all for that. But nothing even approximating that existed in the 1990s. In fact, there's nothing like that now that a non-technical person can host for themselves.
I agree regarding listserv and NNTP. It's questionable whether IRC and IM would be treated as "publishers" without sec 230.
Perhaps your coming up was a little earlier than mine? My perspective included things like gnutella and edonkey. There was a general feeling of building new application protocols to support new types of applications. Hard problems that needed to be figured out, for sure. But also background baseline values of people running software they choose on their own computers.
For protocols, there was also websites themselves. Someone with something to say would host their own. And some rough solutions for distributed discovery there like webrings.
Then web 2.0 came along and swept that all away in favor of the old centralized-mainframe dumb-terminal model (3270->browser, rs232->http, 80x24->html).
> there's nothing like that now that a non-technical person can host for themselves.
Yes. All of the high-cost productization/advertising work to make software palatable to normies doesn't get done, because investment money heads towards technical architectures that are more capable of exfiltrating value from end users. So any software still based around representing the interests of its users gets relegated to developers scratching their own itch.
>I agree regarding listserv and NNTP. It's questionable whether IRC and IM would be treated as "publishers" without sec 230.
Firstly, the concept of "publisher" is irrelevant to Section 230, then and now. IRC and IM (at least chat rooms) require servers to host the back and forth. As such, the issues were exactly the same as with email or usenet. Section 230 protects the hosts of any platform that allows third-party content. Full stop. This whole "publisher vs. platform" thing is a canard and a malicious attempt to muddy the waters. The law itself does not make such a distinction, nor does the case law surrounding it.
>Perhaps your coming up was a little earlier than mine? My perspective included things like gnutella and edonkey. There was a general feeling of building new application protocols to support new types of applications. Hard problems that needed to be figured out, for sure. But also background baseline values of people running software they choose on their own computers.
Sure, I was aware of gnutella and edonkey and other peer to peer file sharing tools. And yes, you're correct that there was much discussion of peer to peer applications for, well, almost everything. And even before that, there was KA9Q[0] which I ran on my PC/XT back in 1990. But none of that really went anywhere once NCSA-Mosaic[1] was released and the web (as you mention below) was born.
>For protocols, there was also websites themselves. Someone with something to say would host their own. And some rough solutions for distributed discovery there like webrings.
Right, and Section 230 protected (and still does!) the hosts of those sites too, while Mark Zuckerberg was in middle school.
>Yes. All of the high-cost productization/advertising work to make software palatable to normies doesn't get done, because investment money heads towards technical architectures that are more capable of exfiltrating value from end users. So any software still based around representing the interests of its users gets relegated to developers scratching their own itch.
On that I kind of disagree. It's not so much that the normies aren't interested. They certainly would be if the could click to download and then follow an install script to set it up, and it just works.
Going all the way back to Diaspora[2], to pixelfed, mastodon and it's offshoots, etc., I've set up a variety of open source platforms that tried to fulfill that dream of personal ownership/possession of one's content.
As a technical person, most of them were installable with significant complexities, but none were simple to install for the non-technical user.
And that is/was because the developers didn't make it that way, not any sort of malicious conspiracy. In fact, I recall some discussion around Diaspora, with the developers saying they preferred to focus on functionality rather than ease of installation.
The developers of Fediverse projects have continued in that vein.
tl;dr, I think we're mostly in agreement here, but you seem to be a little confused about how Section 230 works/worked. No matter. It's all good. I certainly appreciate the discussion and your perspective. Thanks!
Ha. Well, you can read my post history. I routinely advocate that the United States go wipe out the Russian military in Ukraine and annihilate its capability to assault Ukraine and assert our hegemonic status. You might classify me as a Russia hawk.
I don't use social media besides I guess LinkedIn, but I don't think that platform is material here.
Given that I don't really use social media, in what way is my free speech destroyed? One of the fundamentally incorrect assumptions people make, as you are doing now, is that they assume that the mechanism (social media in this case) is what defines whether or not you are able to exercise free speech, but you will fail to produce a coherent argument when it comes to people such as myself who don't use the platforms.
I also enjoy watching folks turn themselves into a pickle defending the actions that the EU and UK are taking to curb free speech. These actions range from age verification, in, say Australia, to supposed hate speech curbs in the UK (you mentioned western civilization and defending free speech in that context, not me) to a number of actions taken by the EU or EU member states that also curb free speech. If you post something pro-Nazi in Germany on Facebook you'll go to jail. That's curbing your right to free speech.
The topic of this thread here is of course Arizona, but the US actually is far more permissive in speech than any other western country. Maybe you and others should spend more time focusing on other western nations, generally speaking.
> Show us your passport and one piece of recent utility bill to prove your hard earned right to post shit on the Internet.
When HN implements the feature, sure. For now I use my real name. How about you?
The chilling effect you’re supporting leads exactly to thriving of bots and propagandists while suppressing dissenting voices of regular people. Just look at any country where it is already fully or partially implemented.
>This is the current state, today, with anonymity.
whatever the current state, removing anonymity will remove dissenting voices of regular people.
> Which ones?
Russia for example. The sites where verification is implemented has become pro-government bot cesspools.
Here you mentioned LinkedIn - it is where pro-Russian propaganda runs free (especially if compare to for example HN where people freely respond to it), and it is exactly where my even pretty mild response to it got me almost banned, and so I don’t engage it there anymore.
I wonder how do you square your de-anonymity of speech position with anonymity of voting, or do also think that voting should not be anonymous?
> whatever the current state, removing anonymity will remove dissenting voices of regular people.
I don't think so. It may moderate them, which given our political environment is likely to be a good thing.
> Here you mentioned LinkedIn - it is where pro-Russian propaganda runs free (especially if compare to for example HN where people freely respond to it), and it is exactly where my even pretty mild response to it got me almost banned, and so I don’t engage it there anymore.
Well I don't know what the specific example is. I've seen pro/anti all sorts of things on LinkedIn and when I do I unfollow or find another way to hide the content. But it's also not super engaging. Why is that? Because, well, firstly LinkedIn is a heaping pile of garbage, but also because money, careers, and more are at stake. If you find a pro/anti anything post and start saying really crazy stuff, yea someone might tell your employer about it. How LinkedIn moderates its discussions I think is a separate issue, and, frankly, is yet another demonstration that these platforms are simply not "free speech" and using them means you agree to the terms of service which allows them to moderate how they see fit.
When folks complain about these algorithms or the wrong group buying their favorite platform, there is a very easy and simple solution which is to just stop using them and delete your account. Then, nobody is policing your speech.
> I wonder how do you square your de-anonymity of speech position with anonymity of voting, or do also think that voting should not be anonymous?
I think voting should be anonymous, but you should have identification for voting issued by the state. It's an exercise of your constitutional right, and there are plenty of mechanical and morally good reasons for it. Yelling the most obscene shit imaginable on TikTok is not even in the same ballpark and is not exercising a Constitutional right.
But even so, if there was a serious threat of war, which is unlikely because China would stop North Korea, the US would place assets in the region and as we got close to a confrontation the US and South Korea (and as things are looking, probably Japan) would begin an aerial and missile bombardment to destroy in place North Korean offensive capabilities. Some would get through of course, perhaps thousands or tens of thousands of South Korean casualties, but in the context of a conventional war North Korea's capabilities would be quickly overwhelmed, at least in my opinion.
But honestly, the current status quo works pretty well for everyone except the people of North Korea, but there's not much we can do. It's a tragedy and the blame for that falls squarely on the Soviet Union and Chinese Communist Party.
reply