The solution really is a revitalization of antitrust policy. The reason markets work is because participants in them are bound to a 'race to the bottom' with many other participants doing the same thing. When companies aren't forced to race to the bottom against each other, the conditions of authoritarianism rise. Authoritarian structures don't have to necessarily come from government - monopolies, oligopolies and implicit cartels are some of the authoritarians of today. The question is have we reached a point where technology and globalization provide such enormous returns to the economies of scale that we can't go back or is all this corporate concentration just due to a lack of government enforcement?
Which makes me ask the question: do you, gentle Hacker News reader, really want diversity of opinion and why? Do you have unpopular opinions and if so, would you get fired or ostracized for sharing them? Are you practicing crimethink?
After all, the only people actually working on alternatives to Google and Facebook are the alt-right who have been de-platformed. Gab.ai is so de-platformed that google doesn't even let them put their app in the play store! Unlike the Pirate Bay and scihub, gab.ai is actually not violating the law. You aren't one of those filthy alt-righters who voted for Trump are you? Are you a person who raises uncomfortable questions that cause mental pain by triggering or creating cognitive dissonance in ideologically defenseless individuals you wish to torture with your arguments?
Anyway.... I don't think most of you want the Internet Facebook and Google insulate you all from. Why the heck are you complaining?
-A few hundred years ago, being an atheist was "crimethink", as was religious tolerance towards Jews, Muslims, and so forth.
-A few hundred years ago, questioning the divine right of kings to rule was "crimethink".
-In the early 1600s, Galileo stood trial and was condemned for the "crimethink" of saying the Earth moved around the Sun, in contradiction to the teachings of the Church.
-As little as 200 years ago, advocating racial equality was "crimethink", as was equal rights for women.
-As little as 60 years ago, in the McCarthy era, being a leftist or socialist was "crimethink" and people lost their jobs and/or were jailed because of it.
I do want diversity of opinion because I believe in the values of the Enlightenment, which include the ability to openly voice dissent without fear of reprisal and I have the strength of character to listen to the beliefs of others without feeling threatened; in short, I want diversity of opinion because I am a liberal.
> Which makes me ask the question: do you, gentle Hacker News reader, really want diversity of opinion and why?
I speak only for myself, but the answer is an absolute, complete and emphatic YES. The reason is quite simple: in all of human history, there have been only three "families", broadly speaking, of epistemological methods[1]:
* Mysticism: you have been told what is true by an unquestionable (and often distant) authority. Think Moses descending from the mountain--only he can safely speak to God. While God is ultimately the original [claimed] source of the knowledge, it must be funneled through Moses first.
* Socratic debate: two humans can talk about the topic, trying to apply abstract reason to determine the "best" answer. Note that in a "pure" Socratic debate, only logic and not any evidence is used.
* Scientific study: humans can attempt direct inquiry of an answer from the physical universe. Note that logic need not apply to scientific answers: the results of many particle physics experiments such as the delayed choice quantum eraser are not "logical" in that they violate what "common sense" tells us the universe should allow.
Now, there no reason I had to use a religious example for the first family, but they do not exist for the other two: literally, both debate and science cannot work correctly if you do not admit the possibility of contrarian or "heretical" ideas.
Since I wish to live in a society jointly directed by reason and science, I must allow (and to some small extent, seek) contrarian and heretical ideas.
1: I'm speaking of epistemology not in the definition taught in philosophical classes (e.g., "How do we know what is real or what is knowledge?"), but a far more direct, literal, and practical application of how knowledge is generated and transmitted between societies/individuals.
You're making a good point, and I would suspect that it's valid in general.
I've definitely had unpopular opinions, and even when I don't, my questioning of the basis of a given argument is often misinterpreted as holding the opposite(and objectionable) belief. This isn't because I knowingly hold some dogma, but that I care about whether something is true or not. Even though I do think global warming is a real issue, I'm careful to point out whether or not a piece of evidence is specious because too often I've been classified as right wing or anti-science.
What I used to value about the internet was how I could have no-holds-barred debates with people from around the world and not be worried about my life being destroyed. From about the age of 11, I visited lots of anarchist and free-speech forums, sites about drug use, politics, etc., and ended up learning quite a bit having to argue with both total fools and those more savvy than I was. Even that young, what I valued was not the "criminal" aspect of these channels but the ability for myself and others to express their true selves, or at least the personae that people portrayed.
That's the internet I miss, but it's also the internet that took some skill to use and was far less profitable than it is today. Now that everyone is on it, the people want a level of safety that is dubious and stifles what originally made the web great. Joe Hacker inherently saw the value of libre speech, but the average person either doesn't understand that value or is afraid of being judged for holding that belief.
The internet isn't really different from anything else that we censor as a society. I don't believe that the same people who value freedom of speech on the internet would keep around entities like the FCC that quite obviously do not exist to protect the public from anything. The average person either doesn't understand what the FCC is for, or they would shrug and say that it's not such a bad thing.
I suspect that HN has a greater than average population of individuals who want an end to censorship online, but I would still agree with narrator in that most of us don't actually want a diversity of opinion. The reality is that most people are self-interested, and that usually doesn't mean that they're interested in hearing different opinions. They want the freedom to express their own opinions, but are still appalled when someone holds a radically different one. People are not very principled and they will move the goal posts out of convenience.
I want diversity of opinions, yes. I want people with opinions I vehemently disagree with to have a platform. In particular, I don't want censors because I don't want other people deciding what I should be exposed to. The solution to speech one does not like is more speech.
I would say Facebook and Google does the exact opposite of insulating people from alt-right media, it hobbles their competition quite a bit leaving alt-right media spread unhindered.
Serious publications spend a lot of money on research, distribution, and marketing that alt right publications like Breitbart and their smaller, European counterparts don't need to bother with because their material distributes itself. All they need is a headline that makes you angry at minorities and social media does all the legwork for them, people are not even going to open the article before they click "share" or interact with a reaction that promotes it in the personalization algorithms.
So, when Facebook and Google are basically the only digital players who have increasing ad revenues we have a serious problem.
Humans are social mammals. If you want the benefits of herd membership, then that requires some degree of conformity and surrender of autonomy. That is the price we all must pay. If you want to be independent and go another way then do so and don't cry about the consequences of your choice.
Don't show up to a high end night club wearing swimming trunks and crocs and expect the bouncer to let you in. Don't go to a klan rally preaching racial tolerance and expect to be invited back. Don't hang out in a diverse, multi-ethnic environment preaching white supremacy and expect people to pat you on the head.
But anyway, Mastodon exists as a good Twitter alternative, and it's not made by alt-righters. It's decentralized so no company or politically-motivated group can censor it.
This is the first I heard of the Prager U parental filtering and demonetization.
The videos are certainly conservative, both culturally and economically, but the ones I've seen aren't objectionable in any way. In many ways, they are less objectionable than a lot that goes out over the AM radio bands in the U.S.
What do you think about the fact that this WSJ article though is "the first you've heard of it"? Could the story itself perhaps have been suppressed in some deliberate manner by Google?
Some of the PragerU videos are rather disturbing but I'd rather have them public because picking them apart with friends is quite an interesting activity. They are an amazing conversation starter on a variety of topics.
I'd hate it if Google started removing them completely, despite me not even closely aligning to their ideology.
It's funny how competing groups rally around terms that sound the same. Terms that carry positive connotations and share common words. "Pro choice" vs "pro life". And now we have "diversity and inclusion" vs "diversity of thought."
update: haha, there's a wikipedia section on this called political framing.
Another one: Feminism and Postfeminism. I think it's basically because you can respond to a question about A with B with some melodic alliteration, the kind which draws cheers from the crowd. This idea seems to have been ported from the "yes, and ..." idea of improvisational comedy. That is, for maximum offense in a debate, agree with all the accusations of your opponent, and then hit them back with a small "but".
Are you pro-choice? I'm pro-life!
Do you care about diversity? Yes, of thoughts.
Are you a feminist? I'm postfeminist!
The Justice Dept has a very strict definition of monopoly [0] -- it requires both 1) the ability to raise prices profitably above that in a competitive market, and 2) anticompetitive conduct.
That means that Google receiving 90% of all searches wouldn't automatically imply market power or anti-competitive conduct, and I can't see how Google or Facebook can raise their prices higher than a "competitive market" if they don't charge anything for their product.
How would a competitive market in search and social networking even look?
It's very concerning that there is so much influence concentrated within such few hands. However I have to ask - would the WSJ would be so concerned if Google or Facebook were conservative leaning outlets? Normally the WSJ defends this kind of duopoly kind of thing - if either Google or Facebook had some sort of right side leaning the WSJ would be preaching to us about the genius of capitalism and the wisdom of the markets.
This is exactly why "viewpoint diversity" is something people are increasingly concerned about. The basic premise is: we all engage in motivated reasoning. We all accept weak arguments sometimes if they reinforce or flatter our existing world view. If we shut out all dissenting views, we'll let lots of bullshit go unchallenged because we were never forced to actually defend our beliefs.
So I think it's totally fair to call out perceived inconsistency in the WSJ position. Maybe the WSJ has a blind spot where they are more willing to accept consolidated power when it favors them. But I think that illustrates exactly why viewpoint diversity is important. WSJ will have blind spots sometimes, but other times they may be able to call other media on their blind spots.
Put another way, you can think of society as a whole as a mind. Just like our individual minds, the societal "mind" can have conflicting or competing ideas. The mind functions best when these different thoughts can "have it out" and try to convince each other that they are correct.
Right wing propaganda is so strong and coordinated these days that they can develop a new goal and drive a single message repeatedly across multiple platforms for months or years. This attack on Google is a new right wing message developed this year but they just keep hammering at it across all their channels tailoring their argument to the different audiences and continuously building mind share and momentum.
Both right and left wing propaganda is strong and coordinated these days. I can't say anything that doesn't toe the line with either side and not have them look at me like I'm an asshole. I've been called both a socialist welfare state supporter and a reactionary corporate feudalist. Which is it folks. The division is worse than it ever was in my lifetime.
I think it’s interesting that you think antitrust Google benefits right wing groups over left wing groups.
I think this thought is mainly due to the dichotomy of “google = good” and “republican = bad” having some transitive logic making “stuff against google = republican.”
Exactly. I seen it on Reddit like crazy. The right wing is after Google but would guess it will move at some point to someone else.
Funny that Apple would not allow GAB in their app store and Google did but since pulled it yet they are mad at Google. Plus you can use other app stores on Android and use GAB and not on the iPhone.
People do not realize GAB is some right wing social media site.
Turn on virtually any television station, cable channel, read a newspaper, search for political topics on Google and you're going to be absolutely flooded with left-wing messaging to the tune of 10 to 1 vs right-wing.
>Right wing propaganda is so strong and coordinated these days that they can develop a new goal and drive a single message repeatedly across multiple platforms for months or years.
If that is the case, why is it that we see mostly left wing propaganda on social media and most news sites?
Left wing propaganda is so strong and coordinated these days that they can develop a new goal and drive a single message repeatedly across multiple platforms for months or years. This defense of Google's monopoly is a new left wing message developed this year but they just keep hammering at it across all their channels tailoring their argument to the different audiences and continuously building mind share and momentum.
> In a November speech, Ajit Pai, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, argued that “edge providers” like social-media websites and search engines “routinely block or discriminate against content they don’t like.”
...
> He also pointed to Twitter’s suspension of a pro-life campaign ad from Rep. Marsha Blackburn, an action that would have been illegal if done by a TV or radio station.
Which is interesting, considering this FCC decision in 2014:
Is the FCC going to begin licensing social media sites?
Does the FCC consider internet traffic to be a broadcast mechanism? When newspaper publishers are not required to follow the same laws/statutes as radio and TV when it comes to political advertising?
Apparently having a large market share in advertising also means that you somehow own communication.
Yes, a lot of people use Facebook and Google but that doesn't mean that there aren't 50 bajillion means of communication. Network effects are strong but ultimately they don't prevent you from communicating with anybody. The person on the other end of the line who has a strong preference for their chosen form of communication does. There's also basically no barrier to switch, I mean I've got 12 different messaging apps on my phone right now and it's not even close to a burden. And that doesn't even include email and IRC. And when it comes to broadcast communication which this article seems to be focusing on Facebook and Google are by far not the only sources of broadcast. Hell you should be looking at the consolidation of print and broadcast television if you want to see a true cartel on information distribution.
I don't think this is necessarily true. If proper regulations are in place Google and Facebook can certainly be out competed in some of their core services.
Verizon and ATT threaten diversity much more than does Google or Facebook. That should be painfully obvious to anyone who's done their research.
Also WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch which should also raise some flags on this article.
Not sure ther issue with Google. I use Google Alerts and get a mixture of content and definitely not slanted one way or another.
I am pretty liberal but I am someone that can deal with reading the otherside and do not have to put my head in the sand. I will even watch Fox from time to time just to see how they are talking about things.
Google would know my slant so putting Breitbart articles in my alerts and on the Google Assistant suggests they are not filtering.
Heck I get negative Google stories and clearly if Google was going to filter be the first thing to filter out.
I really do not use FB so can not comment about it.
Journalism is dead. We can't, in near real time, detangle the complexities of the plans of large entities such as governments/corporations and the effects of their policies. That's typically what journalists were really good at.
That's the real problem.
Colorful thought and artful diversity is the spice of life, but priority number one is consumer safety.
We just need to know what's going on!
It's been on the downward trend towards the grave for a very, very long time. Facebook/Google are simply nails on the coffin.
This has been troubling me for a while. We mainstream liberals seem to be calling for more diversity, but the most vocal amongst us seem to want only superficial diversity (i.e. a variety of physical appearances) instead of diversity of thought/ideas.
Take, for instance, the firing of Denise Young Smith from Apple. She correctly argued in favor of ideological diversity being a worthwhile goal for an organization, saying: “There can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blonde men in a room, and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience.”
She was crucified by (ostensibly?) mainstream liberals, who apparently felt that such a comment didn’t reflect the true goal of diversity: having a variety of phenotypes in a room.
This is only one concrete example, but it’s representative of what I’ve noticed is a growing trend. Not sure if anyone else here has seen it as well, but I suspect some of you have. I hope we all wise up and recognize that what we truly want is a mixture of experience and viewpoints, not just mere phenotypic variety.
It's really amazing how quickly the topic shifts after the repeal of Net Neutrality. Places were pushing this topic constantly in attempt to shift debate on why insuring ISPs don't do any silly things with user traffic. It very quickly became 'Google and Facebook are monopolies and are controlling all of your content / censoring everything'.
This isn't to say that I don't agree that Google and Facebook are exceedingly large companies with far-reaching tendrils controlling a lot of what we see and do. But rather it's blatantly obvious that it's setting up a new target to avoid backlash against giving ISPs effectively more power, especially over said companies. I mean it would be less obvious if he literally didn't come out and say that thing, plus various far-right websites repeating the topic but that's the world we live in right now. I have a feeling the topic won't stick at all beyond being a convenient whataboutism.
Ok, I can't read the WSJ article because it's behind a paywall, but I did read an ArsTechnica story about the issue [1]. With _only_ that information (which isn't admittedly much) it appears to be a run-of-the-mill story of YouTube's content policies running amok. Some see nefarious purposes in YouTube's incompetence, but that cynical view doesn't hold up when one considers how consistently YouTube disappoints everyone.
Seriously, just search for "YouTube demonetization" and you'll find dozens of similar stories that have _nothing_ to do with politics.
YouTube's content filtering and management is a mess and it's always been a mess. Whether it's take down notices, tagging copyrighted content inappropriately, issues with demonetization and advertising, YouTube has consistently struggled with striking a balance between creators, consumers and advertisers.
To take that mess and turn it into some sort of commentary about politics, censorship or a general threat to diversity of thought is cynicism and pandering that's worse than YouTube's alleged sins.
I expect better out (or used to) out of my Hacker News commentary, but alas, few bothered to even look up the basics of this particular story.
[+] [-] frgtpsswrdlame|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] narrator|8 years ago|reply
After all, the only people actually working on alternatives to Google and Facebook are the alt-right who have been de-platformed. Gab.ai is so de-platformed that google doesn't even let them put their app in the play store! Unlike the Pirate Bay and scihub, gab.ai is actually not violating the law. You aren't one of those filthy alt-righters who voted for Trump are you? Are you a person who raises uncomfortable questions that cause mental pain by triggering or creating cognitive dissonance in ideologically defenseless individuals you wish to torture with your arguments?
Anyway.... I don't think most of you want the Internet Facebook and Google insulate you all from. Why the heck are you complaining?
[+] [-] ThrowawayR2|8 years ago|reply
-A few hundred years ago, being an atheist was "crimethink", as was religious tolerance towards Jews, Muslims, and so forth.
-A few hundred years ago, questioning the divine right of kings to rule was "crimethink".
-In the early 1600s, Galileo stood trial and was condemned for the "crimethink" of saying the Earth moved around the Sun, in contradiction to the teachings of the Church.
-As little as 200 years ago, advocating racial equality was "crimethink", as was equal rights for women.
-As little as 60 years ago, in the McCarthy era, being a leftist or socialist was "crimethink" and people lost their jobs and/or were jailed because of it.
I do want diversity of opinion because I believe in the values of the Enlightenment, which include the ability to openly voice dissent without fear of reprisal and I have the strength of character to listen to the beliefs of others without feeling threatened; in short, I want diversity of opinion because I am a liberal.
[+] [-] AKrumbach|8 years ago|reply
I speak only for myself, but the answer is an absolute, complete and emphatic YES. The reason is quite simple: in all of human history, there have been only three "families", broadly speaking, of epistemological methods[1]:
* Mysticism: you have been told what is true by an unquestionable (and often distant) authority. Think Moses descending from the mountain--only he can safely speak to God. While God is ultimately the original [claimed] source of the knowledge, it must be funneled through Moses first.
* Socratic debate: two humans can talk about the topic, trying to apply abstract reason to determine the "best" answer. Note that in a "pure" Socratic debate, only logic and not any evidence is used.
* Scientific study: humans can attempt direct inquiry of an answer from the physical universe. Note that logic need not apply to scientific answers: the results of many particle physics experiments such as the delayed choice quantum eraser are not "logical" in that they violate what "common sense" tells us the universe should allow.
Now, there no reason I had to use a religious example for the first family, but they do not exist for the other two: literally, both debate and science cannot work correctly if you do not admit the possibility of contrarian or "heretical" ideas.
Since I wish to live in a society jointly directed by reason and science, I must allow (and to some small extent, seek) contrarian and heretical ideas.
1: I'm speaking of epistemology not in the definition taught in philosophical classes (e.g., "How do we know what is real or what is knowledge?"), but a far more direct, literal, and practical application of how knowledge is generated and transmitted between societies/individuals.
[+] [-] ravenstine|8 years ago|reply
I've definitely had unpopular opinions, and even when I don't, my questioning of the basis of a given argument is often misinterpreted as holding the opposite(and objectionable) belief. This isn't because I knowingly hold some dogma, but that I care about whether something is true or not. Even though I do think global warming is a real issue, I'm careful to point out whether or not a piece of evidence is specious because too often I've been classified as right wing or anti-science.
What I used to value about the internet was how I could have no-holds-barred debates with people from around the world and not be worried about my life being destroyed. From about the age of 11, I visited lots of anarchist and free-speech forums, sites about drug use, politics, etc., and ended up learning quite a bit having to argue with both total fools and those more savvy than I was. Even that young, what I valued was not the "criminal" aspect of these channels but the ability for myself and others to express their true selves, or at least the personae that people portrayed.
That's the internet I miss, but it's also the internet that took some skill to use and was far less profitable than it is today. Now that everyone is on it, the people want a level of safety that is dubious and stifles what originally made the web great. Joe Hacker inherently saw the value of libre speech, but the average person either doesn't understand that value or is afraid of being judged for holding that belief.
The internet isn't really different from anything else that we censor as a society. I don't believe that the same people who value freedom of speech on the internet would keep around entities like the FCC that quite obviously do not exist to protect the public from anything. The average person either doesn't understand what the FCC is for, or they would shrug and say that it's not such a bad thing.
I suspect that HN has a greater than average population of individuals who want an end to censorship online, but I would still agree with narrator in that most of us don't actually want a diversity of opinion. The reality is that most people are self-interested, and that usually doesn't mean that they're interested in hearing different opinions. They want the freedom to express their own opinions, but are still appalled when someone holds a radically different one. People are not very principled and they will move the goal posts out of convenience.
We may never see the old internet ever again.
[+] [-] cryptonector|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danaliv|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eli_gottlieb|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pimmen|8 years ago|reply
Serious publications spend a lot of money on research, distribution, and marketing that alt right publications like Breitbart and their smaller, European counterparts don't need to bother with because their material distributes itself. All they need is a headline that makes you angry at minorities and social media does all the legwork for them, people are not even going to open the article before they click "share" or interact with a reaction that promotes it in the personalization algorithms.
So, when Facebook and Google are basically the only digital players who have increasing ad revenues we have a serious problem.
[+] [-] oglopf|8 years ago|reply
That's just false. You paint this as either one or the other missing the point that someone like me might like many.
[+] [-] xr4ti|8 years ago|reply
Don't show up to a high end night club wearing swimming trunks and crocs and expect the bouncer to let you in. Don't go to a klan rally preaching racial tolerance and expect to be invited back. Don't hang out in a diverse, multi-ethnic environment preaching white supremacy and expect people to pat you on the head.
[+] [-] nova22033|8 years ago|reply
Also gab.ai fanboys: We can't survive without google hosting our services.
[+] [-] drngdds|8 years ago|reply
But anyway, Mastodon exists as a good Twitter alternative, and it's not made by alt-righters. It's decentralized so no company or politically-motivated group can censor it.
[+] [-] kombucha2|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coolgeek|8 years ago|reply
Yeah, nice try.
No platform is banning people "who voted for Trump"
They're banning people who are openly trying to recreate Nazism, the KKK, and other such violently prejudicial entities
[+] [-] humanrebar|8 years ago|reply
The videos are certainly conservative, both culturally and economically, but the ones I've seen aren't objectionable in any way. In many ways, they are less objectionable than a lot that goes out over the AM radio bands in the U.S.
Ars Technica on the story:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/prageru-sues-you...
Best I can find of a response from Google:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/heres-googles-resp...
[+] [-] lr4444lr|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tscs37|8 years ago|reply
I'd hate it if Google started removing them completely, despite me not even closely aligning to their ideology.
[+] [-] kelukelugames|8 years ago|reply
update: haha, there's a wikipedia section on this called political framing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pro-choice_movem...
[+] [-] wmil|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] backpropaganda|8 years ago|reply
Are you pro-choice? I'm pro-life! Do you care about diversity? Yes, of thoughts. Are you a feminist? I'm postfeminist!
[+] [-] trendia|8 years ago|reply
That means that Google receiving 90% of all searches wouldn't automatically imply market power or anti-competitive conduct, and I can't see how Google or Facebook can raise their prices higher than a "competitive market" if they don't charge anything for their product.
How would a competitive market in search and social networking even look?
[0] https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...
[+] [-] padseeker|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] haberman|8 years ago|reply
So I think it's totally fair to call out perceived inconsistency in the WSJ position. Maybe the WSJ has a blind spot where they are more willing to accept consolidated power when it favors them. But I think that illustrates exactly why viewpoint diversity is important. WSJ will have blind spots sometimes, but other times they may be able to call other media on their blind spots.
Put another way, you can think of society as a whole as a mind. Just like our individual minds, the societal "mind" can have conflicting or competing ideas. The mind functions best when these different thoughts can "have it out" and try to convince each other that they are correct.
[+] [-] hi-im-mi-ih|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcrad|8 years ago|reply
It is possible to be generally pro-business while also critizing kinda-deceptive business models with kinda-unchecked power.
[+] [-] guelo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colordrops|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prepend|8 years ago|reply
I think it’s interesting that you think antitrust Google benefits right wing groups over left wing groups.
I think this thought is mainly due to the dichotomy of “google = good” and “republican = bad” having some transitive logic making “stuff against google = republican.”
[+] [-] imhelpingu|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacksmith21006|8 years ago|reply
Funny that Apple would not allow GAB in their app store and Google did but since pulled it yet they are mad at Google. Plus you can use other app stores on Android and use GAB and not on the iPhone.
People do not realize GAB is some right wing social media site.
[+] [-] bluthru|8 years ago|reply
In tech and the media, it's quite apparent that the large players are primarily socially left-leaning.
[+] [-] H99189|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] christmasity|8 years ago|reply
If that is the case, why is it that we see mostly left wing propaganda on social media and most news sites?
[+] [-] Helloworldboy|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JSONwebtoken|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TYPE_FASTER|8 years ago|reply
Which is interesting, considering this FCC decision in 2014:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sue-wilson/fcc-no-more-equal-...
It's also worth noting that FCC statute 315 (https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/statutes-and-rules-candidat...) applies to licensees.
Is the FCC going to begin licensing social media sites?
Does the FCC consider internet traffic to be a broadcast mechanism? When newspaper publishers are not required to follow the same laws/statutes as radio and TV when it comes to political advertising?
[+] [-] Spivak|8 years ago|reply
Yes, a lot of people use Facebook and Google but that doesn't mean that there aren't 50 bajillion means of communication. Network effects are strong but ultimately they don't prevent you from communicating with anybody. The person on the other end of the line who has a strong preference for their chosen form of communication does. There's also basically no barrier to switch, I mean I've got 12 different messaging apps on my phone right now and it's not even close to a burden. And that doesn't even include email and IRC. And when it comes to broadcast communication which this article seems to be focusing on Facebook and Google are by far not the only sources of broadcast. Hell you should be looking at the consolidation of print and broadcast television if you want to see a true cartel on information distribution.
[+] [-] fjabre|8 years ago|reply
Verizon and ATT threaten diversity much more than does Google or Facebook. That should be painfully obvious to anyone who's done their research.
Also WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch which should also raise some flags on this article.
[+] [-] jacksmith21006|8 years ago|reply
I am pretty liberal but I am someone that can deal with reading the otherside and do not have to put my head in the sand. I will even watch Fox from time to time just to see how they are talking about things.
Google would know my slant so putting Breitbart articles in my alerts and on the Google Assistant suggests they are not filtering.
Heck I get negative Google stories and clearly if Google was going to filter be the first thing to filter out.
I really do not use FB so can not comment about it.
[+] [-] debt|8 years ago|reply
That's the real problem.
Colorful thought and artful diversity is the spice of life, but priority number one is consumer safety.
We just need to know what's going on!
It's been on the downward trend towards the grave for a very, very long time. Facebook/Google are simply nails on the coffin.
[+] [-] camdenlock|8 years ago|reply
Take, for instance, the firing of Denise Young Smith from Apple. She correctly argued in favor of ideological diversity being a worthwhile goal for an organization, saying: “There can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blonde men in a room, and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience.”
She was crucified by (ostensibly?) mainstream liberals, who apparently felt that such a comment didn’t reflect the true goal of diversity: having a variety of phenotypes in a room.
This is only one concrete example, but it’s representative of what I’ve noticed is a growing trend. Not sure if anyone else here has seen it as well, but I suspect some of you have. I hope we all wise up and recognize that what we truly want is a mixture of experience and viewpoints, not just mere phenotypic variety.
[+] [-] reefoctopus|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fzeroracer|8 years ago|reply
This isn't to say that I don't agree that Google and Facebook are exceedingly large companies with far-reaching tendrils controlling a lot of what we see and do. But rather it's blatantly obvious that it's setting up a new target to avoid backlash against giving ISPs effectively more power, especially over said companies. I mean it would be less obvious if he literally didn't come out and say that thing, plus various far-right websites repeating the topic but that's the world we live in right now. I have a feeling the topic won't stick at all beyond being a convenient whataboutism.
[+] [-] ggggtez|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gimmeminusnow3|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jaaron|8 years ago|reply
Seriously, just search for "YouTube demonetization" and you'll find dozens of similar stories that have _nothing_ to do with politics.
YouTube's content filtering and management is a mess and it's always been a mess. Whether it's take down notices, tagging copyrighted content inappropriately, issues with demonetization and advertising, YouTube has consistently struggled with striking a balance between creators, consumers and advertisers.
To take that mess and turn it into some sort of commentary about politics, censorship or a general threat to diversity of thought is cynicism and pandering that's worse than YouTube's alleged sins.
I expect better out (or used to) out of my Hacker News commentary, but alas, few bothered to even look up the basics of this particular story.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/prageru-sues-you...
[+] [-] losteverything|8 years ago|reply
Of course it will influence and change things. But we created it therefore it is ok. Just scary now