At best it is symbiotic. But the imbalance in power makes it parasitic as Google will absolutely leverage its power to make sure they receive the most out of the arrangement. I think parasite fits better since the content creator can exist without google, but google cannot exist without the content creator.
How exactly do you think Australia is going to enforce this mandate if Google has no presence in Australia. Are they going to have the military invade California?
We have treaties addressing issues like these, and generally it is an accepted principle of international law that a country can regulate a company that chooses to business with its citizens.
But Google would not be doing business with Australian citizens. It would be serving them webpages, but it would not take nor give them any money. That said, I'm skeptical that such treaties exist. Would you like to point a specific instance of such a treaty out?
"Serving them webpages" is a business activity under international law. The consideration is the ads they show alongside search results.
As for resources on such treaties, visit the OECD website and you'll be inundated with the model treaties that form the basis of the actual treaties between countries. (Some treaties involve many parties, most are between two nations.) Since you're not paying me, I will simply point out that under America's tax treaty with Australia, the Technical Explanation would note that providing services to another country's citizens is an activity covered by the treaty, and Australia's tax office has plenty of documentation saying the same.
I'm starting to think that the degeneration of society into a 1984-style dystopia may now be unavoidable. We need to take power back from big tech and we need to do it now.
I think Twitter has put itself in an impossible situation.
By banning certain politicians, it now has to maintain consistency... which means banning thousands more globally.... which means making itself irrelevant to huge swaths of the global population.
It's no longer a ubiquitous utility. ... but that's what people want. they don't want their toaster to judge what food they make.
If a post author is promoting violence, lay the blame with the post author, not the social network. As I understand it the legal basis and protections for the network using this simple valid logic already exists. They’ve been operating with this protection for years now. What has changed is the increased appetite for authoritarianism from many of a particular political persuasion.
I'm skeptical that Twitter cares about consistency. The company is run by Bay Area progressives and I doubt the Democrats in congress want to do anything to stop Twitter from going after right wing accounts. Sure, the conservative people will try to leave for an alternative but I think the majority of average people will just stay on twitter and the net effect will be that the platform will lurch even farther to the left.
> I'm starting to think that the degeneration of society into a 1984-style dystopia may now be unavoidable. We need to take power back from big tech and we need to do it now.
Look, lying is bad, and there is no nobility in defending lies. It's pretty clear that something's broken with how people think about free speech when they make hysterical 1984 comparisons when someone makes it slightly less easy for a massively powerful authoritarian country to spread its lies. It's not just you, I see this all over.
I mean, 1984 was all about a massively powerful authoritarian government making it impossible for the little guy to spread truth. Comparing this to that literally turns the novel on its head.
I would wager a good number of people who crow on about "1984 is here - dystopia is upon us!" either didn't read it, or took away a different meaning than the author actually intended.
I read a book last year about marketin. It talked about this bracketing of the public’s perception of an issue in to a box. Once you get the pereption confined in a box, you can begin to shift that box towards the true goal. I thought a lot about that and how big tech, and the government are pushing us towards some perception, and I’m worried that the more it pushes the harder it will be to ever move it back.
I don't know if you're wrong, but this is not evidence. As long as the Chinese embassy can put out press releases on their own platform, they're not being silenced. If anything, we need to break everyone's ridiculous dependency on a handful of platforms, not the platforms themselves.
What prevents presidents and other officials from holding "old-fashioned" press conferences, like they used to do just a few years ago? Has big tech supplanted the media?
Any government official can hold press conferences and make press releases just like they used to. However in practical terms the reach of those messages is severely limited. Did you know the President has a weekly radio address?
Besides inauguration day, do you remember reading official documents on the whitehouse.gov website? I never have. Nor have I ever gone to AOC's official house.gov site to read her messages. But I do know what she's saying on Twitter.
Not to belabor the point but where the message is delivered is a huge factor in whether or not the message will even be noticed.
Yes. Traditional media is struggling greatly because of tech in general and big tech in particular. The profitability has been squeezed out and what remains of media is less trustworthy because of that.
“Traditional media”, sure, but the question as posed was about the media.
Craigslist and the New York Times website probably did more to harm the profitability of newspapers around the country than any FAANG company, and there’s no shortage of new websites claiming to report the news.
Tech is the media’s biggest supporter, but maybe not the media that you grew up with. What’s driving down the price of news isn’t tech, but the new forms of competition tech—big, small, medium, XL, etc.— enables.
I think big tech has all of the power because they have all of the platforms, and if any platform attempts to take some of that power, the big technology companies shut them down. I’m not making an excuse or an apology for a service like Parler, but eventually the deck becomes so stacked against us where we are damned if we do damned if we don’t.
The phrase "take back power", especially when it comes in the context of "they're blocking people and must be stopped!", seems to boil down to not letting tech companies block who they want to block. I just want competition.
> seems to boil down to not letting tech companies block who they want to block. I just want competition.
The problem is that when the market is already consolidated, you need one to get the other.
Suppose you want to compete with the major phone platforms. Your biggest problem is apps. No apps, no users; no users, no app developers.
A way to fix this is to create a cross-platform app development framework. Developers would love that -- write your app once and it runs on both the existing major platforms and any new ones? Great!
Except that the incumbents block it. You can't create a competing app store for the existing platforms, which means you can't leverage that into a competing platform.
But without competition there, they can also do this:
App store policy is rather different from content moderation. I still don't like it, but I'd be a lot more comfortable with forcing Apple to allow cross-platform apps than forcing Twitter to accept Trump.
It seems there are perhaps three(?) options that come up:
1) Constrain big tech via regulation (thereby in some sense transferring the power to regulators/government, with the hope that it would in turn be influenced by democratic processes)
2) Or, directly influence big tech behaviour through boycotts and other consumer action.
3) Or, break up big tech forcibly or again through consumer action to switch to alternatives, thereby diffusing this power.
Eh, 3 is the closest, but I can't say I like anything that involves directly mucking with existing companies. In my dream world, the government funds federated software to the point that it can compete with twitter for most people. It's unclear how realistic that is, I'm just very confident that government dictating moderation policy will go horribly wrong.
The means are vastly different? Use the power of government to force private companies into some strange, complex, government-backed content policy, or let people realize they need a variety of trusted media in their diet and don't use one platform for all comms.
Who will give the Chinese Communist Party a voice now they have been censored? What's that? Oh they own all the newspapers, TV, radio and internet in the country of China.
Entirely depends on what the goals of the union are. If you want to improve your position in search rankings, a union is not going to help you. If you're a youtube creator who wants a larger cut of advertising revenue, a youtube creators union may make sense.
I find it unlikely that there's any issue that cuts across all of Google's customers (advertisers, publishers, cloud users, gsuite users, etc), so a Google Customers Union probably does not make sense.
Twitter censoring content is only a problem because they have a near monopoly in their domain and present themselves as a platform for everybody. There's no national discussion about HN moderation because it's a much smaller website with relatively few users.
Just in general, if Twitter really believes their platform has the power to induce violence and alter elections, then why are we allowing a small number of unelected Twitter execs complete control to determine how that power is used?
Jack Dorsey's vote shouldn't be worth orders of magnitude more than yours and mine just because he's the CEO of a communications platform.
Pouring gasoline on the fire is kind of the point. Take away people's option to peacefully voice their opinion and violence is the only remaining option. The hope is that these people will commit more violence so that the government can use the violence as an excuse to criminalize their existence.
People have been voicing their opinions - and continue to voice their opinions - on Twitter, Facebook etc. all day, there is really no censorship about information regarding the election, unless it's geared towards violence.
Go ahead, right now, make a Tweet and indicate that you think the 'election was stolen'.
Nobody will care.
So on the face of it, your first claim is obviously false.
The question is - given that you and I can both right now go on FB or Twitter and say almost anything we please, and you must know that, why are you writing what you're writing?
Not surprising. The election of a Democrat government has emboldened them to start censoring their political enemies with less fear of government reprisal.
This should hopefully spur more competition in the micro-blogging space as conservatives are now forced to create their own alternative. Previous alternatives didn't see much usage since the biggest names like Trump were still on Twitter.
Pretty much every politician ever has used manipulative language to try to make themselves sound better than they are. It's why abortion activists call themselves pro-life/pro-choice. To take their words at face value is incredibly naive. For example, the line about "economic justice" almost certainly means the authors believe the company should be used as a propaganda vehicle for socialism/communism. And the line about a "welcoming environment" is an outright lie as shown by these same employees' bullying and harassment of numerous wrong-thinking employees (James Damore and Miles Taylor come to mind as a few examples).
These activists forced Google to oust a black women out of AI ethics (Kay Cole James), and are now complaining that Google doesn't care about black women in AI ethics when someone woke gets let go. It's so transparent that they only care about their political goals.
You don't think it has anything to do with one of these people having a PhD in the field, and the other having the position solely to appeal to conservative politicians?
> For example, the line about "economic justice" almost certainly means the authors believe the company should be used as a propaganda vehicle for socialism/communism
These days it's for race+gender-orientated demands.
> To take their words at face value is incredibly naive
I agree, but that's what we have to go on, as this effort just started. The opposite is naive as well, where you assume everyone always have hidden agendas. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
> For example, the line about "economic justice" almost certainly means the authors believe the company should be used as a propaganda vehicle for socialism/communism.
Well, yes and no. Yes, you can describe their economic justice value as socialistic, I don't think they are trying to hide that. Here's the full value:
> Social and economic justice are paramount to achieving just outcomes. We will prioritize the needs of the worst off. Neutrality never helps the victim.
Yes, sounds like socialism. Exactly what they are aiming to implement in the Google/Alphabet workplace. The people who sign up with the union, are people who agree they want to focus on fixing that particular problem. That's a strong point of unions in general, to align about common values.
Not sure how you get it to be a "Google should be used as a propaganda vehicle". The employees there want to improve their own workplace by implementing their ideas. Now they are calling for others (who agree) to join them. I don't have any skin in the game, so I'm fine either way. But I find the process of even trying this to be refreshing, no matter what their values and ultimately their impact will be.
If you don't want Google scraping your content, add a noindex directive or robots.txt to your site and Google won't scrape it or link to it.