This is a good article, and I like how he quotes Tom Eastman, a technologists out of NZ (who is interestingly is not strongly in favor of free speech, preferring the slightly more restrictive NZ policies).
There seems to be an appeal to both legislation and technological solutions: laws to break up and stop monopolies as well as people embracing and creating newer technologies to improve our ability to speak.
I currently have Hangouts/Messenger/Telegram and Signal all connected via bridges to Matrix. I pump all my Facebook/Messenger/Hangouts traffic in my browser through a VPN to the server where the bridges are hosted so Google/Messenger won't flag them for security.
This took a couple of tries of logging in outside of the proxy to FB, getting the security warning and then switching back to the proxy with the same cookies so FB/Google algos learn the IP is safe. Hopefully when I move, if I keep all those same rules in place (using FoxyProxy for Firefox or Chrome-based browsers) and turning off location on my Android device permanently (will also move to a PinePhone soon), I can make it difficult for Google/FB to know my location after I move from my current city.
Singal and Telegram are great because they have standard APIs that make it easy for a Matrix Bridge. For FB and Google I have to trick them, which makes them hostile to developers and tech people. We've had to do this for years with libpurple plugins as well:
Exactly, and weeks after the story broke, it was revealed the FBI was actively investigating Hunter Biden.
You can also download all the uncensored photos on many leak websites. The photos are clearly Hunter Biden in many sexually explicit positions (although none of them appear to be underage as was suggested by some).
I think there is a prima fascia case against Hunter for his ties to Burisma and his appointment being purely for political clout and a power move; a move that should be investigated for possible direct security risks to the American government and the American people.
> Big Tech will at least pay lip service to the idea of moderation
You are not really watching if you think that is what is happening. They are controlling the narrative. They are promoting some topics and pushing down other. Facebook deleted WalkAway, a group that had full moderation, did not allow any posts which called for violence, and which was pure political speech. Reddit is deleting each and every sub that goes against what their management believes; over 2000 have been banned last year only.
They are not paying lip service. They are directing narrative. They are banning things they don't like. They are deciding which scientific exports are orthodox and which are banned. They are controlling language. They are controlling thought. If you don't think that's happening, then they are controlling your thoughts as well.
This is the most dangerous time for us to be in and this will not end well. Censorship is the tool of cowards. Censorship is the tool of authoritarians. We are literally watching Big Tech and Big Media openly rewrite history. We are in 1984 + Fahrenheit 451 and half of us have bought so far into this narrative of protectionism we do not see it at all.
But...that's what moderation is. Promoting some topics and pushing down others. Deleting certain groups which repeatedly break policies (which, by the way, are not limited to posts that call for violence). Deciding what is "orthodox" and what is not. This is common, even on this site. When a HN mod deletes a flagged thread because it doesn't follow the rules, are we all plunged into 1984 + Fahrenheit 451? When a comment is deleted and someone is baned even though they didn't literally call for violence, have they seized control of our thoughts?
The way I see it, Amazon (or Facebook etc) didn't censor Parler in the unilateral and totalitarian way you allude to. At some level, every company has to have the freedom to choose who they do business with, every person has to have the freedom to choose who they associate with. Amazon just said "no, I won't sell you AWS anymore". They didn't threaten Parler, Amazon does not have the power or authority to threaten Parler; They didn't and can't prevent Parler from choosing another provider. What's happening here is that Parler knows that no one else will voluntarily do business with them either.
Almost everyone in the industry has turned their back to Parler on their own. That cannot be censorship in the same way the lonely kid who no one wants to play with cannot be described as being censored in any meaningful sense of the word. Honestly I find it a worrying trend to be sure, but to portray individual free actions as censorship is to make the concept of censorship meaningless; It conflates the real dangers of authoritarian censorship with ordinary choices & biases that we take for granted every day.
I believe that companies are largely on their own team, neither right nor left.
How long before labor begins to be de-platformed for unionization efforts in the big tech companies? I know that there are already allegations that Amazon is acting in an extremely anti-labor way. Will the current argument of "platforms have a right to choose what content they will allow on their service" (which is a common argument for what is going on, among others) also apply in the case that pro-unionization groups are removed? These organisms will do whatever is necessary to protect themselves from what they perceive as threats, both external (political) and internal (labor).
> I believe that companies are largely on their own team, neither right nor left
Wat? Dude, Twitter, Reddit and Facebook's moderation policies are clearly left to far-left. They've done no blanket banning for calls to violence from the left. None of these people have had their pages, accounts or posts censored:
Right now the winds are prevailing from that direction, yes. Were the opposition to have a single party government I suspect things would be different. Currently anti-trust legislation looms over them and they are gravitating towards the graces of those in power as well as removing accounts that legitimately do advocate violence (albeit not as evenhandedly as they should).
I'm okay with this. We've had Republican/Conservative vs. Democrat/Liberal in every other form of media that I can remember. What's wrong with that split with "Social Media" or with hosting providers (think publishers), etc.
The problems seems to be that conservatives thought these services should be neutral but the services themselves have not thought otherwise. It will sort itself out over the next five to ten years.
Do you remember the court testimony where Zuckerburge avoided the entire question about if they collude with other companies to make these decisions on the backend?
Apple may have banned Parler and then Google just decided to go with it, followed by AWS. However, it may also be equally valid they colluded via private channels to make this happen. BOTH ARE EQUALLY POSSIBLE.
Discovery in this kind of lawsuit may lead to the answers. If they did collude, that is a strong argument for anti-trust. Just because they're 4 different companies doesn't negate the fact they control over 80% to 90% of the American market for hosting, non-SMS text communication and mobile access.
It honestly doesn't matter what you believe about Parler's user contributions. That's the entire point of Section 230. From what I've seen they do make a good faith attempt to delete all illegal posts with direct calls to violence. Section 230 doesn't prevent Google/Apple/Amazon from being forced to have them as customers.
You are protected if you're a minority and a business refuses to give you service based on that status. Opinions and viewpoints aren't protected, and maybe they should be.
If you in any way praise this legal yet blatant corporate censorship because it fits your views, you will be next. We are not on a slippery slope. We are in a god damn free fall. If you don't see it, they will come for you next and no one will be there to speak for you.
I've been on the internet since it started and every forum I've been on has removed users and or posts for a wide range of reasons. Including just being rude, as hackernews does. So I don't really see this as any kind of "free fall". It is just the usual way of things.
It's not the usual way of things. They're not removing a few individually flagged post. FB is erasing massive numbers of communities, many just because they lean right. Reddit deleting over 2,000+ subreddits in the past year is just business as usual?
No, that's fucking targeted attacks against opinions they do not like. This is absolutely not business as usual. Everything about this is massive and it's morally reprehensible. It may not be illegal, but it's fucking wrong and insane.
It also shows that Big Tech is afraid. They're afraid and they're cowards. Regulating speech and language and blanket censorship are tools of authoritarians, not of people who believe in democracy and liberty.
Show me a single nation where censorship lead to a more free and open State.
>Just because they're 4 different companies doesn't negate the fact they control over 80% to 90% of the American market for hosting, non-SMS text communication and mobile access.
It was a ride range to indicate how large it is and meant to illustrate a point. You're asking for a fact is really just a way to say "I don't like your opinion so I'm going to challenge something that's obviously intended as a hyperbole" to discredit your statement in some arbitrary way.
Alright, AWS may not own 80% of the market, but let's be fair; it's fucking massive. On top of that Cloudflair has taken down websites before. DigitalOcean and DreamHost have removed people's hosting with less than 24 hours notice[0]. NameCheap and GoDaddy have both revoked peoples domains with less than 24 hours notice[1].
Initial searches seem to show AWS owns 50% of the market by themselves. You add in DO, Azure and GCE and that number quickly climbs[2].
The US has used sanctions on Iran, Cuba and countless others. You can argue their effectiveness, and how they may just hurt the country's citizens..
but this has been a long standing problem. It's something Trump can do that might slow China growing their military presence. We are talking about a country with very restrictive freedom of speech laws and who reeducate certain ethnic minorities.
I wonder if this will affect civilian supply chains as well? Will some governments and their corporate counterparts be forced to decide if they want to supply consumer goods or build their military instead?
I'm sure China could eventually create shell companies to move some resources, but it would slow down military growth. It would also be something Biden would be foolish to try and undo, because it would give the impression of special interests in China. After the Swalwell allegations, it would provide a good check.
It's a very important thing to do. It's been a long standing problem. The CCP is a harsh and restrictive government and we don't want to be funding advancements in their military.
This may affect supply chains for civilian supply chains, and then China's corops and government will have to make a choice: Keep contracts to make tons of consumer goods or continue to supply the military side.
"...Though the company removed cocaine from the carbonated concoction over 100 years ago, coca leaves are actually still used to flavor Coke. The soda brand has an exemption with the government allowing them to import coca leaves into a decocanization plant in New Jersey where cocaine is removed so the leaves can be used in Coca-Cola for their natural flavors."
The ingredients for the Coca-Cola flavor are listed as "natural flavors". That's the extent of disclosure.
Trade secret just means that they don't share the recipe and make efforts to keep it secret. Calling it a "trade secret" is really a marketing strategy as much as anything else. Just like the rumors that coca leaf extract are an ingredient... something that is "neither confirmed nor denied". A marketing strategy.
I think that it's basically flavored with vanilla, cinnamon, a few essential oils (orange, lemon, lavender), and some spices (nutmeg!). One you start adding that many flavors to a recipe, the exact flavors are no longer important, and I'm sure you could replicate something similar at home if you were willing to do enough experimentation. There are a few recipes online that you can use.
Also the proportions. While (in the US at least) manufacturers are required to list their ingredients in the order of greatest proportion to least proportion, they are not required to disclose what those proportions are, which also adds some difficulty to reverse-engineering the recipe.
I think the biggest catch is being able to throw potentially thousands of different substances under the generic “natural flavorings.” Read the Coca Cola ingredients list and you certainly don’t see “coca leaf extract” on it.
There seems to be an appeal to both legislation and technological solutions: laws to break up and stop monopolies as well as people embracing and creating newer technologies to improve our ability to speak.