No sane country can allow their public discourse to be controlled by the peculiar moral pieties of the American elite class. True, important information, e.g. that covid-19 may have originated in a Chinese lab, is actively suppressed by these platforms as part of an internal American struggle for control of information and ideas. Any people that value their own self-determination must reduce the influence of these manipulative platforms on their domestic market.
I completely agree. By banning these networks, overall suppression of information will greatly decrease. With these platforms banned, it will be more easy for Indians to encounter information that challenges the dominant narrative of the elites. \s
This is silly and unnecessary sarcasm that doesn't take into account the reality of the world.
Different localities have different dominant networks. E.g. Instagram Stories and Viber in Europe, vs Snapchat and WhatsApp in the US, vs VKontakte in Russia. Clearly, banning a global dominant network will only spur the creation and migration to a more local, but likely still centralized, network. (It might still be equally, or differently but to the same degree, censorious.)
Suppression is not the only problem information endures. False information and overall narrative engineering is capable of doing equal, and probably more, harm than mere absence of information.
> With these platforms banned, it will be more easy for Indians to encounter information that challenges the dominant narrative of the elites.
You assume the "free range" information flowing around is free from the influence of 'the elites'. It might not be by the elites you particularly resent, but rest assured it is still going to be a strata of elites, who have the massive resources to organize, build, publish, market, brand, filter, "fact check" etc what information is allowed to flow around with what credibility.
One would hope. But that is not what is going to happen. People do not talk over small networks because they are inconvenient due to their small size. It is more convenient to talk over large networks because there are more people to talk to.
If you ban a massive centralized network, another one will take its place. It will certainly be smaller than Facebook, but no less centralized. And in this particular case, I would imagine that based on the Indian government's grievances with these American networks, information will almost certainly be less free on the replacement.
GP isn't suggesting otherwise. They're saying that people trend towards larger networks, regardless of the quality of those networks or their impacts. Facebook and Co can be banned tomorrow, but the next phase will see a surge of small players getting bigger and bigger until one of them reaches a Facebook and Co. For India status, landing the people of India where they started. Except that the new incumbent will be more easily pressured or controlled by India's government.
But maybe it will be run by Indian people, who will enforce Indian values, and who are accountable to their Indian families and Indian peers and Indian law.
In India Modi's government has a long history of subverting media and trying to use government powers to control narrative. I don't think totalitarianism (even though backed by the government) is a good option.
In India, this would mean enforcement of recently invented Indian values such as fascism, communalism, anti miscegenation laws, segregation laws, denaturalization, casteism, arrest and murder of journalists, and faking or withholding of numbers of national importance such as covid19 deaths, farmer suicide stats, gdp numbers and other economic indicators. These topics are not accountable to a certain minority of Indian families of privileged upbringing.
It will certainly be run by people who will accede to the Indian government's requests to remove anything the Indian government does not like. Ironically you started off upthread complaining about removal of 'true, important information about the pandemic'. You'll never guess what the subject of most of the Indian government's removal requests have been lately...
So the question is who decides. Do you let rich coastal Americans determine what you're allowed to talk about or do you let local powers make those decisions? Indians aren't very fond of foreign rule, and no control is more potent than control over information and ideas.
>Indians aren't very fond of foreign rule, and no control is more potent than control over information and ideas.
One of the elements missing in the intra-US debate is that a lot of the hostility that much of the country feels toward Silicon Valley is generated from a very similar feeling. To many, how culturally distant elites on the coasts are from those in "middle America" coupled with how much power the former has over the later ... it can, at times, make it feel like there's an element of foreign rule. Technology has made it a lot easier to project cultural power - once you have it. Once you lose it, it seems it's almost impossible to get it back.
No, the question is whether Indians are free to choose to read things which are inconvenient to the Indian government [but not at all irksome to rich coastal Americans], or whether the Indian government gets to determine which information and ideas are allowed to be disseminated online in India. Facebook and Twitter seek only to control their own, separate platforms.
(Plus of course what will actually happen is that Facebook and Twitter will comply, and Indian users of those platforms will be subject to both the whims of California-based moderators and the Indian government's current penchant for objecting to pictures of funerals and suggestions they might not be doing a wonderful job. The potency of control of information and ideas in action; nobody in the upper echelons of the Indian government cares about Zuckerberg's policy on the lab-leak theory...)
You're indulging in a huge fiction: that people freely choose what to read and what to believe. Your beliefs are a product of your environment, and your environment was traditionally mostly your family and broader community and country, but today your environment includes massive online oligopolies that have extreme power due to network effects.
If your country is consuming information through the filter of the American coastal elite, then they are likely to come to believe in the things that the American elite believes, to despise the things that the American elite despises. We can meaningfully speak of individuals having a choice to believe this or that, but as a society, that kind of domination of information will predictably drive people to believe what they are told to believe.
None of which changes the fact that what is actually happening is that the Indian government is the one seeking to dominate information to drive Indians to believe what they are told to believe.
It cares not in the slightest whether Indians get access to things Facebook cares to censor (which they can anyway, through the large majority of Indian media Facebook does not influence or seek to influence) but is determined to browbeat Facebook into removing evidence that the Indian government's handling of COVID might be suboptimal. This is the purpose of the policy. Reinstating posts on lab leak theories is not the purpose of the policy, and the American coastal elite (or Bangalore tech elite) will continue to censor stuff they want to on their platforms in addition to the more pervasive and more universal Indian-government censorship.
Takes a remarkable degree of dishonesty to make freedom of thought arguments in favour of the Indian government being able to prevent any material it does not agree with from reaching Indian eyeballs.
American big-tech deciding what's bad is much worse that than Indian government trying to dominate them. These companies are also not a single point of information for most of the people. Indians can still get government critical news from news sites.
Indians cannot get news critical of the government from companies within India. They have various tools and methods to harass Indian media into submission, that is simply not available against international media.
The reason for the ban is obvious. Twitter tagged propaganda by the government as fake news.
Banning == censorship, are you sure you want that?
Not from India but personally I'd much rather my government not set such precedents and not have such power to block websites. Next thing you know they'll be blocking credible sites to spread their own misinformation agenda.
A lot of the privileged Indians are rooting for a fascist government, that would "restore" their religious and caste elitism from 2000 years ago. This requires a constant dissemination of fake news and calls to violence, which Twitter is tagging as misleading information.
Hence, the anger in the comments and downvoting by upper caste folks of Indian origin.
I'm in the US, and although there are lots of things broken with the American media and government, I have full access to foreign media from anywhere in the world; no internet sites are censored.
So yes, I have independent media, because I can access the entire world's media and choose what I look at.
I’m not sure how you could reach that conclusion that American media is independent. There is unprecedented political influence on social media (which actively censor civilly expressed contrarian opinions) and conventional media in the US, with increasing calls for state censorship by US congresspeople. It’s hard not to see the trend; it’s only a matter of time.
But because at least the American government doesn't ban and censor websites, I effectively have independent media because I can look at any non-American media that I wish.
That's why I cautioned to not wish banning or censorship upon your own local law, wherever you are. If they are allowed the precedent of banning Facebook, they can also ban Al-Jazeera or BBC or DW or Wikipedia or whatever you wish to actually look at.
There are active calls by many Democrats for state censorship of websites like Breitbart, which, although I'm not a huge fan, do not call for violence of any sort. Also, I don't think it's fair to simply draw the line at "there are no laws banning specific media sources". It's hard to deny at this point that politicians are actively influencing and engaging with tech executives who are performing censorship. At this point, it's also a little difficult to claim that this is a trend that will change course or not accelerate.
You would have a point in an alternate universe where the Indian government is a credible guardian of whatever we might deem public discourse. In this universe, there are no good guys in this conflict.
I know I will be downvoted to oblivion., Rather than Twitter I would rather have the public discourse which is guarded by Indian Govt/ Judiciary, parliament and media irrespective of the spectrum to which they have a bias.
If tomorrow, I say something religious in nature, would such a thing be banned by some person in California who decides it is not rational thought?
You're touching on an important point, which is that users are essentially powerless in these online platforms. They are authoritarian entities whose interests align with users only incidentally, if at all. I do not think the state is better, as the state is generally captured by commercial interests anyhow.
I do not just mention the state, While a specific Govt may get sold out to vested interests, I completely believe judiciary, constitution(Voting rights) and media are stable enough to create checks and balances.
I have seen this in my country in the past fifteen years.
Yeah but they still don't have a stake in the way that users do. Shouldn't the users have an ownership interest since their contributions are a necessary condition for the continued existence of those platforms?
Users perform labor for Facebook every time they post, comment, or like. That labor produces real, material value for Facebook. The compensation for that labor rightfully must be negotiated with those who did that productive work. IMO the only just competition is in a material form, including users having the prerogative to vote for a certain number of seats on the Board of Directors.
Since censorship is almost certain be implemented by just not showing content that is banned in the countries where it is banned rather than an American company allowing the Indian government dictate what it can show Americans what do you do if Indians realize they need a vpn to get the whole picture and start bypassing government restrictions.
I really have no idea if you have or haven't. I was just responding to your assertion that you would "revolt the moment something otherwise happens to it".
Well this thread is not really interesting, But those three links you posted do not show there is no rule of law in India. Nor do I believe that to be the case currently.
Can you explain how elected legislators from kashmir were arrested without charges for a year when Kashmir's government lost its status as a democracy?
No good guys but the oligarchic silicon valley information complex is a definite bad guy that crowds out competing platforms where alternative views might flourish.
The only competition out there is going to abuse India's market and create an even worse paradigm shift. Newer platforms will be forced to be monitored/moderated by the state instead of a third party, which invites political oppression and censorship on a scale that's hard to fathom.
What's Facebook's angle for discouraging the view that Covid may have originated from a lab? E.g, what do they gain from this perspective? Sidenote: because it was being suppressed, I genuinely believed it was fringe theory. I didn't weigh the merits, that is, I considered the filter to just be the truth (because it seemed genuinely reasonable to conclude it was fringe, just because there is so much misinformation out there). My internal metric is: "Does this seem tin foil hat-y?" And I concluded "yes", and moved on. It was a concerning introspection of how I personally evaluate news.
If you see a flash of light in the sky and without further evidence exclaim that aliens have landed and are going to subjugate us and steal our women then you are a crackpot not merely because you are wrong but because you drew your conclusion with a faulty thought process.
If it later turns out that aliens HAVE landed but on a diplomatic mission not an invasion force you are still a crackpot who was partially right not by dint of sagacity but more or less by accident.
The lab story was usually promoted as part of a wider narrative where covid was either portrayed as a deliberate attack by the Chinese or the accidental release of a bioweapon a narrative designed not to explicate but to distract one from laying blame on the Trump administration for its incompetent response. It frequently mixed hypothesis, conjecture, and outright lies.
You can probably be forgiven for having not known there might be a useful hypothesis when it was largely being promoted by liars with corrupt motivation mixed with lies.
I love that you’re getting downvoted for telling the actual truth instead of everyone else who is now rewriting history to explain why they’ve had this sudden change of heart. At least CNN was honest yesterday when they said “trump said it so we immediately took the other side, no we look kinda foolish”
They face a hostile media and political complex, as well as several thousand aggressively activist employees, that all demand that right-wing information be suppressed.
If Facebook doesn't do what those groups demand, they will be smeared in the media, suffer internal strife, and face punitive antitrust probes.
And of course, many tech executive are true believers in left-wing politics and like that they can use their positions to advance those ideas.
Alot of those activist employees actively suppress non-progressive talking points on hn. Can I prove that with data as Dang has asked me to do...? Only if I have access to the logs is my answer.
It was a fringe theory pushed largely but not exclusively by racists and opportunists that wanted to paint China as the bad guy and shield the previous administration and other politicians from blame for how they reacted to the pandemic.
Totally independent of that, the general scientific community seemed to be much more opposed to the lab theory early on than they are now. It still doesn't appear to be much evidence for it beyond circumstantial stuff, but it is a possibility that more people are engaging with.
Combine these two and it isn't surprising that these platforms cracked down on this type of talk early and are slow to allowing it to start happening again.
The circumstantial evidence both then and now was largely favor of lab leaks. Members of the scientific community with a potential culpability in a lab leak helped silence discourse by framing it as a political issue as opposed to a scientific one, helped by America’s ever so controversial President coming out in support of a lab leak.
With Trump gone and even more time elapsing with no reasonable natural origin of COVID found, a lab leak is back in the mainstream, even though we should’ve been discussing it from the beginning based on circumstantial evidence. It’s plainly evident that allowing these platforms to regulate our speech in this manner is poisonous. But whatever it takes to silence Trump and his ilk, I guess.
Edit: I see I’ve been downvoted for this. I suggest people look at the facts themselves and decide whether a lab leak should’ve ever been dismissed as a crockpot theory.
You can't just point to circumstantial evidence as justification for any theory you want. You are doing the exact same thing here. You have circumstantial evidence of a motive (scientists wanting to avoid culpability) and are taking it as justification that they are guilty of silencing discourse about the lab origin theory. Where is the direct evidence of either the lab origin or malicious silencing of discourse by Western scientists?
I don't think it is unreasonable to wait for direct evidence of guilt before signing off on blaming someone for millions of deaths. That is a heavy accusation that needs to come with a degree of confidence that goes beyond the normal conspiracy theory approach of "just asking questions".
You’re conflating two different things. Peter Daszak’s original statements and articles about COVID and its origins last year led to a significant amount of pressure within the scientific community to not even look for a possible origin involving human error coming from a lab leak. The Lancet letter, being published by one of the most prestigious journals in the world, firmly established that COVID had a natural origin, and the media picked that up as evidence to rail against any possibility of a lab based origin. You can look at many of the articles published in the wake of the Lancet letter discrediting the lab leak, like Vox’s here: https://www.vox.com/2020/4/23/21226484/wuhan-lab-coronavirus... that literally quotes Daszak and Dennis Carroll, another signee of the Lancet letter who directly and without question say a lab leak is preposterous and unlikely. Is that good enough direct evidence for scientists pressuring the global discourse against a lab leak?
Direct evidence of guilt is going to be hard considering the CPC’s reticence to allow an independent investigation, which honestly is another point in my opinion towards a lab leak. But regardless, regardless! When you combine the following facts:
1. There was a lab in Wuhan studying bat-related coronaviruses in gain of function research.
2. The virus was well adapted to humans at the beginning of the pandemic, very uncharacteristic of a zoonotic spillover.
3. The virus had no evidence of a natural origin then and it still doesn’t despite ones being found for MERS and SARS-1 within a few months.
4. Of the first 40 or so cases, not all could be definitively linked to the wet market that the CPC said the virus originated in.
How could we not take a lab leak seriously? All 4 of those facts were true even last year, though 3 was a bit weaker since we’d only had a few months since case 0 and not the year and a half we do now. Our social media platforms should NEVER have been silencing this debate, and it’s absolutely ridiculous that its still even remotely controversial to bring it up. Calling it a conspiracy theory, when the questions I’m asking are profound and grounded in science that’s well agreed upon, does nobody any favors.
Edit:
For those who don’t read my original source, Daszak is the head of an organization EcoHealth Alliance that directly partnered with the WIV to study gain of function using bat-originated coronaviruses.
>Is that good enough direct evidence for scientists pressuring the global discourse against a lab leak?
No, because your accusation wasn't that they simply impacted global discourse. Your accusation was that they maliciously silenced discourse as an effort to avoid their own personal culpability. Where is the evidence for that?
All four facts you list are circumstantial and you even admit that one of them wasn't truly known at the time this theory was first being popularized. To repeat myself, I don't think it is unreasonable to want more than that before leveling these accusations, especially when it is known ahead of time that some people will use your "questions" to support their own political and anti-scientific motives.
My original claim was that the scientists who wrote that letter and went to the press saying it was a natural origin helped frame the debate in a political lens rather than a scientific one. It became politically expedient for many mainstream media outlets to claim the lab leak was a conspiracy theory based on statements made by scientists with clear conflicts of interest, in direct response to a sitting President claiming it was a lab leak. Should Trump have just gone out and said that without presenting a coherent argument? No, but the media shouldn’t have called lab leak discussion the talk of crackpot conspiracy theorists either.
The evidence I listed is so strong that it’s now being seriously considered by many scientists, including Fauci who originally said it was far fetched. Saying its circumstantial to deride its importance is anti-scientific. And I’d clarify that even last year it was remarkable that the incredibly effective Chinese govt couldn’t produce evidence of a biological spillover 4 to 5 months after the first reported cases.
I’m not saying any of these scientists were directly responsible. Was gain of function research irresponsible? Probably, yes. Should these scientists go to prison? Of course not, not without evidence of bad intent. But should we at least have been these discussions last year? Yes! That’s all I’m saying.
Edit: I will point out that there is some serious evidence against Daszak for authoring that Lancet letter and declaring no conflict of interest when his org was partnering with WIV, which was the lab coming under scrutiny. That alone does deserve some serious investigation into why he’d lie about that. Him and any scientists who signed the letter who were also involved with Daszak or WIV.
The strongest fact that you listed was the one that wasn't evident at the time this theory was first popularized. We are talking about what was known in early 2020. The opinion of the scientific community today has changed as our understanding of the facts change. "Well the outbreak happened in the same city as the lab" is not strong evidence and it is reasonable to dismiss a theory that uses that as one if its primary pieces of supporting evidence.
It is perfectly reasonable for the media to put more trust in the word of scientists in comparison to the words of the last President due to the literally thousands of times he has publicly lied for a variety of motives.
>I’m not saying any of these scientists were directly responsible. Was gain of function research irresponsible? Probably, yes. Should these scientists go to prison? Of course not, not without evidence of bad intent. But should we at least have been these discussions last year? Yes! That’s all I’m saying.
You certainly seemed to imply "bad intent" in your original comment when you said the following:
>Members of the scientific community with a potential culpability in a lab leak helped silence discourse by framing it as a political issue as opposed to a scientific one
They are all quite strong of facts. There's an easily explainable origin of the virus, being the lab. If you read the article there is even an explanation about the exact virus this seems to be quite similar to that was discovered in 2013 and sent to WIV. In fact, I would say that an animal origin for the virus being in Wuhan is MORE outrageous in this case if you were to actually look at the natural ranges of bats in China. Bats dont exist in Wuhan. Their natural ranges are in the Southern provinces of China, which makes sense considering that's where SARS originated. Wuhan makes absolutely 0 sense if you're evaluating a natural origin from a scientific perspective.
We have a complete aberration in viral behavior that defines all known facts of how viruses jump from species to species. It's an extraordinary exception that we haven't seen in any other similar virus.
We have no known a natural origin, went over that already.
The strongest fact may actually be the last one. A majority 40 victims could not be in any way linked to the place that the CPC claims the virus had started. That's actually really, really extraordinary. Think about what this means - there's either missing viral victims in the early outbreak (a whole lot of them) or there's transmission vectors we missed. So why should we default to the natural origin as the default explanation and call everything else a conspiracy theory, which you're continuing to do?
So yeah, when you take all 4 of those facts together and try to explain them with a natural origin hypothesis, it just falls apart. If you frame them from the perspective of a lab leak, it's far easier to link them together and explain them.
The mainstream media shouldn't have taken the scientists at face value when their conclusions were baseless! There was even less evidence for a natural origin than a lab leak, but we accepted it as common fact! It's not as if a natural origin is the default explanation we should fall back on when we have no other explanation - we need to have probable cause to declare that and establish anything else as a conspiracy theory that early on. It was irresponsible on the scientists involved and it was irresponsible of the media. And it was even worse for the tech platforms to silence people for daring to talk about this just because Trump said it, and everything Trump says is bad.
Yeah, that statement is still true, by the way. Peter Daszak had a conflict of interest, lied about it, and now it looks like his conclusions were wrong. So, yeah. That's at least one actor with some "bad intent".
Once again, we are talking about what was known at the time and not today. You need to stop using evidence that we know today as support that the theory should have been believed from the start.
>The strongest fact may actually be the last one. A majority 40 victims could not be in any way linked to the place that the CPC claims the virus had started. That's actually really, really extraordinary. Think about what this means - there's either missing viral victims in the early outbreak (a whole lot of them) or there's transmission vectors we missed. So why should we default to the natural origin as the default explanation and call everything else a conspiracy theory, which you're continuing to do?
You are mixing different theories together and the evidence for and against them. You need to keep the specific evidence matched with the specific theory. The lab theory is not "the virus didn't originate in the market". The lab theory is the virus originated in the lab. Therefore victims not being linked to the market is not evidence of the lab theory. How many of the victims are linked to the lab? That would be evidence in support of the lab theory?
>Yeah, that statement is still true, by the way. Peter Daszak had a conflict of interest, lied about it, and now it looks like his conclusions were wrong. So, yeah. That's at least one actor with some "bad intent".
And yet again you are assuming intent not proving intent. Someone being wrong doesn't guarantee that were intentionally wrong. Someone not disclosing a potential conflict doesn't guarantee that a conflict exists and is impacting their behavior.
The only fact that wasn’t known at the time was how long we hadn’t figured out a zoonotic origin for the virus. That’s the only one.
To your second point, if there are things that cant be explained about the theory using available evidence we need to conduct an independent investigation. The CPC is not allowing us to do this. It raises questions as to why.
And to your last point, Daszak directly lied about having no conflict with the research in question, it wasn’t a failure to disclose without prior prerogative. It was a direct lie.
I understand your skepticism and I’m not even saying that WIV was the source. I’m trying to present you an argument that shows it’s just not that outrageous of a thing to raise questions about. We need to be able to have these discussions. The original linked article was about censorship, and I hope you’ll agree that we need to be able to talk about these things without being accused of racism or having an agenda.
I think you've been reading too much left-wing propaganda. Certain groups within the political and media class love calling Tom Cotton and and Mike Pompeo racists, but that doesn't make it true. You can read Tom Cotton's April 21, 2020 op-ed[0] where he says the lab leak was a theory.
If there are other writings or speeches from these 2 people that were talking about the lab leak theory where they were being racist, I would love to see it, but I don't think it exists (I'm happy to be corrected).
Both of those guys were pushing the lab leak theory from almost the very start and months before that press release you linked was written.
Pompeo also got into multiple spats with other diplomats for specifically pushing people to call it the "Wuhan virus" in order to deflect blame towards China. Promotion of terms such as that likely resulted in more racial tension in the US.
I didn't say the theory was only pushed by racists and I'm not going to call someone like Pompeo a racist just for supporting this theory, but he certainly fits in the opportunists category I mentioned in my previous comment. He clearly pushed the theory for political gain not some allegiance to finding the truth.
There's multiple levels of blame to be given. You can say China is responsible for 100% of all deaths, but you can also be critical of the US response and ask how many additional deaths were due to a botched Federal response and a patchwork state-by-state approach.
The fairest characterization would be to say both share some weight. We would expect China to have contained the outbreak to minimize the impact to itself and other nations, but we also expect the US to protect us from foreign viral/bacterial agents as a matter of national security.
I agree with what you are saying here, but it doesn't change the fact that people like Pompeo were clearly trying to shift a greater percentage of the blame from the US to China and the lab origin theory was part of that effort.
I've seen no evidence of increased asian-related racial tensions aside from black people cold-cocking more Asians than usual. I don't think black street criminals are taking their cues from Trump or Mike Pompeo.
Do some research about exactly who is randomly attacking all of these Asians. You'll find that I'm right: it's basically just a huge uptick in black-on-asian violence.
Yea, conspiracy theories are problematic. You can put "may" in any statement and it's technically true, doesn't mean facebook/twitter can't mark it as misleading.
Conspiracy theories sometimes turn out to just be conspiracies. That's why we need to be able to talk about them.
I'm not qualified to say if the lab leak has any credence, but it wouldn't be the first time the powers at be have been wrong. Just look at the classic "WMDs in the Middle East" rhetoric that lead us to war.
I don't think the WMD thing was anyone being wrong; rather it was a deliberate lie to justify a war that was wanted for other reasons.
But agreed in general; I think there's a lot of political opposition on the left to the lab-leak theory, in no small part because Trump pushed so hard to blame the Chinese for the virus while in office. Even if unlikely, a lab leak is far from impossible as a cause, and we should talk about it and explore it until evidence conclusively rules it out.
Obviously problematic is a spectrum. Banning them is problematic too. But yes, conspiracy theories are problematic. They lead to poorly informed decisions such as anti-vac and asian discrimination and anti-semitism.
Some conspiracy theories turn out to be true. Suppressing research into these would also lead to poorly informed decisions. For example, government mass surveillance on the scale revealed by Snowden was considered a conspiracy theory before the proof emerged.
So I would disagree that "conspiracy theories are problematic." Some are problematic, but there are also some that turn out to be extremely important. No progress is made without questioning authority and the status quo.
Needing to have evidence to not have your theory marked as misleading doesn't disincentivize research into conspiracies. It does the opposite. There would be more research into these theories so that their purveyors could say them without being labeled misleading. Anyone would still be able to do their own research under this model too, they would hopefully just know not to blindly believe what they read.
Investigating wrongdoing and backing up findings with evidence is extremely important. Spouting unfounded lies is not.
The bigger problem is when platforms block the content. In this case very few people will hear about the conspiracy theory. So then few will know that this is something worth investigating. This dramatically hinders research into the (potentially true) conspiracy theory.
I have less of a problem with marking things as unfounded if they are actually unfounded. I wouldn't use the term misleading because not all unfounded claims are false. There's still a lot of gray area here. Maybe the person in charge of making those judgements is not a subject matter expert. Or maybe the person making the claim has some additional information that cannot be revealed. (Perhaps they are inside the organization and cannot leak too much or they will be caught.)
I would set the bar for marking things as misleading as requiring evidence to the contrary. I think it is fine to mark things as lacking evidence, as long as that can be established fairly and reliably. I have my doubts that this can be done reliably, but as long as there is no blocking occurring, I think the harm of a mistake is minimized. Anyone claiming to be an impartial subject matter expert capable of making these judgements should provide evidence of that claim.
"the election was rigged" is essentially unfalsifiable. If you stop people from saying it when it isn't true, you'll also inevitably silence people from saying it if it ever becomes true in the future.
To me, the latter is too big a price to pay for the former.
On the 14th of June 2017, a gunman radicalized by Facebook shot a member of Congress, Steve Scalise, after asking about his political affiliation. This actual shooting which actually left Scalise in hospital fighting for his life with serious internal injuries which required multiple life-saving operations did not lead to any of the media hand-wringing about political violence that the storming of the Capitol - where the members of Congress who "feared for their lives" were barracaded securely away from the supposed potential threat, and the only person who got shot was one of the people storming the building - did. Instead, the Democrats and publications like the New York Times pushed a completely false narrative that actually, Scalise and his party were the ones that inspired the shooting of a member of Congress, falsely blaming the shooting of Gabby Giffords on them when in reality that had nothing to do with national partisan politics at all.
This isn't even a "both sides" thing, because I'm pretty sure there isn't any actual equivalent of the attack on Scalise but on the other side. It stands almost entirely alone in recent US political history, a uniquely awful example of America's political polarisation turning into a justification for violence and attempted assassination that came incredibly close to succeeding. (Also, I would be shocked if one of the things that radicalized the attacker wasn't false claims of presidential election rigging, just because they were so utterly pervasive on social media amongst people with his political affiliation back then.)
All the mainstream American media narratives about the dangers of political violence have nothing to do with actual political violence. It's a weapon they use against the political side they oppose and stop caring about or even become apologists for when the side they support is carrying out the violence.
> But do you agree we should stop it when their instrument of voicing said opinion goes from online forum to pitchforks and firearms?
Sure, believing any conspiracy theory is not a justification for breaking the law.
> If so, where do you propose the line exists?
The line is already clearly defined by the law. Ranting on Facebook about conspiracies (true or not) is legal. Nonviolent protests are legal. Storming the Capitol obviously isn't.
> you'll also inevitably silence people from saying it if it ever becomes true in the future.
Clearly not - we know that it is possible for elections to be fraudulent and people can talk about it. We don't yet live in a post-truth society. Evidence counts.
I disagree it's clear that any hypothetical censorship of "conspiracy theories that are false" wouldn't later be used on "conspiracy theories that are true".
There is obviously no clear delineation between these two categories and the censors (ie government or big tech) would be incentivized to bill some instances of the latter category as the former.
I just want extraordinary claims without evidence to be marked as such. If you want to claim the election is rigged you should need some evidence. At that point everyone can make an informed decision about if they believe the claim is true.
Is it misleading to say that the CIA did mind control experiments on US citizens and that it lead to domestic terrorism?
Is it misleading to say that a group of doctors conspired to ensure that black Americans died of a disease they could have cured, just so that they could study their effects?
Because those are conspiracy theories, and they are both true.
The point is they dismissed it out of hand and banned anyone who said otherwise. Btw, liberal news outlets are finally admitting now that the lab leak hypothesis is probably right.
People were banned for falsely asserting it was confirmed to be a lab leak. That's still a false assertion.
I'm not aware of any major news outlet - liberal or otherwise - "finally admitting now that the lab leak hypothesis is probably right" at this point. The WSJ story the other day doesn't come close to that assertion yet.
So people or stories get banned even if they are true for some other reasons. You don't know what those reasons are, and they may change going forward.
> We remove content that shares, offers or solicits personally identifiable information or other private information that could lead to physical or financial harm, including financial, residential and medical information, as well as private information obtained from illegal sources.
That’s simply false. They don’t block stories that doxx people’s private addresses, their policies are enforced unequally and only when it suites their own political agenda, whatever that may be.
Pretending they’re being fair, when you know they’re not is gaslighting.
You may think it’s ok for them to apply their policies unequally, and dishonestly; that’s another discussion, but please don’t act like what they’re doing is fair or honest.
The biggest example of them not blocking doxxing was the implicit help in spreading the Parlar hacked data. I know of fb devs who participated in spreading it.
It can also be very easily argued that the leader of the BLM movement is a public figure and sharing her home address is not doxxing. And I’m sure that argument has been used to allow sharing private info of similar public figures who Facebook’s progressive devs didn’t care for.
Do you have a link to the New York Post story? I didn't see a link in the article you shared, and Facebook's claim was that the NYP story included a person's home address(es).
Funny that no one was banned for saying, as many did, that it was impossible for it to have come from a Chinese lab. Those asymmetries in enforcement always seem to lean in the same direction.
It's a shame you're being downvoted, because you're exactly correct. I heard a lot of rhetoric around it being impossible that it was a lab leak. I thought it pretty unlikely, but claiming that it was impossible is just as misinformative as claiming it 100% was a lab leak.
> People were banned for falsely asserting it was confirmed to be a lab leak
This is such a false spin on what was actually happening. It was only a year ago. It isn't hard to remember. People were banned/downvoted to oblivion for merely suggesting the lab leak was a credible theory, not for claiming it was definitely the 100% truth. Stop gaslighting.
I am having difficulty deconstructing your argument. Is it since you believe that these platforms are suppressing some plausibly truthful content, all content on these platforms / the platforms themselves should be suppressed?
No, it's because the platform policies enforce a foreign social order. In America, we have our own pieties and taboos and these social media platforms heavily enforce them. Transgenderism, homosexuality, racial equality, gender roles, not every country holds American or European views on those, but those are the only views that are fully allowed on American social media platforms.
India has its own social order. Why should it let its online discourse be controlled by the American social order?
GP is defending the possibility of the Indian Government banning Facebook, Twitter & Instagram on the basis that these platforms are "enforcing" some very particular issues that happen to be currently salient in certain American media, and implies that they are counter to India's social order. However, at no point does the linked article make any mention of the Indian Government being concerned about any of these issues nor social order in general, so asking GP about their thoughts on the current social order in India, which is purportedly being "controlled" by these American platforms, is very relevant.
This is because fake news being published by the ruling government is being tagged as manipulated media. Calls to violence by the ruling government is also being removed. Pseudoscience covid19 cires by folks from and associated with the ruling party are also being tagged.
Do you just have to rant about the (unfounded and largely rejected by the scientific community) claim about covid lab leaks to get defense of internet censorship by an increasingly authoritarian Indian government upvoted to the top of hackernews? What the hell is going on
The problem here is that banning those platforms (but not whatsapp for some reason?) will not increase the amount of discussion and information available to the people of India.
Except the evidence that the virus came from a lab leak is provided by the American government, the arguments are constructed by Americans, and the news leaked and propagated by the American press and American social media networks.
The other side of the debate use the same American tools.
This is more a civil war in American discourse between the liberals and conservatives than anything else.
1) in this specific case, it seems to be part of India suppressing information, and IMO India's suppression is a much larger issue than Facebook/Twitter/Instagram propagating controlled information (their suppression is different because there are other sites, vs. India cracks down on those other sites).
2) in the more general case, banning Facebook/Twitter/Instagram is controversial and there are more moderate approaches which are at least more practical. For example, you can better educate the public, or convince them to join your own site. It would be hard, sure, but forcing the public to quit Facebook/Twitter/Instagram without full-out rioting would be harder. Heck, you can "teach" children in schools that those sites are bad and the information there is wrong - I'm not arguing you should actually do that, but it would seriously threaten them while technically preserving free speech.
If you aren't actually arguing for a full-scale ban (it was implied), then I 100% agree with what you said.
---
Anyways, the main point of the above comment is to show that I'm glad such a great opinion is not only posted but it was top comment (unfortunately not anymore). It took me a long time to actually find a good argument against it even though it intuitively seemed so "wrong". I really wish this was more common on forums.
Except in cases where they somewhat dysfunctional systems of FB and US are considerably more rational and functional than the local systems, which is unfortunately very often the case.
I think we should stop asserting that what we perceive to be the right view is the right one for all. I am quite sure the local people there are not wishing for someone from outside to come and save them. This comment sounds a bit tone deaf.
"I think we should stop asserting that what we perceive to be the right view is the right one for all."
Nobody is asserting that, or even hinting at it. You have to have the most sensitive, assumptive and skeptical, upside reading of that to suggest that 'Having Facebook Available' as some kind of statement in support of 'One Truth'.
Modi's government is one of the most corrupt and dysfunctional in thew world and becoming excessively authoritarian.
Facebook, with it's obvious shortcomings, is one reasonably managed voice among many.
On the whole, having a fairly open Facebook is considerably better than having a Completely Corrupt Modi Facebook.
Facebook is not a tool or organ of the US and is not an organ of US state propaganda.
While some of the 'New Rules' seem reasonable, others definitely do not, and have authoritarian implications [1] including direct government oversight over some forms of content.
" I am quite sure the local people there are not wishing for someone from outside to come and save them."
I'm pretty sure that people would like access to critical information wherever they are.
I don't use FB, I don't care about it, but I would go to my first protest ever if my government tried to politicize it.
India is an incredibly diverse country; "local people" isn't a meaningful term. As an Indian, I agree with the parent comment that Facebook and Twitter work well in comparison to local systems. Pointing this out isn't tone deaf in the least.
This comment and others on this thread are downright bizarre. It seems some get a perverse pleasure from seeing this ban happen in India, perhaps as a result of anger against what the platforms do in America. I’ve only ever seen this attitude on HN threads about China. It’s a little scary as an Indian to see people bring this rhetoric to India, as if clamping down on the free exchange of information is laudable.
This ban isn’t because of some noble notions of protecting the public discourse. To the contrary, it seems the intention is to suppress it. It’s no secret that the Modi government is irked by criticisms of it on Twitter; it attempted to censor hundreds of tweets critical of its handling of the pandemic. Whatever the government may claim as its reasons for the (currently hypothetical) ban, it seems awfully convenient that it gets to remove the platforms which so many use to voice dissent.
One of the benefits of social media platforms is that they insulate dissenters through anonymity, and the law precipitating this ban also threatens to undermine this power by making these platforms responsible for tracing the originators of information it deems unacceptable. This is not a country where you want the government to have this power. To give you an example of what could go wrong, people in Uttar Pradesh (an Indian state) have been harassed by cops just for asking for oxygen on Twitter and Instagram for their relatives dying of COVID-19. This was because the state government wanted to cover up oxygen shortages. You can just about expect that through this law, the government will be able to find and punish those spreading what it considers wrongthink.
To your point, Indian public discourse is hardly "controlled by the moral pieties of the American elite class." Although there are in absolute numbers millions of Indians on these platforms, they are hardly a blip in the Indian population. Further, millions of Indians including myself also espouse Western values and subscribe to the “American social order” that comments in this thread implicitly refer to. Given that India is a free country, it isn’t for the government to decide whether this is good or bad, any more than the government should be able to decide which god I should worship or which school my kids should go to. India is already a massively heterogeneous country; no Indian is being forced to buy into “the moral pieties of the American elite class,” since these social media networks are strictly optional. But banning them will force people who believe similar things to find alternate places to express them, likely local alternatives where their views will be penalized. Personally, I use Twitter and Instagram to engage with people from around the world, and this will effectively restrict my ability to communicate with many of them.
You can read more about the chilling effects of these laws in this post [1] by the Internet Freedom Foundation, an Indian nonprofit. (One interesting byproduct of the fact that these laws require originators of information to be traceable is that they effectively constitute a ban on encryption, which I’m sure HN can appreciate is Not Good And Also Very Bad.) I don't expect that these laws will stand, since the reasoning behind them seems blatantly unconstitutional and contrary to the Indian constitution's protections for privacy and free expression.
I don't agree with some points mentioned by the IFF org, Couple listed as example, I still think banning them would be a bad step.
> Significant SMIs must enable automated tools (basically AI tech) to identify + take down child sexual abuse material. This can lead to function creep - extreme tech measures contemplated for a limited and serious use will start being utilized for other issues.
How else would you take it down. Hire people to sift through messages? Don't companies already do this using? Are these companies limited now by anything from using these measures given their finances and scale?
> SM platforms don't generate content - you do. They are simply intermediaries who host it. This distinction helps them avoid liability for your content.
True, then why would SM butt in as arbitrator of truth.
Heartened to see this at the top. I was expecting to see something like “Gasp! Modi is as bad as the Netanyahu/Hitler!” It’s almost as the rest of the world are not interested in being inundated with the Californian Elite’s warped ideas/ideological doctrine. As an American, it’s obvious now we are a declining power, and one can’t ignore how tech giants have accelerated that. Sensible countries, like India, are right to reject Facebook’s influence (and no, although many will disagree, this is not proof that India is a failed democracy/nazi state).
This comment misunderstands the motivation for this ban. It isn't to avoid "being inundated with the Californian Elite's warped ideas/ideological doctrine." It seems more in line with the Modi government's attempts to clamp down on dissent in India. For instance, it's been censoring tweets critical of its handling of the pandemic.
Besides, free expression is protected by the Indian constitution, so it's hardly for the government to decide whether Indians buy into "the Californian Elite's warped ideas."
All other points aside, do you think Facebook constitutes free expression? Because, it looks like to me that it's a place where censorship is rampant and executives select regimes or political parties to back and affect sentiment on. "But, free speech..." does not at all seem to be an adequate response to me.
I don’t think Facebook constitutes free expression. Ideally, I’d like to see a decentralized protocol which Facebook, Twitter, and even Parler can build off of.
But while Facebook does not constitute “true” free expression, it does allow a very large number of people to voice their opinions that will lose their voice in its absence.
And Facebook will choose which of those voices get to be heard more often than others. And I wonder if the people steering the algorithms are or are not overwhelmingly against Modi (they hate him). So really, this issue does not look that cut and dry to me. There are many confounding issues here that should be addressed, but countries frankly should defend themselves against Facebook.
Sorry, I know John Oliver et al informed me I must hate them, but I like both of them. I can only give you a list of great things that they've both done. Would that suffice?
Violence is wrong. At the same time, actions have consequences. Perhaps the Israelis should have been worrying about the diaspora when they were lynching Palestinians in the street.
Then my apologies, although Israel is an apartheid state just as much as the US is a "Nazi state" with "concentration camps". Makes total sense to a certain group of super bright people.
Yes, it's the first working implementation before good boundaries are not yet known. After a while it becomes familiar and natural conceptual boundaries arise that leads to 'factoring' and shouldn't require 'refactoring' because you prematurely guessed the wrong boundaries.
I'm all for the 100-200 line working version--can't say I've had a 500. I did once have a single SQL query that was about 2 full pages pushing the limits of DB2 (needed multiple PTFs just to execute it)--the size was largely from heuristic scope reductions. In the end, it did something in about 3 minutes that had no previous solution.
Since Bitwarden is end-to-end encrypted, the risk isn't who hosts the data but who controls chrome extension and App Store updates. Bitwarden's servers being compromised would cause you no harm except data loss, but a malicious client update could steal all of your passwords.
Some people are not self-driven but can still do good work if subjected to stronger authority. It's ultimately a business decision as to whether it's worth providing that kind of authority.
But note that to the extent that someone suffers from ADHD and just needs a stronger hand from their manager as an accommodation in order to be productive, you might be legally required to give it to them.
I believe what you're saying amounts of effective leadership.
I feel there's a very LARGE and DISTINCT difference between effective management and micromanagement. The article's points show that when dealing with a micromanager, you're dealing with a narcissist. Nothing the employee does is right; the manager's path forward is likely not even possible; and, most importantly, only the manager feels they themselves can do it correctly.
When a team is underperforming, there are ways to help out which do not amount to nitpicks and providing poor direction. Offering very direct support and feedback is NOT micromanagement.
If you’re having to go through item by item to give direct support, and explicit feedback for literally everything the person is doing - I’d consider that micromanagement if done to me, no matter who was doing it or why.
I think most people would consider that the case. There is also the trope of the ‘micromanager’ who is the insecure ‘I asked 5 minutes ago, why isn’t it done exactly right already’ type. They might be narcissists, but I’ve seen plenty who weren’t - insecurity always plays a huge part, and seems correlated with workaholism too. They micromanage everyone.
It’s entirely possible to be micromanaged by someone due to something you’re doing, and by someone who isn’t a micromanager or prone to micromanaging. They’ll hate it, but they have reasons why specifically they are doing it with you that may suck to hear, but probably have some grounding in reality. I’ve been on both sides of this and it sucks on both sides.
It’s also possible to work for someone that micromanages everyone because that’s who they are.
Yes, it does. This is exactly how you pick holes at research. What factors didn't it look at? That helps us understand the limits of what we can deduce from the data. Can we think of an intuitive story about why those factors might have a causal relationship to the thing being measured? If so, we have especially good reason to be skeptical of any conclusions from the study that don't address that possible explanation.
Somewhere in the last couple of decades, the SCIENCE WORKS, BITCHES people seem to have forgotten how real science is actually done. Intuition, anecdote, common sense, hunches are very important parts of the process.
Science works that way in the minds of scientists, whose vast experience gives them dozens of actual data studies they've read to speculate from. Researchers have read about thousands of cases, they're the ones with the refined intuition, not forum readers.
Specifically: Is it productive for HN users to have anecdotal evidence rise to the top, or actual peer-reviewed evidence from studies with N=100 or N=10,000? I'd argue if layman HN users have time to read only one comment, we should upvote the N>1 comments, not N=1.
From the guidelines: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
We went from an international article (N=745k) to anecdata, which is a downgrade of substance in my view.
There is nothing in the laws of this country that makes an employee/manager sexual relationship a criminal offense. There is no criminal law against "sexual harassment," which exists as a legal concept only for purposes of employment discrimination lawsuits. The only legal consequence of a manager/employee relationship is that the employee can easily turn around and sue the company for sexual harassment or wrongful termination by convincing a jury that something more happened, e.g. that the manager conditioned promotion on sex, fired the employee for ending the relationship, etc.
If you know that is a high risk scenario then the company’s legal advisors should put rules and enforcement in place to forbid such relationships and thereby transfer liability to offending employees.
There is no individual liability for sexual harassment in the US, only for employers. Anyway, my point was just to respond to someone claiming there was criminal liability.
Only Rebekah Jones, who left her last three jobs with criminal charges, has claimed that. None of her claims have ever been substantiated by a single legit source.
Only followers of fringe left wing Twitter believe any of that.
