Three Strategies For Dismantling Digital Totalitarianism In America

[NightHawkeye]

From the "Power corrupts", files: Three Strategies For Dismantling Digital Totalitarianism In America

In our divided nation, there is a rare consensus from both the left and the right: some of our technology companies have become too powerful.
...
1. Breaking Up Big Tech
First, the U.S. government should break up tech companies that have near-monopoly power.
...
Since there is practically no escape from Google’s control in the current setting, breaking it up is the only way to foster competition, empower consumer choices, and preserve the free exchange of ideas necessary to sustain a constitutional republic. CNBC’s Jim Creamer said breaking up Google will bring more value to the company’s shareholders because the sum of parts is worth more than the company’s current valuation as a whole. Breaking up Google seems to be a win-win for all.

2. Re-evaluate Section 230 Immunity
The second action we should take is for the U.S. Congress to make big tech firms earn their Section 230 immunity.
...
There is no doubt that the shield of Section 230 has fostered the incredible growth of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other such companies. Today, they are the most powerful media companies in the world.
...
Hawley introduced an Ending Internet Censorship bill, which will let small to medium-sized internet firms continue to enjoy immunity. But large internet firms will have to earn Section 230 immunity by proving their algorithms and content removal practices are “politically neutral” to auditors at the Federal Trade Commission every two years. This bill provides the most practical and least harmful way to address political censorship by big tech, without repealing Section 230. The bill has generated bipartisan support.

3. Insist On Openness From Tech Companies
Last but not least, we should demand transparency from these companies. If Twitter and companies alike say they must block a post for violating their standards, they should at least be transparent about what standards they adhere to.
...
In the Merriam-Webster case, one way to add some transparency in the future is to require the site to always include time and date when a change is made, and an explanation of why the change is made, next to the word so future readers will have a clear understanding.

Time is running out. If Americans want to protect the free flow and exchange of ideas and dismantle digital totalitarianism in our country, we must act now.​

 

[chevyontheriver]

From the "Power corrupts", files: Three Strategies For Dismantling Digital Totalitarianism In America

In our divided nation, there is a rare consensus from both the left and the right: some of our technology companies have become too powerful.
...
1. Breaking Up Big Tech
First, the U.S. government should break up tech companies that have near-monopoly power.
...
Since there is practically no escape from Google’s control in the current setting, breaking it up is the only way to foster competition, empower consumer choices, and preserve the free exchange of ideas necessary to sustain a constitutional republic. CNBC’s Jim Creamer said breaking up Google will bring more value to the company’s shareholders because the sum of parts is worth more than the company’s current valuation as a whole. Breaking up Google seems to be a win-win for all.

2. Re-evaluate Section 230 Immunity
The second action we should take is for the U.S. Congress to make big tech firms earn their Section 230 immunity.
...
There is no doubt that the shield of Section 230 has fostered the incredible growth of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other such companies. Today, they are the most powerful media companies in the world.
...
Hawley introduced an Ending Internet Censorship bill, which will let small to medium-sized internet firms continue to enjoy immunity. But large internet firms will have to earn Section 230 immunity by proving their algorithms and content removal practices are “politically neutral” to auditors at the Federal Trade Commission every two years. This bill provides the most practical and least harmful way to address political censorship by big tech, without repealing Section 230. The bill has generated bipartisan support.

3. Insist On Openness From Tech Companies
Last but not least, we should demand transparency from these companies. If Twitter and companies alike say they must block a post for violating their standards, they should at least be transparent about what standards they adhere to.
...
In the Merriam-Webster case, one way to add some transparency in the future is to require the site to always include time and date when a change is made, and an explanation of why the change is made, next to the word so future readers will have a clear understanding.

Time is running out. If Americans want to protect the free flow and exchange of ideas and dismantle digital totalitarianism in our country, we must act now.​

I fear time has run out already. George Orwell warned us.

 

[Fantine]

It seems as though the problem is that they call a lie a lie. I don't see what's wrong with that. If their sites became cesspools for misinformation they would lose subscribers and followers.

It seems interesting that conservatives are so upset about their calling lies lies that they are willing to do things that might hurt the stock market or the value of their investments to do that. Hmmm....

 

[Arc F1]

It seems as though the problem is that they call a lie a lie. I don't see what's wrong with that. If their sites became cesspools for misinformation they would lose subscribers and followers.

It seems interesting that conservatives are so upset about their calling lies lies that they are willing to do things that might hurt the stock market or the value of their investments to do that. Hmmm....

If they will do it for you they will do it to you. Eventually left unchecked the tide will turn and conservatives will be doing the censoring. Myself I would like to see these big companies go back to the mentality that got them to the top. They all grew by providing a service to everyone not just one political group.

 

[Fantine]

You don't think conservatives are doing the censoring?

Trump tries to do that by promoting the idea that news is "fake." And why does he do that? Because they expose the fact that HE is fake.

The NY Times devotes hundreds of pages to exhaustively exposing his financial facts because they are patriotic. They know that a man who owes $430 million to foreign sources can be a huge national security risk who imperils our country.

So what does Trump say? Fake news, the "real" news is Carlson and Hannity and their politics of disinformation.

 

[chevyontheriver]

You don't think conservatives are doing the censoring?

You think liberals aren't censoring?

But the issue is the Orwellian nature of big tech companies who now have the means and the will to control the flow of information. They ARE doing it. You may happily conclude they are looking out for your interests if you want to. But will they always?

 

[Kentonio]

Sure, let's trust a government that went through their own websites to scrub out any mention of topics they don't like (chiefly climate change) to determine what kinds of censorship are allowed by big tech.

Yeah, but no.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Sure, let's trust a government that went through their own websites to scrub out any mention of topics they don't like (chiefly climate change) to determine what kinds of censorship are allowed by big tech.

Yeah, but no.

Then let's all just happily accept that we are going to be censored and get on with our lives?

 

[Triumvirate]

It seems as though the problem is that they call a lie a lie. I don't see what's wrong with that. If their sites became cesspools for misinformation they would lose subscribers and followers.

It seems interesting that conservatives are so upset about their calling lies lies that they are willing to do things that might hurt the stock market or the value of their investments to do that. Hmmm....

This.

I see Orwell has already been mentioned once already, so may as well do a quick bit of analysis on the inevitably approaching 1984 references.

1984 is a case for free and democratic expression. It is also a warning about what happens when government wilfully embraces lies.

1984 is not a case for carte blanche to spread lies and misinfo all over people's timelines in the name of "freedom of speech", not least when said lies and misinfo are a government line. Those insisting you believe and affirm as they do that 2+2=5 - they're the dictators.

 

[Triumvirate]

Also lol, I wonder how many people clamouring for this also whinge about "big government" on the regular

 

[Kentonio]

Then let's all just happily accept that we are going to be censored and get on with our lives?

Or you could maybe consider the crazy idea of just not using their companies product and using someone elses instead? Complaining about social media censoring you makes about as much sense as complaining about CF censoring you. If you don't like how they do things, there's countless alternatives out there.

 

[Triumvirate]

Or you could maybe consider the crazy idea of just not using their companies product and using someone elses instead? Complaining about social media censoring you makes about as much sense as complaining about CF censoring you. If you don't like how they do things, there's countless alternatives out there.

Hm, I wonder if changes to section 230 would apply here at CF too?

That would be pretty hilarious

I also look forward to the impending leftie raid on the unsurprisingly hugely censorious Parler if these legislative changes are made

 

[Vylo]

No matter our stances on #2 and #3 on that list, I would like to think that #1 is becoming a pressing concern for everyone. TV media is essentially down to 6 companies. The internet might as well be run by google, microsoft, Twitter and facebook. Even if you aren't using all of those, everyone is using at least 1, usually 2 or 3.

 

[durangodawood]

You think liberals aren't censoring?

But the issue is the Orwellian nature of big tech companies who now have the means and the will to control the flow of information. They ARE doing it. You may happily conclude they are looking out for your interests if you want to. But will they always?

Breaking up big tech seems to fly right in the face of the free market principle of govt non interference.

Essentially my libertarian-right people view theses problems as a temporary price we pay for liberty.

 

[KCfromNC]

From the "Power corrupts", files: Three Strategies For Dismantling Digital Totalitarianism In America

In our divided nation, there is a rare consensus from both the left and the right: some of our technology companies have become too powerful.
...
1. Breaking Up Big Tech
First, the U.S. government should break up tech companies that have near-monopoly power.
...
Since there is practically no escape from Google’s control in the current setting, breaking it up is the only way to foster competition, empower consumer choices, and preserve the free exchange of ideas necessary to sustain a constitutional republic. CNBC’s Jim Creamer said breaking up Google will bring more value to the company’s shareholders because the sum of parts is worth more than the company’s current valuation as a whole. Breaking up Google seems to be a win-win for all.

2. Re-evaluate Section 230 Immunity
The second action we should take is for the U.S. Congress to make big tech firms earn their Section 230 immunity.
...
There is no doubt that the shield of Section 230 has fostered the incredible growth of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other such companies. Today, they are the most powerful media companies in the world.
...
Hawley introduced an Ending Internet Censorship bill, which will let small to medium-sized internet firms continue to enjoy immunity. But large internet firms will have to earn Section 230 immunity by proving their algorithms and content removal practices are “politically neutral” to auditors at the Federal Trade Commission every two years. This bill provides the most practical and least harmful way to address political censorship by big tech, without repealing Section 230. The bill has generated bipartisan support.

3. Insist On Openness From Tech Companies
Last but not least, we should demand transparency from these companies. If Twitter and companies alike say they must block a post for violating their standards, they should at least be transparent about what standards they adhere to.
...
In the Merriam-Webster case, one way to add some transparency in the future is to require the site to always include time and date when a change is made, and an explanation of why the change is made, next to the word so future readers will have a clear understanding.

Time is running out. If Americans want to protect the free flow and exchange of ideas and dismantle digital totalitarianism in our country, we must act now.​

If I didn't know better, this sure reads like someone who is scared that large social media platforms are fact checking deliberate misinformation. I wonder which groups would be most worried about that?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Breaking up big tech seems to fly right in the face of the free market principle of govt non interference.

Essentially my libertarian-right people view theses problems as a temporary price we pay for liberty.

Huge companies ought to be broken up anyhow. Big car companies, big tech companies, big cereal companies. It's one of a very few jobs government ought to be doing.

 

[variant]

Breaking up big tech seems to fly right in the face of the free market principle of govt non interference.

Essentially my libertarian-right people view theses problems as a temporary price we pay for liberty.

It's highly ironic that republicans are now worried about either large corporations abusing their place in American society or massive media corporations trying to editorialize. In every other instance they cheer these things.

 

[OddityCrisis]

It seems as though the problem is that they call a lie a lie. I don't see what's wrong with that. If their sites became cesspools for misinformation they would lose subscribers and followers.

It seems interesting that conservatives are so upset about their calling lies lies that they are willing to do things that might hurt the stock market or the value of their investments to do that. Hmmm....

A Ministry of Truth. That'll never get abused.

 

[KCfromNC]

It's highly ironic that republicans are now worried about either large corporations abusing their place in American society or massive media corporations trying to editorialize. In every other instance they cheer these things.

Let's see how interested they are if the proposal starts to include breaking up the most popular cable news network.