12 ms·

Disclaimer: am googler, my opinions are my own. I have no non-public knowledge on this topic. It's not clear to me what the House committee is asking for. Fro

Disclaimer: am googler, my opinions are my own. I have no non-public knowledge on this topic. It's not clear to me what the House committee is asking for. From what I read in their letters it's basically, "We think you have more than you've given us, so give it to us". That's not how this works. If you want to subpoena information, you need to be specific and targeted. If you don't get what you think you want, call people in to testify. Here's the actual Committee release [1]. Two quotes from the Alphabet letter: "For example, Alphabet has not produced any documents that fully explain non-public moderation discussions and policies" "Additionally, Alphabet has not produced documents relating to YouTube’s policy decisions" But, IIRC, YouTube (and Twitter) were pretty publicly vocal and specific about their policies for months preceding Jan 6th. I just don't see what warrants this round of grandstanding. [1] https://january6th.house.gov/news/press-releases/select-committee-subpoenas-social-media-companies-records-related-january-6th https://january6th.house.gov/news/press-releases/select-comm...

creaghpatr 5y ago
The press release is the endgame here.
kerneloftruth 5y ago
I think they're also sending a message: Censor more! (because the mid-terms are coming).
- satronaut 5y ago
  - etataetaet 5y ago
    Almost no one (~5%) agree with lawmakers being able to trade stocks. This is one of the few things that basically all Americans agree on. https://thehill.com/homenews/news/588630-76-percent-of-voters-support-banning-lawmakers-from-trading-stocks-poll https://thehill.com/homenews/news/588630-76-percent-of-voter...
    - jimbob45 5y ago
      I want to be clear on this. We do want our lawmakers to be able to trade stocks. Lawmakers should be able to invest in the country they claim to serve. What we don't want is for them to trade stocks in a free and opaque manner. Lawmakers should ideally follow the rules of Silicon Valley where all trades must be irrevocably begun 6-18 months in advance with full public disclosure. That way, insider information can't realistically be used well. Furthermore, these rules should apply to each member of the lawmaker's immediate family.
    - hammock 5y ago
      Voter ID is another one of those issues many don't want you to know that most Americans agree on: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/06/21/80-of-americans-support-voter-id-rules-but-fewer-worried-about-fraud-poll-finds/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/06/21/80-of-a...
  - mindslight 5y ago
    I don't understand how it's possible for anyone to believe this "Biden caused inflation" nonsense. Do you really think that inflation occurs immediately? And if it does happen so quickly, couldn't it be undone just as easily? The current price inflation is the result of all that monetary inflation of March 2020 finally hitting the wider market. The new money was injected mainly into the banking sector and took over a year to fully cause asset inflation - this was its goal, to keep Wall St's Potemkin village running happily during the Covid recession. Only now is it being fully "invested" into real goods and services and distorting prices in the consumer market. How is this hard to understand?
    - satronaut 5y ago
      - mindslight 5y ago
        In general I wholeheartedly agree about all of the media twisting facts to suit narratives. But regardless of the noisy channels through which we get information, we can still reason in terms of objective theories and provable facts. If there is a straightforward explanation (as opposed to just different unsubstantiated claims being repeated within a different filter bubble), then surely you can explain it in several lines here. For context, I'm a libertarian who subscribes to Austrian economics.
b112 5y ago
The very language states they are looking for non-public moderation policies, so by very definition, your stated vocality does not apply. There is no way the full scope, procedures, code, algos, and more are public for all moderation methods and channels. I suspect people are hoping trade secret law will protect, but I think the House wants to see regardless! To be frank, no matter what side of the political spectrum, we're in very, very deep trouble here. Our very democracies are at risk, and the manipulation by media, and enemies of our democracies will only get worse and worse. Hell, even manipulation by members of our democracies, from special interest groups, political parties, to even just nutbars, what we've seen so far, has shown us that people will buy into anything, if it's all they hear. Our civilization, our world, will live or die by how we all get a handle on misinformation. And while I embrace democracy, and capitalism, I couldn't care one bit of the required fix tanks Google, Facebook, Twitter and more. Quite literally, everything is at stake here.
hammock 5y ago
>It's not clear to me what the House committee is asking for. They are asking for TV time
- _fat_santa 5y ago
  Yep. Have a regular committee hearing, you get a few outlets to report on it. Haul in the CEO's of these companies to testify and you've got a news media event for days. I'm sure there is some actual substance to these hearings and there most likely is info that they want to learn. But at this point I will say the whole thing around Jan 6 is 10% substance and 90% media theater.
lapsedacademic 5y ago
> If you want to subpoena information, you need to be specific and targeted On one hand, a congressional subpoena for "non-public moderation discussions and policies" is broad. On the other hand, there is certainly some version of that request that is within reasonable scope for a subpoena. In the hypothetical world where passing legislation in the US were still possible and Congress was capable of regulating Big Tech (e.g. changing Section 230 or so on), this is exactly the sort of thing a Congressional Subpoena would make sense for, since there would be a germane policy making interest in obtaining this information. > I just don't see what warrants this round of grandstanding. The paradox of Big Tech: everyone hates Big Tech because they think their political adversaries control Big Tech. The Left views Big Tech as monopolies controlled by techno-libertarian ultra-billionaires. The Right views Big Tech as Democrat companies controlled by radical leftist censors. (As an aside: in a sense, both views have a kernel of truth. Big Tech employees skew left, especially on social issues, although not nearly as homogeneously as the right seems to think and individual FAANG employees have far less power than people seem to imagine. On the other hand, the leadership of these companies are definitely not natural allies of progressives, but are also not -- AFAICT -- nearly as villainous as the left seems to think.) But the real thing that both have in common is conspiratorial brain candy with Big Tech as the modern stand-in for Illuminati or whatever.
- choward 5y ago
  > The paradox of Big Tech: everyone hates Big Tech because they think their political adversaries control Big Tech. > The Left views Big Tech as monopolies controlled by techno-libertarian ultra-billionaires. The Right views Big Tech as Democrat companies controlled by radical leftist censors. I guess it's only a paradox if you are partisan and think there are only two types of people. I don't consider myself left or right and big tech is definitely an adversary to me and my beliefs.
  - lapsedacademic 5y ago
    The observation isn't that opposition to big tech is always irrational or partisan. The observation is that Big Tech plays the role of Powerful Boogeyman for both the left and the right in polarizing narrative construction. Ofc non-partisans can also dislike big tech, and partisans can dislike big tech for rational reasons. Neither of those is inconsistent with the above observation.
choward 5y ago
> If you want to subpoena information, you need to be specific and targeted. Did you see what happened when they asked specific and targeted questions to the FBI? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DZQRetozhSY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DZQRetozhSY If the FBI won't even answer basic questions why should companies have to give have random arbitrary data that probably won't help with the investigation? This January 6th committee is a complete joke and nothing but theater.

creaghpatr 5y ago

The press release is the endgame here.

kerneloftruth 5y ago

I think they're also sending a message: Censor more! (because the mid-terms are coming).

satronaut 5y ago
- etataetaet 5y ago
  Almost no one (~5%) agree with lawmakers being able to trade stocks. This is one of the few things that basically all Americans agree on. https://thehill.com/homenews/news/588630-76-percent-of-voters-support-banning-lawmakers-from-trading-stocks-poll https://thehill.com/homenews/news/588630-76-percent-of-voter...
  - jimbob45 5y ago
    I want to be clear on this. We do want our lawmakers to be able to trade stocks. Lawmakers should be able to invest in the country they claim to serve. What we don't want is for them to trade stocks in a free and opaque manner. Lawmakers should ideally follow the rules of Silicon Valley where all trades must be irrevocably begun 6-18 months in advance with full public disclosure. That way, insider information can't realistically be used well. Furthermore, these rules should apply to each member of the lawmaker's immediate family.
  - hammock 5y ago
    Voter ID is another one of those issues many don't want you to know that most Americans agree on: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/06/21/80-of-americans-support-voter-id-rules-but-fewer-worried-about-fraud-poll-finds/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/06/21/80-of-a...
- mindslight 5y ago
  I don't understand how it's possible for anyone to believe this "Biden caused inflation" nonsense. Do you really think that inflation occurs immediately? And if it does happen so quickly, couldn't it be undone just as easily? The current price inflation is the result of all that monetary inflation of March 2020 finally hitting the wider market. The new money was injected mainly into the banking sector and took over a year to fully cause asset inflation - this was its goal, to keep Wall St's Potemkin village running happily during the Covid recession. Only now is it being fully "invested" into real goods and services and distorting prices in the consumer market. How is this hard to understand?
  - satronaut 5y ago
    - mindslight 5y ago
      In general I wholeheartedly agree about all of the media twisting facts to suit narratives. But regardless of the noisy channels through which we get information, we can still reason in terms of objective theories and provable facts. If there is a straightforward explanation (as opposed to just different unsubstantiated claims being repeated within a different filter bubble), then surely you can explain it in several lines here. For context, I'm a libertarian who subscribes to Austrian economics.

b112 5y ago

The very language states they are looking for non-public moderation policies, so by very definition, your stated vocality does not apply. There is no way the full scope, procedures, code, algos, and more are public for all moderation methods and channels. I suspect people are hoping trade secret law will protect, but I think the House wants to see regardless! To be frank, no matter what side of the political spectrum, we're in very, very deep trouble here. Our very democracies are at risk, and the manipulation by media, and enemies of our democracies will only get worse and worse. Hell, even manipulation by members of our democracies, from special interest groups, political parties, to even just nutbars, what we've seen so far, has shown us that people will buy into anything, if it's all they hear. Our civilization, our world, will live or die by how we all get a handle on misinformation. And while I embrace democracy, and capitalism, I couldn't care one bit of the required fix tanks Google, Facebook, Twitter and more. Quite literally, everything is at stake here.

hammock 5y ago

>It's not clear to me what the House committee is asking for. They are asking for TV time

_fat_santa 5y ago
Yep. Have a regular committee hearing, you get a few outlets to report on it. Haul in the CEO's of these companies to testify and you've got a news media event for days. I'm sure there is some actual substance to these hearings and there most likely is info that they want to learn. But at this point I will say the whole thing around Jan 6 is 10% substance and 90% media theater.

lapsedacademic 5y ago

> If you want to subpoena information, you need to be specific and targeted On one hand, a congressional subpoena for "non-public moderation discussions and policies" is broad. On the other hand, there is certainly some version of that request that is within reasonable scope for a subpoena. In the hypothetical world where passing legislation in the US were still possible and Congress was capable of regulating Big Tech (e.g. changing Section 230 or so on), this is exactly the sort of thing a Congressional Subpoena would make sense for, since there would be a germane policy making interest in obtaining this information. > I just don't see what warrants this round of grandstanding. The paradox of Big Tech: everyone hates Big Tech because they think their political adversaries control Big Tech. The Left views Big Tech as monopolies controlled by techno-libertarian ultra-billionaires. The Right views Big Tech as Democrat companies controlled by radical leftist censors. (As an aside: in a sense, both views have a kernel of truth. Big Tech employees skew left, especially on social issues, although not nearly as homogeneously as the right seems to think and individual FAANG employees have far less power than people seem to imagine. On the other hand, the leadership of these companies are definitely not natural allies of progressives, but are also not -- AFAICT -- nearly as villainous as the left seems to think.) But the real thing that both have in common is conspiratorial brain candy with Big Tech as the modern stand-in for Illuminati or whatever.

choward 5y ago
> The paradox of Big Tech: everyone hates Big Tech because they think their political adversaries control Big Tech. > The Left views Big Tech as monopolies controlled by techno-libertarian ultra-billionaires. The Right views Big Tech as Democrat companies controlled by radical leftist censors. I guess it's only a paradox if you are partisan and think there are only two types of people. I don't consider myself left or right and big tech is definitely an adversary to me and my beliefs.
- lapsedacademic 5y ago
  The observation isn't that opposition to big tech is always irrational or partisan. The observation is that Big Tech plays the role of Powerful Boogeyman for both the left and the right in polarizing narrative construction. Ofc non-partisans can also dislike big tech, and partisans can dislike big tech for rational reasons. Neither of those is inconsistent with the above observation.

choward 5y ago

> If you want to subpoena information, you need to be specific and targeted. Did you see what happened when they asked specific and targeted questions to the FBI? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DZQRetozhSY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DZQRetozhSY If the FBI won't even answer basic questions why should companies have to give have random arbitrary data that probably won't help with the investigation? This January 6th committee is a complete joke and nothing but theater.