Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship” • Hacker News Board

Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”

#51

Post by zaroth » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 4:36 AM UTC

wstrange wrote: post #15

The presentation seems quite balanced. Probably not the spin that Breitbart was hoping for.

Brietbart found quite a lot to take issue with in this presentation, if you care to read their article. Some of the points you might even agree with, or lead you to take greater pause when a company like Google starts down the path of censorship.

Weighting results toward “authoritative voices”, delisting results which could damage their advertising revenue, or as they claimed in the infamous all-hands meeting, bending the curve of political discourse in the country to suit their personal world view.

Given the power inherent in Google’s near-monopoly on search, I’m personally a lot more critical of potential political or editorial influences over Google’s methods for listing, ranking, and delisting content.

Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”

#52

Post by chrisco255 » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 4:36 AM UTC

Here in 2018, I'm not that worried about Google's position as world's information arbiter and how it chooses to censor content. But I do worry a bit, as the path to hell is paved with good intentions. How will this evolve over the decades to come?

Where does the line between "hate speech" and legitimate criticism get drawn? Criticism is often crude. Humor is often crude. Sometimes humor, even crude humor, cuts to the core of an issue better than any intellectual discussion or essay could possibly yield. The U.S. itself has a long tradition of pointed, sarcastic political cartoons, as an example.

We need not reach back too far in memory to find an example of grey area between "hate speech" and "free speech": The Dutch cartoonist Kurt Westergaard and his infamous Muhammad bomb cartoon.

I think Google and other social media giants will find themselves in an impossible situation, if they haven't already. To be a good censor is to declare the "rightness" and "wrongness" of content in a consistent manner. However, in order to do so, you have to stake a position.

However, these companies sprawl too far and too wide to stake a position without alienating huge swaths of the population. And without making it all too easy for factions to believe that their side is being discriminated against.

Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”

#53

Post by fzeroracer » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 4:36 AM UTC

evilturnip wrote: post #13

I'm actually glad to see the conclusion. Everybody wants to censor what they don't like. There are people who believe free speech is not the ultimate value, but rather to protect people from 'harm'. In this case 'harm' being ideas they don't agree with. The best stance is not to take a side, but to make sure both sides are civil in the expression of their beliefs.

Just because a belief is civilly expressed does not make it less harmful. For example: people casually believing that the Sandy Hook shooting was a conspiracy drummed up by the government is actively harmful to the families affected by that tragedy. What do you say to those people? How do you solve that problem? And how do you define 'civil'?

Because different platforms have different ranges of civility as well.

Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”

#54

Post by tropo » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 4:37 AM UTC

noobermin wrote: post #31

twmb wrote: post #22

I caution against latching onto the title and making assumptions. The bulk of the content is analyzing where the current censorship position came from and the conclusion is for Google to be more open with their stance and also be more equal with applying it. As for the why: Why the shift toward censorship? - User Demands - before, In the absence of rules, bad behaviour thrived - now, Appease users, maintain platform…

I don't know where you got "left leaning" from unless you're bending over backwards to be fair, they are if anything centrists which makes sense since they're Google. For heaven's sake, the slide about conversations of free speech, I see establishment centrist media pieces on the same plot as Breitbart and WorldNetDaily. An equivalent would be listing the Young Turks or alternet.

On the two pages titled "But recent global events have undermined this utopian narrative" there are a total of 8 events depicted. The viewer is expected to think that the events are problems. About 4 or 5 of the events would be considered good by many on the right, but bad by the left. The remaining events are just gross, weird, and otherwise unrelated to the US political spectrum.

Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”

#55

Post by hodgesrm » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 4:38 AM UTC

psergeant wrote: post #50

evilturnip wrote: post #13

I'm actually glad to see the conclusion. Everybody wants to censor what they don't like. There are people who believe free speech is not the ultimate value, but rather to protect people from 'harm'. In this case 'harm' being ideas they don't agree with. The best stance is not to take a side, but to make sure both sides are civil in the expression of their beliefs.

> There are people who believe free speech is not the ultimate value A right to free speech is a recent, American-centric invention, rather than a natural cornerstone of democracy, a fact that often seems lost on Americans.

It seems many historians do not support your view. Notions of free speech date back to antiquity. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”

#56

Post by eksemplar » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 4:40 AM UTC

evilturnip wrote: post #49

eksemplar wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What both sides though? The alt-right isn’t in opposition to anything mainstream, they are anti-democratic and should be treated the same way antifa, farc, isis and others are. Every time democracy fails to shut down movements like the alt-right, things end badly for democracy itself. The most used throve is stuff like nazism and fascism, but history actually have a lot of better examples. Because both Napoleon and C…

The problem is that then you have to decide what's 'anti-democratic'. You won't find 50 opinions that differ from your own. On top of that, it can then be used as justification to censor almost anything you don't like. Sure, right now you'll think there is a clear criteria. But in 25, 50, or 100 years from now, people could have easily twisted it to mean whatever they disagree with.

I don’t decide what’s anti-democratic though, we have guidelines for that provided by the United Nations. I mean, it’s been seen and done before throughout history, so it’s not exactly hard to spot.

Attacking the free press is one criteria.

Labeling everyone that disagrees with you the slightest as enemies, is another.

I mean, assuming this leak is real, then googles stance on censoring is extremely centrists, letting them appease both sides of the political spectrum. But that’s not what breitbart or the alt-right really wants, they want google to only appease their radical views.

Ironically, it’s a lot easier to get banned from alt-right forums than it is from YouTube. All you have to do, is disagree with whatever dogma they spin, because they aren’t even remotely interested in a democratic discourse.

Of course, looking at history, no one have ever really stopped movements like the alt-right early enough to save their democracy. So America is probably rather doomed.

Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”

#57

Post by chrisco255 » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 4:40 AM UTC

psergeant wrote: post #50

evilturnip wrote: post #13

I'm actually glad to see the conclusion. Everybody wants to censor what they don't like. There are people who believe free speech is not the ultimate value, but rather to protect people from 'harm'. In this case 'harm' being ideas they don't agree with. The best stance is not to take a side, but to make sure both sides are civil in the expression of their beliefs.

> There are people who believe free speech is not the ultimate value A right to free speech is a recent, American-centric invention, rather than a natural cornerstone of democracy, a fact that often seems lost on Americans.

The enumeration of free speech as a natural right in a Constitution is an American invention, but the idea itself is much older than that. However, the freedom of speech and press is as important to free nations as an immune system is to a body...neither will lost long without it.

Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”

#58

Post by muthdra » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 4:41 AM UTC

psergeant wrote: post #50

evilturnip wrote: post #13

I'm actually glad to see the conclusion. Everybody wants to censor what they don't like. There are people who believe free speech is not the ultimate value, but rather to protect people from 'harm'. In this case 'harm' being ideas they don't agree with. The best stance is not to take a side, but to make sure both sides are civil in the expression of their beliefs.

> There are people who believe free speech is not the ultimate value A right to free speech is a recent, American-centric invention, rather than a natural cornerstone of democracy, a fact that often seems lost on Americans.

399BC Socrates speaks to jury at his trial: 'If you offered to let me off this time on condition I am not any longer to speak my mind... I should say to you, "Men of Athens, I shall obey the Gods rather than you."'

Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”

#59

Post by Kaveren » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 4:41 AM UTC

beaner wrote: post #17

HN seems super strongly opposed to Google providing censorship in China. Do they feel the same way about Google applying it to the rest of the world?

There's a strong difference between state mandated censorship and a company voluntarily censoring content on their platform.

A company has the absolute right to prohibit any content on their platform that they so choose. There's freedom not to use Google services.

Calls to regulate independent companies are purely ludicrous. If Facebook said tomorrow that any positive mention of, say, Paul Graham, would result in immediate account deletion, that'd be their choice. Very valid criticism from the perspective of a user would be warranted, but that's where it should end.

Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”

#60

Post by evilturnip » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 4:42 AM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #53

evilturnip wrote: post #13

I'm actually glad to see the conclusion. Everybody wants to censor what they don't like. There are people who believe free speech is not the ultimate value, but rather to protect people from 'harm'. In this case 'harm' being ideas they don't agree with. The best stance is not to take a side, but to make sure both sides are civil in the expression of their beliefs.

Just because a belief is civilly expressed does not make it less harmful. For example: people casually believing that the Sandy Hook shooting was a conspiracy drummed up by the government is actively harmful to the families affected by that tragedy. What do you say to those people? How do you solve that problem? And how do you define 'civil'? Because different platforms have different ranges of civility as well.

There are thousands of conspiracies floating around. Should we consider them all harmful and ban them?

Who decides when a conspiracy becomes harmful? Should we ban flat-earthers from posting their views? After all, if everyone believed it, we would set science back countless centuries.

The way to combat false ideas is with truth; a culture that is always searching for the truth. That can only be facilitated by unhindered speech.