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

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

#91

Post by sanxiyn » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 5:04 AM UTC

dmichulke wrote: post #70

mellow-lake-day wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm speaking for myself here but I think the Russian bots as well as astroturfing bots need to be censored. And not censored by government regulation but by the terms of service. There are many "active measure" Russian bots active on twitter. Twitter doesn't seem concerned at all mostly because those Russian bots are padding their numbers same goes for FB and reddit.

Are those bots not "behaving civil in the expression of their (masters') beliefs"? Or do you think they should be censored because they are Russian? Or because they are bots?

I think sockpuppets should be moderated, and bots should be too, for the same reason.

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

#92

Post by adamrezich » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 5:04 AM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #30

Underpinning the whole question of censorship; “Under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, tech firms have legal immunity from the majority of the content posted on their platforms (unlike ‘traditional’ media publications). This protection has empowered YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Reddit to create spaces for free speech without the fear of legal action or its financial consequence.” Censoring content is…

This was the subject of one of John C. Dvorak's last PC Mag articles: "Twitter and Facebook Are Publishers, Not Platforms" https://www.pcmag.com/commentary/363100/twitter-and-facebook...

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

#93

Post by evilturnip » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 5:05 AM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #68

evilturnip wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 unhind…

Do you consider American culture to be one of the more free ones? If so, then why do these conspiracies exist? Why have flat-earth conspiracies and anti-scientific dogma thrived? Why do we have a president that outright denies scientific fact? If combating false ideas with truth worked, then surely these problems shouldn't exist in America, the land of the free. In the arena of free speech, only the values with the m…

If by 'harmful' speech you mean conspiracies, I would argue they've always been around. It's not a new problem. People have always filled the gaps in their knowledge with unjustified beliefs.

However, your answer would be to deplatform those who would post such ideas. Do you honestly think that would make it better? Did deplatforming Alex Jones help people? It just galvanized those who believed there was a conspiracy and made him all the more popular.

How about we take on the hard task of trying to actually reach those who we believe have false ideas. For example, how do people respond to flat-earthers? Constant ridicule and laughter. The reason they believe in these theories is a lot more complex and nuanced than merely that they are 'stupid'.

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

#94

Post by mc32 » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 5:05 AM UTC

dmichulke wrote: post #70

mellow-lake-day wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm speaking for myself here but I think the Russian bots as well as astroturfing bots need to be censored. And not censored by government regulation but by the terms of service. There are many "active measure" Russian bots active on twitter. Twitter doesn't seem concerned at all mostly because those Russian bots are padding their numbers same goes for FB and reddit.

Are those bots not "behaving civil in the expression of their (masters') beliefs"? Or do you think they should be censored because they are Russian? Or because they are bots?

How are we defining what a bot is? From what I can tell a bot seems to be astroturfing done by Russians working for a quasi-propaganda office. But, there are many state sponsored "bots" from all kinds of places. Promoting all kinds of things and political views, from allies to foes.

Or is a bot strictly an "AI" bot?

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

#95

Post by eksemplar » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 5:05 AM UTC

dmichulke wrote: post #86

eksemplar wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, lettin…

> Attacking the free press is one criteria. > Labeling everyone that disagrees with you the slightest as enemies, is another. You do realise that you're - attacking the free press by asking for censorship? - Sort of labelling other people that disagree with you (in this instance: disagree with democracy) as enemies (of democracy)? That's of course very inconsistent. But it also assumes that "the current form of democ…

Well, yes. But I don’t think censoring the alt-right is problematic if they can’t stay within whatever policies companies set. You’re not denied access to a supermarket either, but if you start intentionally pissing in their floor, then you’d get thrown out.

Of course I come from a region of the world, where people like the alt-right won, and eventually started putting centrists in prison camps.

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

#96

Post by atotic » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 5:05 AM UTC

gnarbarian wrote: post #62

mellow-lake-day wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm speaking for myself here but I think the Russian bots as well as astroturfing bots need to be censored. And not censored by government regulation but by the terms of service. There are many "active measure" Russian bots active on twitter. Twitter doesn't seem concerned at all mostly because those Russian bots are padding their numbers same goes for FB and reddit.

That sounds all fine and well but half the time I utter a conservative opinion I'm accused of being a "russian bot".

Not on HN, looking at your comments/submission stream.

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

#97

Post by nl » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 5:06 AM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #77

evilturnip wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This. In some ways, we sort of see that with the PC movement itself. Like when people attacked Scott Kelly for quoting Winston Churchill, the OG anti-fascist, who opposed real life fascists, for God's sake: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45789819

Why aren't those criticisms valid? Scott Kelly seems to think they were.

Edit: quoting him to make this clear: I did not mean to offend by quoting Churchill. My apologies I will go and educate myself on his atrocities, racist views which I do not support.... It's a tweet embedded in the same article.

People's view of leaders change over time. In Australia Churchill was seen as an evil colonialist for his role in the Gallipoli debacle until he was rehabilitated during WW2.

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

#98

Post by Kaveren » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 5:06 AM UTC

bzbarsky wrote: post #73

Kaveren wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 imm…

> There's freedom not to use Google services. Using Google services is now required by many public schools in the US. That's where all the homework is posted, for example. Now in the US there's freedom to not attend public school, of course, so technically you have the right to not use Google services. But in practice the vast majority of people would not be able to exercise that right in this case. Similarly, a numb…

I'd find a private school / homeschool argument disingenuous, so I'm with you that far.

Google Classroom is a fair point (schools also use Google Docs and the like as well), but I don't believe it holds water.

Governments would be well within their rights not to award contracts to, or use the services of, companies they felt were not respecting the values of free speech. The difference between this and active regulation are that one is voluntary for the company (must obey this term for eligibility for extra reward) and one is mandatory (must obey this term or be punished by the law).

I don't have much to say about communicating to parents through Facebook, other than that they should still offer optional email communication.

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

#99

Post by gufufusfjc » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 5:06 AM UTC

I think the thing that is missing from the presentation is that Google is positioning itself to take a tone policing position, but that completely ignores damage to actual people. People injured by the powerful and the state will be angry, will go viral, and will likely violate tone policed policies. People that drop white nationalist (genocidal) rhetoric with a smile get to push their case. Furthermore, the economics of the situation mean that Google et al are structurally incapable of reforms that dilute their power or reduce engagement. The alternative that preserves their power is to exert overt censorship as they will do in China. Thankfully, we are not there yet in the US.

Tone policing generally favors knocking down the left anyway, which is favorable to elites whom are the targets of their ire.

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

#100

Post by fzeroracer » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 5:06 AM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #75

fzeroracer wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you consider American culture to be one of the more free ones? If so, then why do these conspiracies exist? Why have flat-earth conspiracies and anti-scientific dogma thrived? Why do we have a president that outright denies scientific fact? If combating false ideas with truth worked, then surely these problems shouldn't exist in America, the land of the free. In the arena of free speech, only the values with the m…

This is the paradox of tolerance. We can say that unhindered speech is the way of countering harmful speech, but then I ask you: What led to the rise of such harmful speech today? You point at anti-science conspiracy theories as a failing of free speech, and you're probably right, but what would you have us do otherwise? A world in which some central authority dictates that certain opinions are never allowed to be ex…

You live in that world right now. We have a central authority that says 'you're not allowed to call black people certain words'.

I always ask this but do you believe that was a mistake? Do you think people have that specific right to exercise their freedom of speech?

Obviously there are degrees of harm to speech. We've already collectively determined this as a society. And to me, anti-vaxxers are a great example. We arrest anti-vaxxers if their children suffer due to child abuse. Do you believe that to be a mistake, that they don't have the right to exercise their own beliefs?