Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”

scribd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 304 posts

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

#111

Post by DoreenMichele »

fzeroracer wrote: post #107
pishpash wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it usually starts with a genuine desire for civility, but as they say, power corrupts and once you give power over speech to censors (and you see this even on moderated boards), they tend to abuse their power for other purposes. It's not a problem because of repressive societies, they are the symptoms. It's a problem with human nature.

And yet, with zero moderation boards also very quickly turn into fetid cesspools. One just has to take a look at Voat to see what I mean. Moderation, like many things, has to be taken in moderation.

Gives new meaning to the old expression "Moderation in all things, including moderation."

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

#113

Post by mc32 »

noobermin wrote: post #104
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.

You can say that, but from the beginning, governments have put limits to speech based on "harm" from speech. Slander, libel, threats are all illegal due to the contention they cause harm. Taking no side is also similar to this, taking no side in a conflict as long as they are civil requires one to decide what is "civil" in the first place. Are comments about race considered "threats" if one person is of the race targ…

>How about coarse comments like telling someone to "kill themselves.

I think a few conservatives were directly told to do just that due to the SCOTUS appointment furore --have there been significant calls to censor those opinions?

It's like everyone is for Censorship unless they are the targets of Censorship. And in this case they are not calling out their own lot very vehemently.

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

#114

Post by sagichmal »

lurquer wrote: post #81
fzeroracer wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Equating hurt feelings with 'harm' is sophistry. If your speech causes harm, you can sue for damages. A person's belief that Sandy Hook is a conspiracy harms no one. A person can say or believe what they want and I for one couldn't care less whose feelings it hurts. I'm sure King George's feelings were hurt by being called a tyrant. And, I'm sure there were sniveling nimrods who wrung their hands in virtuous concern…

Nobody has said anything about hurt feelings. They are speaking about the families of children killed at Sandy Hook, and the maleficent antagonists who harass them with lies.

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

#115

Post by dev_dull »

mellow-lake-day wrote: post #44
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.

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.

You’d be surprised at the kind of biases you can stuff into a “term of service”.

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

#116

Post by fapjacks »

mherdeg wrote: post #109

This presentation briefly mentions but then seems to mostly forget about "Elsagate" which they call the "Peppa Pig scandal". James Bridle argues convincingly that the genre of bizarre YouTube videos which appeals to the toddler reptilian brain ( https://medium.com/@jamesbridle/something-is-wrong-on-the-in... ) is not created by hostile or evil actors but instead has evolved orgnically based on what stuff toddlers wan…

So "think of the children" when it comes to censorship. Got it.

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

#117

Post by mc32 »

mherdeg wrote: post #109

This presentation briefly mentions but then seems to mostly forget about "Elsagate" which they call the "Peppa Pig scandal". James Bridle argues convincingly that the genre of bizarre YouTube videos which appeals to the toddler reptilian brain ( https://medium.com/@jamesbridle/something-is-wrong-on-the-in... ) is not created by hostile or evil actors but instead has evolved orgnically based on what stuff toddlers wan…

Kids' videos on YouTube Kids and Censoring the internet are very different things. It's like saying, we don't wanna sell alcohol, because if we did, we would have to sell alcohol to kids.

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

#118

Post by DoreenMichele »

mc32 wrote: post #113
noobermin wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can say that, but from the beginning, governments have put limits to speech based on "harm" from speech. Slander, libel, threats are all illegal due to the contention they cause harm. Taking no side is also similar to this, taking no side in a conflict as long as they are civil requires one to decide what is "civil" in the first place. Are comments about race considered "threats" if one person is of the race targ…

>How about coarse comments like telling someone to "kill themselves. I think a few conservatives were directly told to do just that due to the SCOTUS appointment furore --have there been significant calls to censor those opinions? It's like everyone is for Censorship unless they are the targets of Censorship. And in this case they are not calling out their own lot very vehemently.

I believe I saw a headline today or yesterday regarding someone being fired due to remarks along those lines. Perhaps not "kill yourself" per se. I think the remark was characterized as a call for assassination.

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

#119

Post by gnarbarian »

spangry wrote: post #89
gnarbarian wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This happens to me too. I think people do this so they can dismiss ideas without having to refute them.

That's exactly why they do it.

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

#120

Post by acct1771 »

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…

> Yet that's clearly not the case.

Ugh...yes, it is. Our people are just too stupid to find the dissenting opinions.

Post reply on HN