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

151–160 of 304 posts

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

#151

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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…

The difference between censorship and all of those things is that they aren't prior restraints. Nobody filters what you say to make sure you aren't saying something defamatory. You say it first, then someone has to take you to court, where you have the opportunity to defend yourself.

And somebody has to care enough to shut you up to go through the effort of taking you to court, and then they have to win.

Some kind of private sector prior restraint apparatus making automated censorship decisions with no due process... is not that.

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

#152

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

vhakulinen wrote: post #149

Has anyone else ever wondered how some of the numbers about internet compares to a real world? Like, * "2.6 million tweets contained anti-Semitic speech during the US presidential election" - how many conversations there where, in real word, about the same topic and contained anti-Semitic speech? * "26% of American users are victims of internet trolling" - how many are victims of trolling in real word? Or in schools?…

In what sense is what happens online not part of the real world?

If nobody reads a tweet, did it really happen? If nobody hears me hurl racist abuse at my lawnmower, did it really happen?

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

#153

Post by ubernostrum »

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…

Proceeding with censorship seems to carry the risk of losing immunity under Section 230.

Nope. The whole point of Section 230 is platforms can make and enforce rules, and still have a safe harbor. Otherwise, they all would have lost their safe harbor decades ago.

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

#154

Post by shard972 »

__initbrian__ wrote: post #36

Interesting Quote of Current President (Pg 48) """When it comes to users, all of this bad behaviour and mismanagement... Breads Conspiracy Theories "Google's search engine was suppressing the bad news about Hillary Clinton" - Donald Trump, 2016"""

I wonder how many conspiracy theories about Trump have been censored by google?

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

#156

Post by sjroot »

sneak wrote: post #121
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…

Slander and libel are not illegal, as far as I am aware.

They are torts and, if provable, warrant civil lawsuits.

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

#157

Post by woodruffw »

vhakulinen wrote: post #149

Has anyone else ever wondered how some of the numbers about internet compares to a real world? Like, * "2.6 million tweets contained anti-Semitic speech during the US presidential election" - how many conversations there where, in real word, about the same topic and contained anti-Semitic speech? * "26% of American users are victims of internet trolling" - how many are victims of trolling in real word? Or in schools?…

I took that to be the point -- we tend to be at our worst online, thanks to the unique combination of anonymity (I can say whatever I want with as many accounts as I want, without meaningful consequences) and absence of social cues (there's nobody around me, so I have no incentive to soften my language or weaken my opinions).

In other words, the way we talk online is not normal. Even outside of the free speech debate, it's worth noting that.

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

#158

Post by chaosite »

paganel wrote: post #124
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' click patterns reward more video themes like "Elsa tied up on train tracks kissing Spiderman", so the content industry crams more of that stuff into its new content. To be fair many of the Tex Avery and Tom and Jerry cartoons with which almost everyone grew up with were a lot more wild than that, thankfully they weren’t censored back when we were kids.

Tex Avery and Tom & Jerry were wild and a product of their respective era, sure, but they're definitely not as bad as some of the Elsagate videos.

Did you watch them? Some of them are literally snuff, with tons of gore. The stuff of nightmares.

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

#159

Post by sanxiyn »

vkou wrote: post #141
dibujante wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes! I am OK with only humans having a right to free speech.

Humans express their right to free speech through bots. It's no different from expressing your right to free speech through paid advertisements.

I think I am okay with contents from bots if they are marked like advertisements ("sponsored contents", etc.). For example, "post from ABC" could instead say "post from ABC, a bot account of XYZ".

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

#160

Post by tylersmith »

eksemplar wrote: post #42
zaroth wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You obviously don't read Breitbart.

Not after reading about the Clinton’s on it, no. I don’t particularly like the Clintons, but unlike breitbart, I do consider them to be human beings.

Breitbart has claimed that the Clintons are not human beings? Or is that made up hyperbole for what they actually said?
Post reply on HN