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

181–190 of 304 posts

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

#181

Post by noobermin »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #151
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…

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…

I feel like you potentially have a point but the moderation the slides talk about are also posterior to the speech. For example, tell someone to kill themselves, get reported, get shadowbanned. Deciding what is "wrong" or "uncivil" or "out of bounds" is the value judgement, like deciding defamation is or threats are.

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

#182

Post by webkike »

mc32 wrote: post #138
webkike wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a platform that caters to everyone and does not have age restrictions, you would have to sell alcohol to everyone and a subset of everyone is indeed children

But they Obviously have segregated it I mean the product is "YouTube Kids". So they don't have to. So there is no issue.

However, there is no restriction on accessing regular youtube if you are child or a parent.

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

#183

Post by pathseeker »

fzeroracer wrote: post #79
adventured wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do you say to those people? How do you solve that problem? That's not a problem that needs to be "solved." It's not necessary to force everyone to think alike, or believe the same things. It's not necessary - or desirable - to try to force everyone to never think/believe mean things or unhappy thoughts. It's similar to saying: how do you solve people that believe in ghosts or god or unicorns (particularly if y…

Okay, now let's apply your example to something a bit more violent. People that believe black people are sub-human and deserve less rights. At what point do we no longer tolerate their opinions? For example, would you believe it's bad for someone to be censored on HN because they talked about how much they hated black coders? At a certain point we deemed as a society that those sort of views are considered bad. Do yo…

Who decides where the line is crossed though? People believe that children deserve fewer rights as well. We all accept that. What about fewer rights for prisoners? What about fewer rights for non-citizens?

These people literally have fewer rights and we don't consider banning discussion about giving them more/taking more away.

>At what point do we no longer tolerate their opinions? For example, would you believe it's bad for someone to be censored on HN because they talked about how much they hated black coders?

False dichotomy. Nobody has suggested that free speech means that every community has to tolerate these opinions. It just means that people can't be persecuted by the government for expressing them. It's fine to ban racist comments on whatever site you run.

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

#184

Post by mc32 »

fzeroracer wrote: post #180
mc32 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That person has a long list of prior arrests for disturbances [that shows a pattern] The case was also dropped. That said, though I don’t like Dick Cheney, when thd Katrina protester told him to eff off, he took it on the chin like a proper guy.

Ah, so you're saying as long as we deem someone socially unfit that therefore it's OK for the government to censor them.

No, I don’t agree with her arrest, but i can see why they might.

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

#185

Post by fzeroracer »

gnarbarian wrote: post #161
fapjacks wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People universally believe they are better than their historical counterparts, that they will succeed where history has failed, that this time it will be different . When really all they're doing is carving another notch on fascism's belt.

And the supremely ironic thing in this case is they are calling us the fascists while silencing us with a straight face.

Who is this 'they' you're referring to, exactly?

And what opinions do you hold that would warrant this 'they' calling you fascist?

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

#186

Post by pathseeker »

est wrote: post #136
toomanybeersies wrote: post #67

Slide 66 is particularly interesting, and articulates an observation that I've made: > Tech firms are performing a balancing act between two incompatible positions > 100% commit to the American tradition that prioritises free speech for democracy, not civility > 100% commit to the European tradition that favors dignity over liberty, and civility over freedom It is a very American view that unrestricted freedom of spe…

Is "against freedom of speech" a freedom of speech?

Yes, talking about it is. Restricting it at the government level isn't. Freedom of speech is a right protecting you from the government, not companies.

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

#187

Post by [deleted] »

fapjacks wrote: post #148
gnarbarian wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. That was exactly my argument a month ago here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17926316

People universally believe they are better than their historical counterparts, that they will succeed where history has failed, that this time it will be different . When really all they're doing is carving another notch on fascism's belt.

[deleted]

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

#188

Post by gnarbarian »

fapjacks wrote: post #171
gnarbarian wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the supremely ironic thing in this case is they are calling us the fascists while silencing us with a straight face.

It's too bad we're not in a bar. I could talk about this all night, and I've been thinking about it a lot.

Cheers. Come up to Alaska and I'll buy you a drink and take ya fishing while we're at it.

The recent heavy push for greater ideological censorship will end up driving centrists to places that cator to extreme content. This is one aspect of the problem which has led to further increased polarization in modern American politics.

Facebook, YouTube, and Reddit are too censorious and do not fill the role of a modern free speech platform which must exist. The biggest problem is gaining traction while a large portion of early adopters are extremists banned from other platforms.

My only hope is that the censors will piss so many people off that real free speech platforms like https://d.tube/ can reach critical mass.

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

#189

Post by AnthonyMouse »

chaosite wrote: post #172
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the case for parents monitoring the internet usage of their young children, not the case for censoring the internet.

That is a position. This document is showing the hole in that position -- an outright attack (elsagate) aimed at children. A cursory inspection by the parent sees the child watching a harmless Peppa the Pig video, while in fact she's watching snuff. This is a problem that Google has to address somehow (because that is what is demanded of them), while not censoring things aimed to adults. That's why the conclusion is…

That isn't a hole, it's an iterative process. Parents didn't know there was snuff on YouTube Kids. As soon as they find out, their kids are not allowed to use it anymore and with declining viewership, whatever garbage feedback loop allowed that to happen is destroyed.

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

#190

Post by charlesism »

wstrange wrote: post #15

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

    > Probably not the spin that Breitbart was hoping for.
It's a leaked Google document with "Censor" in the title. It doesn't matter what it contains. Breitbart can spin it however they want. Their readership will hear what they want to hear.
Post reply on HN