Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies • Hacker News Board

Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies

#11

Post by degski » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 1:31 PM UTC

d--b wrote: post #4

See but that's a libertarian issue here. If you value freedom above all else, Google being an independent entity, should have the freedom to ban / veto whomever they want. You can't have it both ways: let people be free to say whatever they want AND force the owners of communication channels to spread all information.

I agree with you that Google or Facebook should be allowed to do what they want. The problem we face is that these companies run major (the dominant) communication channels, that's (IMHO) where the problem lies [it shouldn't be like that, but heck, we cannot trust our governments better than G or FB].

Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies

#12

Post by jcriddle4 » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 1:34 PM UTC

lonelappde wrote: post #3

This is such an own-goal. Before worrying about censoring unwanted content, companies should spend their time on stopping promoting it (and building client side filtering controls) which is just as huge a problem and not anti-American to fix. The problem is that companies want the flamebait and toxic content to drive enragement engagement ad impressions, but don't want to be accountable for the stuff that's just too…

"Companies want the flamebait...." The moderation system on reddit seems to heavily promote group think. Actually promoting controversial comments as a default would be interesting.

Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies

#13

Post by ChaosDegenerate » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 1:36 PM UTC

d--b wrote: post #4

See but that's a libertarian issue here. If you value freedom above all else, Google being an independent entity, should have the freedom to ban / veto whomever they want. You can't have it both ways: let people be free to say whatever they want AND force the owners of communication channels to spread all information.

Freedom comes with responsibility. The idea that they are not responsible for the content (i.e. you can't hold Youtube/Google legally responsible for the content they have on their platforms) while at the same time they make profit on the very same content and can censor it as they see fit -- this is idiocy in its purest form.

We hold newspapers or TV station legally liable for the content they serve. This is fair. Situation in which they couldn't be sued for the stuff they air still making money on it -- that's the current situation with them. It's even worse because they can somehow censor the content they don't like for their own political reasons.

It's like with banks. Yes, we can make money. And yes when times are bad we can get money from the government/tax payers too. This is not freedom this is fascism.

Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies

#14

Post by Nasrudith » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 1:42 PM UTC

rhaksw wrote: post #2

I'm always surprised when articles like this don't mention reddit. Isn't it a top 10 website that was once top 3? I've read quotes saying one in three americans has visited reddit. Anyway, reddit is a great resource for studying moderation activity.

That is because it oozes pretense of refusing to accept that their "silent majority" is really a noisy minority. Not recognizing freedom of association is one of the big warning signs along with not realizing the impact of what they want on /themselves/. Personally at that point I mentally mark them as spam.

Annoyingly they conflate actual corporate censorship concerns with their persecution complex. DMCA abuse is actual corporate censorship for instance. Same if say Comcast blocked Netflix. The government using a cudgel to make corporations do their censorship when laws would be struck down in an instant is censorship and a messy semantics arguement of corporate vs government origin. These complaints boil down to "they aren't giving me an audience how dare they!". There is a world of difference between not given any attention and cannot publish.

Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies

#15

Post by buboard » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 1:43 PM UTC

Miner49er wrote: post #7

So the author wants to protect "the marketplace of ideas" from monopolies caused by a different market. However, they don't want the government to do it. They also don't seem to think it's possible for smaller companies to challenge these monopolies. What then is the author's solution? One is never given.

The author did not claim to give a solution.

Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies

#16

Post by nova22033 » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 1:44 PM UTC

ChaosDegenerate wrote: post #13

d--b wrote: post #4

See but that's a libertarian issue here. If you value freedom above all else, Google being an independent entity, should have the freedom to ban / veto whomever they want. You can't have it both ways: let people be free to say whatever they want AND force the owners of communication channels to spread all information.

Freedom comes with responsibility. The idea that they are not responsible for the content (i.e. you can't hold Youtube/Google legally responsible for the content they have on their platforms) while at the same time they make profit on the very same content and can censor it as they see fit -- this is idiocy in its purest form. We hold newspapers or TV station legally liable for the content they serve. This is fair. S…

Freedom comes with responsibility.

And who decides what is responsible?

This may be helpful https://www.popehat.com/2019/08/29/make-no-law-deplatformed/

Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies

#17

Post by whatisthiseven » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 1:44 PM UTC

ChaosDegenerate wrote: post #10

Miner49er wrote: post #7

So the author wants to protect "the marketplace of ideas" from monopolies caused by a different market. However, they don't want the government to do it. They also don't seem to think it's possible for smaller companies to challenge these monopolies. What then is the author's solution? One is never given.

Government should regulate Facebook, Google (Youtube), Twitter, etc. as utilities that they are. The current situation where the corporations aren't responsible for the content but can censor it is the best example of why they should be treated as utilities.

But what would be the goal of governing them as utilities? This is always said as if it were obvious what would happen once FB gets utility status.

Should FB resume its banning of sexually explicit, beheading, animal torture, and ISIS videos when it is a "utility"? And how will the product of FB change as a utility? In what sense is FB a utility other than a very common place people like to go to, like concerts or a sports stadium or something?

What is actually meant when we say "regulate technology companies built around communication as a utility"? How large before you become one? Is any app that has chat or public posting a utility now? What classifies? Is the only goal to make them dumb pipes? What other roles and responsibilities would the government hoist onto FB and require it do?

Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies

#18

Post by JumpCrisscross » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 1:46 PM UTC

Miner49er wrote: post #7

So the author wants to protect "the marketplace of ideas" from monopolies caused by a different market. However, they don't want the government to do it. They also don't seem to think it's possible for smaller companies to challenge these monopolies. What then is the author's solution? One is never given.

> One is never given

Here’s an obvious one: break up Facebook. Easily splits into Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.

Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies

#19

Post by nova22033 » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 1:46 PM UTC

For several years, conservatives have expressed concern that big tech companies, such as Google, Facebook and Twitter, are suppressing right-leaning content in various, more or less direct ways. Even though conservatives often exaggerate it, I think there is no doubt about the anti-conservative bias of these companies, but that is not what I want to discuss in this article.

You don't want to discuss it here because you don't have a detailed analysis backed up by solid data. If you did, you'd lead with it.

Trust me, most people here can handle an article full of graphs and stuff.

Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies

#20

Post by buboard » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 1:46 PM UTC

d--b wrote: post #4

See but that's a libertarian issue here. If you value freedom above all else, Google being an independent entity, should have the freedom to ban / veto whomever they want. You can't have it both ways: let people be free to say whatever they want AND force the owners of communication channels to spread all information.

That's a false dilemma. The author is not disputing Google's natural right to do so. He s arguing that they shouldn't however get a pass from libertarians. It is possible to criticize someone without demanding that someone regulates them!