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

#31

Post by buboard » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 1:55 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…

Power comes with responsibility, not freedom. Where did you even get that phrase?

And, does this imply that slavery comes with blissfull carelessness?

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

#32

Post by jerf » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 1:56 PM UTC

woopwoop wrote: post #28

Replace "censoring conservative viewpoints" with "censoring the nice people who tell me about how I can make $13,000 a week working from home". Which part of this argument changes? I can't find any part that does.

I can't speak for the article, but I can speak for myself. The difference is that I, personally, have control over the blocking of the "make money fast" communication. I think part of the right to free speech is the right to be able to choose what speech you consume, i.e., everyone has the right to free speech but nobody has the right to impose upon you.

For me personally, since I run my own incoming mail server, there is no platform censoring those emails. I use my own tools, trained on my own emails and my own choices about what to block, to do the filtering.

When a platform entirely blocks some speech, that is not my choice; it is theirs. That is the critical difference.

This is still not a bright shining line, because there isn't one. But it's sufficiently clear to be a guiding principle. If you want to lock yourself in some particular filter bubble, that's your choice, but nobody else has the right to force you into one.

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

#33

Post by ChaosDegenerate » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 1:57 PM UTC

Nasrudith wrote: post #26

ChaosDegenerate wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That definition of responsibility negates freedom in itself. I have literally seen it used by dictators who set libel laws to crush any negative stories. The stance is absurd - tt is akin to saying that Kinkos should be liable for anything printed beyond "they knowingly used ink laced with weaponized anthrax" - and should be charged with terrorism because a customer who quietly printed a bomb threat formatted to look…

Exactly my point. But for this to work, they need to be regulated by Government as utilities.

No one has the right to turn off electric grid on your house because they are "private company". No one has the right to turn off "running water" from your sink because they are "private company" and if you don't like it, you can go somewhere else or open your own. The same way, no one has right to censor me because they are "private company" and if I don't like it I can go ahead and open my own Youtube. They should be and will be regulated as utilities.

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

#34

Post by normalnorm » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 1:59 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.

> If you value freedom above all else, Google being an independent entity, should have the freedom to ban / veto whomever they want.

Not so if you value freedom of human beings above all else, and even less so if you would wish to maximize human freedom across the population.

Unregulated capitalism maximizes the potential for freedom, if you win a lottery ticket, at the expense of diminishing freedom for all the losers. Libertarians tend to either already be rich or believe they have a significant shot at winning the lottery ticket.

A practical example: lack of worker rights in the US corresponds to more freedom in the abstract, but in practice creates a society where the average worker is much less free than, say, the average European worker. For example, workers in more regulated labor markets enjoy many more days of vacation on average, leading to literally more freedom to explore the world and pursue personal interests.

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

#35

Post by jerf » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:00 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.

This basically begs the question (in the true sense of the phrase). The debate we're having right now (not just about this particular article but in general) is whether that should be true. Saying that it is the current legal regime is not telling anyone anything they don't already know. We are discussing whether that is a good idea and whether it should be changed.

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

#36

Post by ChaosDegenerate » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:00 PM UTC

whatisthiseven wrote: post #17

ChaosDegenerate wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What will happen to New York Times when its running sexually explicit, beheading, animal torture, etc? They will get sued.

As soon as we can start suing them for the content they provide the sooner they will find resolution to it.

The same way they will get sued if they censor content that might be deemed socially important.

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

#37

Post by Xelbair » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:00 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.

Or absolutely ban censorship and content 'curation' that created walled gardens tailored to your superficial tastes.

Only block content that is illegal, and do it on demand - so back to the days when the services like facebook were just a content aggregator, where filtering and curation was done by user, not for user.

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

#38

Post by woopwoop » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:00 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #32

woopwoop wrote: post #28

Replace "censoring conservative viewpoints" with "censoring the nice people who tell me about how I can make $13,000 a week working from home". Which part of this argument changes? I can't find any part that does.

I can't speak for the article, but I can speak for myself. The difference is that I, personally, have control over the blocking of the "make money fast" communication. I think part of the right to free speech is the right to be able to choose what speech you consume, i.e., everyone has the right to free speech but nobody has the right to impose upon you. For me personally, since I run my own incoming mail server, the…

The article specifically complains about even slightly less than even-handed promotion of conservative and liberal viewpoints, so it's certainly not only talking about forcing people into a filter bubble. It's just not the case that internet companies make it literally impossible to hear conservative viewpoints. (I'm not conceding the point that they are biased in any important way, but it's just certainly not the case that it's impossible to find conservative viewpoints on Twitter.)

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

#39

Post by raxxorrax » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:03 PM UTC

Xelbair wrote: post #37

ChaosDegenerate wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or absolutely ban censorship and content 'curation' that created walled gardens tailored to your superficial tastes. Only block content that is illegal, and do it on demand - so back to the days when the services like facebook were just a content aggregator, where filtering and curation was done by user, not for user.

That would be the best solution. It wasn't even a problem before a political camp made it one. I hope the US finds a solution, because other countries are just not capable to do so.

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

#40

Post by SilasX » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:03 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.

You can recognize something as being bad even before you have a solution.