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

#51

Post by jinushaun » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:16 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.

I don’t want to live in the dystopia where Facebook is utility. It is not remotely comparable to water, electricity or roads.

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

#52

Post by zebby » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:19 PM UTC

buboard wrote: post #25

jcriddle4 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I use reddit precisely because it has topical communities. Moderating away people and posts that distract from the topic is a good thing. It promotes group think exactly because you can belong to any number of groups.

It's perfect for hobby or niche interest subreddits. It's a flawed system for discussing politics or anything remotely controversial. Safespace bubbles, censorship by downvotes, mods that curate their subreddit, mass removed comments... That's all fine if you're discussing your favourite videogame or cooking recipes, but not when there's politics involved.

Imageboard style websites where every shit comment has as much visibility as the other is vastly superior for having an interesting discussion. The downside is that you have to wade through the bad comments.

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

#53

Post by jon_akimbo » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:21 PM UTC

ChaosDegenerate wrote: post #33

Nasrudith wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're conflating right to receive a basic necessity with the right to distribute a non-necessity.

You may have a right to receive water. But you don't have a right to pee in the water supply.

Nor should the private water company be obligated to ensure that your pee goes into the tap water of every household.

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

#54

Post by gdulli » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:23 PM UTC

jvickers wrote: post #50

I have a wide view of what 'censorship' is, and I include spam filtering in the definition. For example, a while ago I saw an advert for some kind of erection-causing pill on a forum discussing C++. If the forum moderators remove such a post, they make the forum more efficient by saving other users (who are looking for C++ content) from themselves having to filter out irrelevant information / a sales pitch. I also se…

I agree. If you broaden the term "censorship" so much as to make it equivalent to any entity trying to enforce quality or relevance control standards in its own venue, you make the term useless. While also subverting conversation about actual censorship, cheapening it.

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

#55

Post by danso » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:23 PM UTC

ChaosDegenerate wrote: post #33

Nasrudith wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What precedent are you using to imagine that if Facebook/Youtube/etc were to become public utilities, that they would be barred from censorship? Public broadcasters are currently regulated by the FEC:

https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#OBSC...

> Indecent Material. Indecent material is protected by the First Amendment, so its broadcast cannot constitutionally be prohibited at all times. However, the courts have upheld Congress' prohibition of the broadcast of indecent material during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience, which the Commission has determined to be between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Indecent programming is defined as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” Broadcasts that fall within this definition and are aired between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. may be subject to enforcement action by the FCC.

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

#56

Post by klyrs » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:24 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 difference is that I, personally, have control over the blocking of the "make money fast" communication

Have you never encountered a phpBB forum, or a wiki, or a social network, that doesn't have spam blockers? In my experience, such sites are inundated with spam, occasionally to the point that signal is hard to find over the noise. Your "solution" only touches on email. Filtering spam from such diverse sources would require a much more intrusive technology. Also, you're putting a wholly unreasonable burden on website owners to preserve abusive content -- if somebody uploads a flood of junk data, are you legally required to retain and redistribute it all? And are you forcing users to download gigabytes of garbage, and filter it down to a kilobyte of content?

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

#57

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:25 PM UTC

gonational wrote: post #43

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.

In my opinion, the solution is simple: If any “platform” censors beyond removing illegal or copyrighted content or spam, they should have their “platform” status revoked, and they should be considered a publisher. This prevents such companies from using “platform” status as a cost saving mechanism to help them become large monopolies. Companies like Facebook would not have been able to take over so much of the market…

[deleted]

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

#58

Post by zebby » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:25 PM UTC

nova22033 wrote: post #21

jcriddle4 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

* Actually promoting controversial comments as a default would be interesting.* Controversial is subjective. Would you like FB/reddit to promote holocaust denial?

I think he means that showing the comments with the most replies or the comments with the most mixed upvote/downvotes would be more interesting than just showing the most upvoted comment.

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

#59

Post by pavel_lishin » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:26 PM UTC

gonational wrote: post #43

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.

In my opinion, the solution is simple: If any “platform” censors beyond removing illegal or copyrighted content or spam, they should have their “platform” status revoked, and they should be considered a publisher. This prevents such companies from using “platform” status as a cost saving mechanism to help them become large monopolies. Companies like Facebook would not have been able to take over so much of the market…

> If any “platform” censors beyond removing illegal or copyrighted content, they should have their “platform” status revoked, and they should be considered a publisher.

What about spam?

And would this extend to marketplaces? If a company allows users to sell educational resources for kids, what would happen if they start removing items that clearly don't fit?

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

#60

Post by dmix » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:26 PM UTC

altcognito wrote: post #45

SilasX wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A solution can be worse than the problem it allegedly solved.

Which is what the author recognizes:

> Indeed, as conservatives often point out, the existence of a market imperfection doesn’t mean that government intervention is justified, if only because it may actually make the problem worse. But as many people don’t seem to understand, especially among libertarians, the fact that government intervention is not warranted doesn’t mean there is no problem.