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

#61

Post by Traster » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:28 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…

I see two issues with this. First: What you're describing is Gab - a platform that literally only enforces legal restrictions, the dynamic on that site is that the most extreme voices drive away the reasonable people that actually attract new people. Your rule would essentially also stop reddit from existing.

The second is that Facebook doesn't have to censor you to censor you. They just tweak your post so it stops showing up other peoples feeds. Youtube does this all the time, they don't censor anyone, they just make sure no one can find the voices they don't like. Meanwhile the content they like gets boosted, we've seen this all the time where you go to youtube for a video about puppies and thanks to autoplay 4 hours later you're hearing about how feminists are destroying western civilization from within by Jordan Peterson.

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

#62

Post by root_axis » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:35 PM UTC

Private companies should be able to censor political speech, period. If it's my desire to build a platform that is favorable to certain types of speech, that's my right and the government shouldn't be forcing me to modify my platform to rebroadcast speech I disagree with.

In terms of conservative complaints about leftist censorship, I have to simply roll my eyes. The conservatives complaining about big tech don't care about censorship, they only care about the dominance of their own political messages. This is obvious when you ask them about "democratizing speech" on platforms they already dominate like cable news and talk radio. Remember the fairness doctrine? They hated the idea of having the government dictate the political composition of the airwaves, but when it comes to big tech, suddenly they want to nationalize the platforms to their own benefit. I find the effort extremely disingenuous.

Also, something something downvotes something something censorship!!

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

#63

Post by JediWing » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:39 PM UTC

Know what else distorts the marketplace of ideas?

Money.

Money allows for buying advertisements, essentially allowing you to buy a platform to spread your ideas.

Having money typically has a pretty clear bias: protecting the money of those who have it. This comes at the expense, many times, of those who do not.

That typically equates to conservative policies.

I'm not convinced that the market distortion caused by supposed bias in social media moderation is even close to the distortion created by allowing money in politics. In fact in many (not all) cases of purported bias, the true impetus for action was due to hateful or otherwise harmful speech.

Nor do I agree that if we disagree with state censorship, we should disagree with Facebook censorship.

Being thrown into the legal system with threat of monetary penalty, jailtime, etc. is worthy of much more scrutiny than speech that gets you banned from a social network.

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

#64

Post by hnal943 » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:41 PM UTC

gdulli wrote: post #54

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.

I'm not certain there's a strict line between "actual" censorship and OP's definition. Care to give a definition you think is defensible as "actual" censorship?

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

#65

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:44 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #59

gonational wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

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

#66

Post by jon_akimbo » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:45 PM UTC

It's hard to take this argument seriously when the only companies mentioned are left-leaning tech companies such as Twitter, Facebook, and Google.

I suspect that the author's concern isn't censorship per se, but censorship of viewpoints he happens to uphold. If Twitter's suppression of conservative content is bad, then so is The Federalist's suppression of liberal content.

You're about to argue that one of these is a social media platform, while the other is a news outlet. In that case, what do you think is the essential difference that makes it okay for one to censor certain ideas but not the other?

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

#67

Post by jasonlotito » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:46 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #30

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.

The difference is that there's a Spam folder in your GMail where you can see all those "unwelcome" emails... and also, filters adapt to your preferences, not the other way around.

So, the argument is Twitter shouldn't combat spam? That HN shouldn't edit/delete content? That if a website accepts user generated content, they should have to make it viewable?

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

#68

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:47 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #59

gonational wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

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

#69

Post by claudiawerner » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:48 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.

>Which part of this argument changes? I can find any part that does.

One is fraudulent spam, the other is not.

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

#70

Post by jcriddle4 » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:48 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?

Reddit has an option to sort on controversial on a group and also on comments. I suspect the algorithm is probably looking for things with a combination of upvotes and downvotes. Take a look at any reddit group or the comments and sort on controversial if you want to see what it looks like. If you defined controversial as any thing that has a 15% to 55% down vote ratio that would be fairly specific. Maybe over 60% downvote it may be off topic or spam? It would be an interesting experiment, for a few days, to change the default from "hot" to "controversial".