Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

necpluribusimpar.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 261 posts

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

#91

Post by brlewis »

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…

The article isn't speaking against censorship in general. It's specifically about companies that are de facto monopolies. And at the very end it mentions big money distorting the marketplace of ideas. I didn't read anything in the article that would oppose censorship by your C++ forum.

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

#92

Post by brlewis »

JediWing wrote: post #63

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 sup…

This is mentioned in the last half of the last paragraph in the article.

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

#93

Post by buboard »

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?

They could have a checkbox "remove spam" that the moderators could turn on and off. There's not a lot of ambiguity about spam so it's not a real issue. I think the law should be "platforms should not tinker with their users' expressed preferences - you can't hide something that they 've chosen to subscribe to".

> And would this extend to marketplaces?

I believe these are already considered publishers ? In any case it's no different than how traditional bookstores work

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

#94

Post by tomp »

jasonlotito wrote: post #67
tomp wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's my argument, yes. I'm fine with hiding replies, and users using opt-out-able block-lists (e.g. that's how porn is implemented on Twitter and many other websites)... moderation is OK, censorship & (shadow)banning is the evil.

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

#95

Post by mc32 »

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…

Here’s the thing. On dedicated forums we know the protocol. We don’t want spam and we don’t want politics.

If it’s a political forum we expect all civil exchanges to be treated equally. So a proponent for Owls and a proponent for sawmills both get their say and one doesn’t get “deranked” or de-monetized because it’s not the popular opinion or the au currant opinion. We don’t expect one political candidate to be artificially ranked and another artificially buried in the results.

Now, if I’m on the Hillary blog, yes, of course I expect the org to manage the commentary to fit their narrative. I don’t expect Zuckerberg or Pichai to turn their orgs into the Hillary blog or the Donald blog.

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

#96

Post by shadowgovt »

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…

That pushes the power to control who says what from individual companies to the government, since the government is classifying "illegal."

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

#97

Post by NeedMoreTea »

buboard wrote: post #87
marcinzm wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So no specialized platforms that cover a single topic or area? After all, then they'd need to delete off topic posts. What about user moderators deleting things? What about a mailing list owner enforcing guidelines? Or is all public online communication one giant unmanaged and unstructured sets of posts on everything and anything? Or, in reality, nothing but paid advertisements. edit: What about downvoting? Does that…

> no specialized platforms That's not an issue with reddit - moderators are not paid, nor is reddit responsible for them - and when users subscribe in a sub, the contract is that they 'll abide by moderation rules and downvoting rules. That's not corporate censorship. The problem is when the company itself starts censoring what the users have voluntarily subscribed to read.

Yet HN are, as I understand it, responsible for dang and sctb. They regularly moderate away the shite - which preserves one of the less polluted spots on the net.

How do you square that circle? Surely you should object to what HN does - in fact why would a believer in no censorship even have an account here if HN are censoring (moderating and limiting) what everyone is able to say?

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

#98

Post by AlchemistCamp »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #75
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…

I agree with the spirit of the idea, even if it might not be realistically defined or enforced. One thing that comes to mind is how do you define "illegal" content? A huge hangup here tends to be free speech - lots of legal free speech is not legal in places like Europe - e.g. there generally isn't a concept of hate speech in the US, and in the US inciting violence literally means "lets go over here and beat these pe…

> lots of legal free speech is not legal in places like Europe... places like China would make a lot of things illegal that everyone in the west would be fine with

The obvious solution, for a US company, is to follow US law and accept that some content will be blocked in China, strict theocratic states and possibly Europe.

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

#99

Post by mc32 »

root_axis wrote: post #88
giancarlostoro wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Censorship on spam is probably agreed upon by everyone but spammers. Censorship on the opinions of people is dangerous on the other hand. Like I say on HN many times: today it's the opinions you disagree with that get censored, tomorrow it's your voice.

Do you consider it censorship when comments or articles are flagged on HN?

I would say if the mods do it yes, if it’s the hoi polloi then no.

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

#100

Post by buboard »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #97
buboard wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no specialized platforms That's not an issue with reddit - moderators are not paid, nor is reddit responsible for them - and when users subscribe in a sub, the contract is that they 'll abide by moderation rules and downvoting rules. That's not corporate censorship. The problem is when the company itself starts censoring what the users have voluntarily subscribed to read.

Yet HN are, as I understand it, responsible for dang and sctb. They regularly moderate away the shite - which preserves one of the less polluted spots on the net. How do you square that circle? Surely you should object to what HN does - in fact why would a believer in no censorship even have an account here if HN are censoring (moderating and limiting) what everyone is able to say?

Yeap, having paid moderators would classify you as a publisher - you 're essentially a newspaper publishing op-eds. HN would be a publisher and i don't find that wrong.

However, HN could instead be subreddit in reddit's platform, with HN (or preferably an unrelated external entity) paying the moderators.

Post reply on HN