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

#101

Post by jakelazaroff » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 3:14 PM UTC

giancarlostoro wrote: post #85

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…

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.

Isn’t that the crux of the issue? A lot of egregious hate speech — say, what Richard Spencer said in the recently leaked audio — is agreed upon by everyone but racists. But every time someone suggests censoring that, people invoke the same slippery slope fallacy. Today it’s the spam that gets censored, tomorrow it’s your voice!

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

#102

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 3:15 PM UTC

hnal943 wrote: post #64

gdulli wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

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

#103

Post by FussyZeus » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 3:16 PM UTC

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 was a big part of why I enjoyed Jack Dorsey's comments on Twitter removing political advertising.

The Internet was supposed to be a democratizing force, and it was, for awhile. To an extent it still is, but as the convergence of content continues to pull people into the various Platforms™, all of which are supported by advertiser dollars, the content itself is diluted. Some not so much, some so much it's not recognizable, others so much that it's no longer there.

YouTube is a great example of this. Once a monument to the power of democratized content, it's slowly but surely pushing out real creators in favor of advertising companies producing advertiser-friendly and oh-so-clickable content, much of which is complete and utter trash. It's not just marketing companies though, a new breed of creator has spawned since roughly 2010, determined to soak as many advertising dollars out of the platform as they can with as much vapid and soulless content as it will suffer.

And all of this is sponsored in turn by equally vapid and soulless corporate advertisers, determined to make sure their precious brands are not associated with anything as uncouth as an opinion or a real person.

Hell, there's a great argument to be made of how the "pivot to video" and the resulting catacombs full of gutted and destroyed media websites can be laid at the feet of corporate marketers who wanted video ads. Nay it was not any Internet citizen who claimed the future was video, we didn't ask for it, and we certainly didn't like it.

The whole thing is gross, and far from isolated to YouTube, it has plagued them all, save perhaps for Twitter and I think the only thing saving Twitter is that it's just not as easily monetized. But, Twitter has a different problem, which I believe Jack is trying to solve; the influx of automated bots, bought and paid for by other marketers, more often trying to sell politics than products. But it's just a different kind of feces from the same anus and indicative of the same core problem: advertisers suck, at everything. And they have more power than ever on the Internet, and so the Internet sucks more than ever.

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

#104

Post by shadowgovt » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 3:16 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…

A major difference between the utilities you've described and YouTube / Facebook / Reddit / Twitter is inescapable monopoly. Barring special cases like well-water or local power generation that most people don't have access to, if the utilities cut you off, there is no alternative source. If YouTube cuts you off, you can go to another video host (including but not limited to paying for your own computer to host your data). If Facebook kicks you off, you can use email. Hell, if Facebook or Twitter kick you off, you can go use Twitter or Facebook.

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

#105

Post by leshow » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 3:23 PM UTC

The article is good, but it could do with a lot less ad hominem and calling people 'idiots'.

You can do better than this:

> you may think that you’re very sophisticated, but actually you are just being ridiculous.

> Sure, you can say that if you want (though I don’t think that’s how the word is actually used by ordinary people), but only idiots think it shows that it’s not a problem.

> I know that some people, especially among libertarians, think it makes them smart to believe that, but they clearly have not thought this through.

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

#106

Post by NeedMoreTea » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 3:23 PM UTC

buboard wrote: post #100

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Now consider the world wider than the USA. Imagine I am in the UK (I am), who have overly strong libel and defamation law. Other countries can too. I don't agree the law's balance is right, but that's a different discussion.

Were HN and FB a publisher, and had a UK office (and similarly in other countries with strong laws in this area) they would be liable as well as the individual posters. Those laws are why when things like Snowden and Cambridge Analytica broke they were published both sides of the Atlantic.

You've now created a problem potentially far bigger than the one you fixed.

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

#107

Post by imgabe » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 3:23 PM UTC

Instead of an ideological bias, what if it is just a demographic bias?

The author supposes that there are some mustache-twirling masterminds behind the scenes at Google, Twitter, and Facebook, picking and choosing what content is promoted. But the algorithms, at their most basic sense, promote what is popular.

Based on voting records, in absolute numbers, there are simply more left-leaning people (at least in the US) than there are right-leaning people. Gerrymandering and the electoral college, etc don't reflect this in the government, but it is the case.

The left-leaning viewpoints are more promoted then, simply because there are more people who want to see them. There's no reason to posit a nefarious conspiracy.

We could argue that it would be beneficial to promote less popular viewpoints more to expose people to new ideas. It probably would be a good thing. But these companies are in the business of making money and people generally just want to see things that confirm their own biases. Just look at how upset conservatives are that they can't find enough content like that ;)

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

#108

Post by buboard » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 3:25 PM UTC

Traster wrote: post #61

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 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 s…

Those are real problems. For this to work, reddit would have to remove its frontpage and r/all - everything would have to be explicitly subscription based.

Youtube should be required to enable alternative modes (view all latest) and should be held liable if one can prove that they are e.g. suppressing a legal viewpoint in their searches. I see this as win-win for transparency

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

#109

Post by buboard » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 3:27 PM UTC

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #106

buboard wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Now consider the world wider than the USA. Imagine I am in the UK (I am), who have overly strong libel and defamation law. Other countries can too. I don't agree the law's balance is right, but that's a different discussion. Were HN and FB a publisher, and had a UK office (and similarly in other countries with strong laws in this area) they would be liable as well as the individual posters. Those laws are why when th…

That is already the case though, isnt it? You can say things in reddit that would get you in trouble in a UK-based forum. I believe the distinction between publisher and platform is US thing.

FB And HN are subject to US law where they 're based.It's up to the UK to block access to them if they think they 're illegal - Or preferably to fix libel laws.

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

#110

Post by jerf » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 3:28 PM UTC

naravara wrote: post #78

jerf wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. You can think this, but it's not borne out by legal precedent. Odious speech is protected in public spaces, so if the KKK wants to impose their speech on my by disrupting my morning commute they have that right as long as they get…

"You can think this, but it's not borne out by legal precedent. Odious speech is protected in public spaces, so if the KKK wants to impose their speech on my by disrupting my morning commute they have that right as long as they get a permit."

I think (note that phrase) that in the 21st century, this is an exceptional historical case for the rare communication medium that attaches communication directly to physical location. Almost everything else we do nowadays has personal control involved, and we should consider that the more common case.

It also is not as unregulated as you may rhetorically claim. They are allowed to say odious things, but, at a reasonable volume level (or they'll be shut down for being a public nuisance regardless of the contents of their speech), and they are not allowed to jump in your face and stay there (in which case it's assault, again, regardless of the content of your speech). Moreover, I'd observe that you're mostly hypothesizing, as indicated by your own phrasing, and I'm a lot more pragmatic on this matter, so I don't feel the need to solve problems that don't (currently) exist. I don't think anyone's been more than mildly annoyed by public speech in a long time. (Being annoyed by the content that someone disagrees with you is part of being human. Trying to "solve" that produces worse problems than the original problem.)