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

121–130 of 261 posts

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

#121

Post by spaginal »

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 that’s dangerous is usually against an unpopular idea or opinion to the group. Usually when censorship is being discussed, the kind of speech or topics it applies to are already allowed in that forum or venue and there is selective filtering of the content going on outside of what the users themselves choose to entertain.

For instance, if there were a forum specifically about penis pills, and the discussion centered around penis pills, if the moderators selectively expunged certain pill brand mentions or alternative ideas about penis pills from the forum because they personally preferred a over b, or had a personal or business investment in a over b, that is censorship. If you wanted to discuss canaries or automobiles in this forum, they may tell you to move it back on topic. That isn’t censorship.

Similarly, many broad online platforms allow political speech already, it’s just some ideas and people, typically conservative, are being selectively filtered out of the conversation because they don’t want the greater exposure to the alternative but legitimate and contextual ideas or opinions.

That is dangerous. If the shoe was on the other foot politically, it wouldn’t diminish the severity it.

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

#122

Post by m-p-3 »

buboard wrote: post #77
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…

there is an entire range of censorship, it's not black and white. The question is where to draw the line

And that line will always move depending on the moderator motives and societal acceptability.

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

#123

Post by jon_akimbo »

lolinder wrote: post #86
jon_akimbo wrote: post #66

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…

Isn't it more likely that the author chose Facebook, Google, and Twitter not because they're left-leaning, but because their traffic is vastly more significant than The Federalist? The three are all top-50 sites globally. The Federalist doesn't even make it into the top 10k. It's pretty rational to focus more on the sites that have the most traffic when discussing bias, isn't it?

> It's pretty rational to focus more on the sites that have the most traffic when discussing bias, isn't it?

I feel that if a person is making an argument from principle, then that principle should apply everywhere and not just where politically convenient to them.

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

#124

Post by NeedMoreTea »

buboard wrote: post #116
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL but as I understand it, the UK case at the moment is it might get me into trouble if they can pin me down, but not the discussion forum itself. There might be a legal request to reveal my identity, but purely to pin me down. As a publisher, the forum itself would be jointly and severally liable. If Fred Smith writes a piece in The Times that libels me, I sue the newspaper, not Fred Smith. FB and the other globa…

But what if (UK citizen) fred smith writes a piece in the new york times? I don't think you can sue the NYtimes, or that NYtimes will care - I bet they receive a ton of legal complaints from foreign countries every year most of which are readily dismissable by US law.

Now I would need to consult a lawyer. I don't know US law on libel and defamation.

The fact that stories like CA and Snowden have been jointly published in the US, rather than say Canada or France makes me suspect that chances of a successful suit are low in the US. That's probably the point. :)

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

#125

Post by danso »

goatinaboat wrote: post #72
danso wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What will happen to New York Times when its running sexually explicit, beheading, animal torture, etc? They will get sued. The NYT isn't a public utility nor a public broadcaster. I'm curious what you think would happen to the New York Times if they were to get sued in your imaginary hypothetical?

I'm curious what you think would happen to the New York Times if they were to get sued in your imaginary hypothetical? Editors can and have been jailed. They are ultimately personally responsible for what the paper published.

Which contemporary examples (i.e. within the last 50 years) are you referring to? Journalists have been threatened with imprisonment for protecting sources from government subpoena. But the sanction is for refusing a court order, not because of the publication content.

https://archives.cjr.org/opening_shot/opening_shot_july_augu...

And in any case, a publisher is different than a utility or a platform. Social media users are already punished for publishing illegal content (libel, copyright violations, etc). How does making Facebook a "utility" change that?

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

#126

Post by buboard »

danShumway wrote: post #119
buboard wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> There's not a lot of ambiguity about spam so it's not a real issue. People say this, I don't think it's true. I think there is ambiguity around when marketing crosses into spam. If you look at different communities, even HN and Reddit, you'll find different opinions about what kind of promotion crosses that line. Individual communities need to be able to make their own decisions on that, they don't need blanket rul…

reddit has already a "spam level" slider. They should allow subreddits to turn off spam filtering completely - although of course it doesnt make sense. But if they want to be classified as a simple carrier they would have to .

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

#127

Post by pavel_lishin »

buboard wrote: post #93
pavel_lishin wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> There's not a lot of ambiguity about spam so it's not a real issue

I couldn't disagree harder. I'd go into detail, but a) I'm at work, and b) the fact that we disagree is evidence that there _is_ ambiguity.

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

#128

Post by buboard »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #127
buboard wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> There's not a lot of ambiguity about spam so it's not a real issue I couldn't disagree harder. I'd go into detail, but a) I'm at work, and b) the fact that we disagree is evidence that there _is_ ambiguity.

alright, i dont want to keep you from work, but i agree they should be able to turn off spam filtering, even though it makes little sense. And they should be held liable if a court can prove that their spam filter is biased in some illegal way

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

#129

Post by danso »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #111

> For instance, if you’re a journalist and you want to promote your work, there is simply no viable alternative to Twitter at the moment. No other microblogging platform comes even close to having the number of users Twitter does, and most of the alternatives are hotbeds of extremism, so that anyone who joins them is thereby disqualified in polite company. IMO if you can't even try to use an alternative microblogging…

What right do journalists have to have a platform for promotion and advertising? Either before or after the Internet and Twitter.

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

#130

Post by danShumway »

buboard wrote: post #126
danShumway wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's not a lot of ambiguity about spam so it's not a real issue. People say this, I don't think it's true. I think there is ambiguity around when marketing crosses into spam. If you look at different communities, even HN and Reddit, you'll find different opinions about what kind of promotion crosses that line. Individual communities need to be able to make their own decisions on that, they don't need blanket rul…

reddit has already a "spam level" slider. They should allow subreddits to turn off spam filtering completely - although of course it doesnt make sense. But if they want to be classified as a simple carrier they would have to .

In your definition of censorship, would it be OK for Facebook to hide some political articles behind a "filter dishonest posts" setting that was on by default for users and groups?

Is it OK to do that to a marketing post?

Post reply on HN