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

#241

Post by leereeves » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 12:06 AM UTC

aricrocuta wrote: post #234

leereeves wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a rather common style of argument often used against civil rights: every person's civil rights should be restrained because criminals abuse those rights. We can't have censorship free platforms because someone might spin up a thousand accounts. We need the NSA to monitor all communications because terrorists use the Internet. We should arrest 12-year olds for making finger guns because of school shooters. But…

What if you take out "makes a thousand accounts" and substitute "spreads hate speech" or "calls people racial slurs"? In that case there's no abuse of the system; only the speech itself is problematic. Would censorship-free platforms have a way to suppress that speech? Should such speech be suppressed? In my opinion, yes, but I'd like to know what you think.

I haven't seen a platform that actually banned hate speech; they all allow such speech, as long as it's directed at acceptable targets (often white people or Christians). These platform's actions aren't about problematic speech, but about identity politics.

But in theory a platform could ban such content impartially. Should they? Should such speech be universally suppressed? I'd have to say no; if it were, who could criticize Wahhabism or Scientology?

Now I'd like to know what you think. Should "hate speech" directed at Scientology be suppressed?

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

#242

Post by leereeves » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 12:10 AM UTC

nullc wrote: post #238

leereeves wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a rather common style of argument often used against civil rights: every person's civil rights should be restrained because criminals abuse those rights. We can't have censorship free platforms because someone might spin up a thousand accounts. We need the NSA to monitor all communications because terrorists use the Internet. We should arrest 12-year olds for making finger guns because of school shooters. But…

Please. This isn't some hypothetical that I'm suggesting. There are largely uncensored forums, like 4chan. That's actually what you get when you go there rather than having something that is heavily moderated but only in ways that you agree with, where you then pretend it isn't moderated. And in fact, I'll fully support you having your own platform which is as uncensored as you want it to be. I wish you the best of l…

I think we should make a distinction between platforms and publishers. A publisher curates content according to their opinion, to the extent that when they publish outside opinions, they add a disclaimer like "Opinions expressed herein do not represent those of the publisher". There's no such disclaimer on reddit, Twitter, or Facebook because people understand that the posts aren't coming from the platform. These sites aren't a place for the owners to express their opinion; they're a mechanism for the users to communicate.

And when the mechanisms of communication are privately owned, freedom of speech can't exist if the owners censor those mechanisms.

Platforms (as opposed to publishers) should be treated like telephone companies or the mail or ISPs. They shouldn't even read the messages they carry, let alone censor them.

On the other hand, sites aren't required to be a platform, but if they choose to act like a publisher then they should be held responsible for the content they publish.

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

#243

Post by weci2i » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 1:24 AM UTC

tssva wrote: post #131

The article starts with an unsupported premise that the platforms these companies operate favor liberal over conservative speech so my natural inclination is just to dismiss the rest of it; however, even if true the solution to improving freedom of speech is not suppressing someone else's freedom of speech.

I probably can’t supply data that would convince you liberal speech is favored over conservative speech. However, within the past month my personal Facebook account was curiously disabled within an hour of typing the word “Christian” in a comment. I would not identify as conservative or liberal. I certainly can’t prove that merely using this word was what triggered the permaban, but Facebook absolutely would not reinstate my account, even after I supplied a valid driver’s license as proof of my identity.

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

#244

Post by RickJWagner » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 1:44 AM UTC

I've been flabbergasted at the number of universities that have recently stifled speakers.

I agree with much of what the author wrote. It's time for change. Classic liberalism may be best.

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

#245

Post by everdev » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 2:15 AM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #220

everdev wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we expect all civil exchanges to be treated equally Define civil :) Take any hot button issue like guns, abortion, etc. where your stance on one side of the issue can be seen as immoral or life threatening to the other side. Take a passionate / borderline tweet from one side and you'll probably get a 50/50 disagreement on wether or not it's "civil". Now what? Block the tweet? Warn the user? How many people need to…

> and look at the Westboro Baptist Church. That’s actually a great example of why viewpoint censorship is a _bad thing_, for everybody, including Twitter, you and me. Look, you and I both know that there are facts that are true that you can’t express for fear of being kicked off of public forums. In fact, even stating that there exist facts that are true but that you can’t express is toeing the line, even though nobo…

> Since you seem to be more or less pro-censorship, I’ll assume that you’re a bit left leaning

What gave you that impression? I was raising questions to show that any censorship (or definition of civil discussion) is problematic.

It's a tough problem because bad ideas can lead to bad things, but stopping good ideas can lead to bad things too. If we all agreed on what's good and what's bad this would be easy, but we don't.

I'd much rather live with the consequences of free speech than live with the consequences of censorship. But neither side should project claim it's a utopia.

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

#246

Post by rhaksw » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 2:39 AM UTC

Nasrudith wrote: post #14

rhaksw wrote: post #2

I'm always surprised when articles like this don't mention reddit. Isn't it a top 10 website that was once top 3? I've read quotes saying one in three americans has visited reddit. Anyway, reddit is a great resource for studying moderation activity.

That is because it oozes pretense of refusing to accept that their "silent majority" is really a noisy minority. Not recognizing freedom of association is one of the big warning signs along with not realizing the impact of what they want on /themselves/. Personally at that point I mentally mark them as spam. Annoyingly they conflate actual corporate censorship concerns with their persecution complex. DMCA abuse is ac…

I don't see how this relates to leaving reddit out of articles about moderation in social media.

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

#247

Post by daveFNbuck » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 3:25 AM UTC

spaginal wrote: post #121

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 discussio…

What alternative but legitimate beliefs are being silenced? I'm not following the issue closely, so I've only heard about people like Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos being removed from social networks.

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

#248

Post by woander » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 3:28 AM UTC

driverdan wrote: post #147

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…

> IMO if you can't even try to use an alternative microblogging platform for fear of being labeled an extremist by "polite company" I downvoted you because this is a ridiculous claim. If you use a platform like Gab that embraces bigots and extremists perhaps, but that's not the only other platform.

Gab doesn't "embrace" bigots and extremists, they just embrace free speech.

You have to realize that most things can be viewed as bigotry and extremism. Look at how feminism and lgbt are viewed around the world - as extremism. Would you say twitter "embraces" bigotry and extremism because they allow feminism and lgbt on their platform?

It's a question about monopoly and fairness and the cultural values of america. Free speech is both a legal and a cultural concept.

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

#249

Post by buzzkillington » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 3:39 AM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #171

buzzkillington wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why wouldn't it just attract users organically the way other content does? [[citation needed]] Would you like to present proof that t_d did not grow organically in 2015/2016? So far you're heavy on claims and light on proof.

Citation? No problem. Here it is: > A hilarious example was when Reddit was trying to deal with the_donald successfully spamming reddits hot algorithm. - buzzkillington in Hacker News comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21463480 You were the one who stated that /r/the_donald spammed Reddit to reach the front page. Are you changing your story and now saying they reached the front page organically? Are you co…

If you haven't already, would you mind reading about HN's approach to comments and site guidelines?

>Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#250

Post by potatoz2 » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 3:58 AM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #241

aricrocuta wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you take out "makes a thousand accounts" and substitute "spreads hate speech" or "calls people racial slurs"? In that case there's no abuse of the system; only the speech itself is problematic. Would censorship-free platforms have a way to suppress that speech? Should such speech be suppressed? In my opinion, yes, but I'd like to know what you think.

I haven't seen a platform that actually banned hate speech; they all allow such speech, as long as it's directed at acceptable targets (often white people or Christians). These platform's actions aren't about problematic speech, but about identity politics. But in theory a platform could ban such content impartially. Should they? Should such speech be universally suppressed? I'd have to say no; if it were, who could…

Criticism is not hate speech. Ignoring the unclear phrase "hate speech", banning calls to violence or verbal harassment is very different from banning opinions.

Free speech as it is understood in the US applies to the government and the government can and does limit your rights when it comes to violence and time and place (e.g. you can't yell during a session of Congress). It's absolutely morally fine to do so and it does not infringe on freedom of speech in any way.