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

Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 1001 posts

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#611

Post by tossAfterUsing »

intended wrote: post #600
prudhvis wrote: post #223

I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.

I can answer this one - 1) Old school free speech advocate, changed positions since 2) Had to figure this out practically, so not just theory crafting. Context: Part of a mod team for a forum, and we were torn between ideals of free speech and what was actually happening on the forum. Important note, moderation may be the main service the internet/SM platforms sell - curation, removal of trolls, the cleaning and keep…

You're not describing free speech, you're describing the challenges of moderation.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#612

Post by Latty »

notadev wrote: post #339
snowwrestler wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 100% inline with free speech to let a given website decide what they want to publish. Even if it is a very popular website. If they make bad decisions, then people can go to competitors; it's as easy as typing in a different URL. That's how the Internet--and open societies in general--are supposed to work. What it looks like to me--someone who has been on the Internet since before the turn of the century--is tha…

Where does one go when Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube seem to take these steps in tandem? The joke of "go make your own social network" has been tried with places like Parler and Gab, but they get banned from app stores, ironically blocked from technically, but not ideologically, decentralized services like Mastodon, or even dropped from web hosts. The open Internet is dead.

This is like asking why you aren't allowed to go into any supermarket and scream in people's faces.

Yeah, if what you are doing is obnoxious and a lot of people hate it, you are going to get rejected from the vast majority of spaces.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#613

Post by jonstewart »

prudhvis wrote: post #223

I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.

I was born in the late 70s and also was there and ready for the heady birth of the web—as a teen and then a college student, it was great. I subscribe to the free speech, anti-censorship ethos.

But this ain’t censorship; free speech is alive and well for anyone willing to find the right platform. This is a platform provider [belatedly] denying access to lies (they aren’t opinions) that have been weaponized to exploit those platforms’ recommendation algorithms for the liars’ own gain. It is more like how the internet started to develop defenses against spam in the late 90s, with spamsum, SpamAssassin, etc.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#614

Post by legolas2412 »

glenstein wrote: post #528
rayiner wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re mischaracterizing how free speech was viewed in the recent past. “Free speech” (as a cultural value, I’m not talking about the first amendment) was about the marketplace of ideas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketplace_of_ideas . It meant a free market in ideas, where the dominant ideas arise from competition. What you call “amplification” is just something that makes the marketplace more efficient—it allow…

I don't think I agree that they are mischaracterizing how free speech understood, and I don't think that distinction you are drawing identifies a new idea incompatible with what they are saying. Free speech encompasses a lot of things depending on what you want to emphasize, including a notion in a healthy democracy the best ideas survive critical scrutiny. As other have mentioned, I think however plausible that conc…

> As other have mentioned, I think however plausible that conception of speech was then, it's utterly ignorant of the problems we're facing today

I think it is the exact opposite. Maybe I have read too many dystopian novels like fahrenheit 451, or 1984, or read too much about Chinese govt's control of its population, but I feel that modern technology has allowed too much censorship power in hands of not just the govt, but a few corporations. And it is extremely important that we do not compromise on free speech now.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#615

Post by leptons »

hartator wrote: post #326
sailingparrot wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New technologies brought new challenges. There was no social network in the 2000s and before. No retweet button, no "curated" timeline that showed you what you "like". YouTube did not try to push more videos like the ones you watched previously until the mid 2010s. Free speech does not have the same meaning as before. Before it just meant that you could say whatever you wanted. Now people use it implicitly to mean th…

> I believe free amplification is terrible It's exactly what they were saying at the invention of the printing press. Amplification becoming too cheap. Maybe being on the side of censorship is always being on the wrong side of history no matter the issue. Can you remember one time in history where we now like "thanks god they censor these thoughts!"?

>Can you remember one time in history where we now like "thanks god they censor these thoughts!"?

Nazism in Germany, post-WW2. And I'm okay with that.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#616

Post by wslack »

rayiner wrote: post #429
sailingparrot wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New technologies brought new challenges. There was no social network in the 2000s and before. No retweet button, no "curated" timeline that showed you what you "like". YouTube did not try to push more videos like the ones you watched previously until the mid 2010s. Free speech does not have the same meaning as before. Before it just meant that you could say whatever you wanted. Now people use it implicitly to mean th…

You’re mischaracterizing how free speech was viewed in the recent past. “Free speech” (as a cultural value, I’m not talking about the first amendment) was about the marketplace of ideas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketplace_of_ideas . It meant a free market in ideas, where the dominant ideas arise from competition. What you call “amplification” is just something that makes the marketplace more efficient—it allow…

I don't think moving viral misinformation from chain e-mail to hyper-spread tweets via algorithm has improved the marketplace of ideas.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#617

Post by bigbubba »

DudeInBasement wrote: post #261
nexuist wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up in the early 2000s. I find it difficult to understand as well, but I think what happened is that emotional human contact was overrun by corporate/nation-state bots. Bots cannot be convinced that their positions are wrong; they exist solely to spread discontent and fear. This is far different than the early Internet where you could safely assume everyone you were talking to is a real person. They may be a da…

Free speech works even if people don't listen. Respect/creditable is earned.

Does this mean you agree in principle with George Bush's 'free speech zones' aka "you can say what you like, but you have to do it over there where nobody will hear you"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#618

Post by justinzollars »

The United States 2020: All the downsides of Chinese censorship with none of the upsides of 18,000 miles of high speed rail, a peaceful society, and a growing economy because neither party is competent.

I miss the internet being a libertarian place. Now it just sucks.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#619

Post by leptons »

crazygringo wrote: post #395
hartator wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe free amplification is terrible It's exactly what they were saying at the invention of the printing press. Amplification becoming too cheap. Maybe being on the side of censorship is always being on the wrong side of history no matter the issue. Can you remember one time in history where we now like "thanks god they censor these thoughts!"?

> Can you remember one time in history where we now like "thanks god they censor these thoughts!"? Absolutely, of course. Hate speech and Holocaust denial are censored in Europe generally, and a majority of people in those countries today do say support these bans (i.e. they say "thank god"). Because they saw the kind of hateful thinking that led to WWII, and how shockingly easy it is for people to be convinced of re…

I upvoted you because you're absolutely right.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#620

Post by mdoms »

rllearneratwork wrote: post #483
prudhvis wrote: post #223

I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.

Misinformation and hate speech are clearly important issues. But loosing free speech would be a colossal mistake. I used to live in a country with no free speech, trust me the USA in its current state is hundred million times better and more just. Free speech is just super fundamental. So, in my opinion, nothing restricting free speech is acceptable - the downsides of that are just too enormous. We need to learn to l…

Counter point, I live in a country with no constitutional free speech and a government with a censorship office, and this country is free and open and a wonderful place to live. So you're going to have to find a better causation theory.
Post reply on HN