Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story • Hacker News Board

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#141

Post by commandlinefan » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 11:48 PM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #133

haltingproblem wrote: post #2

I fear Taibbi is right, the suppression by Twitter, irrespective of the merits and veracity of NY Post's report, will now normalize all kinds of behavior by platforms of all kinds big and small. Which will then incentivize governments to take on the platforms. This also raises issues of unequal treatment - say the NY Post report was factually wrong - why pick on the NY Post only? Why not the hundreds of other "news o…

I think delaying the story until it could be somewhat verified is reasonable. I actually read it minutes after it was posted on the NY Post and my first thought was that it sounded like it shouldn’t have been published. I literally thought they’d retract it. I think the internet is breaking into various niche groups. I fully expect there soon to be completely partisan social networks. That’s probably the best way to…

Well, ok, but can you find any other instance of a story that could have used some verification being suppressed by Twitter and Facebook at the same time?

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#142

Post by commandlinefan » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 11:49 PM UTC

missedthecue wrote: post #33

tracer4201 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The liberal wing was upset that state and non state actors influenced the 2016 election by manipulating social media. Now, Twitter is working to suppress some content that they believe is a repeat attempt — the October surprise if you will. I don’t have strong opinions on whether it’s right or wrong, but I don’t think this is a scandal. Twitter is a private company. You don’t have a constitutional right to write what…

Should T Mobile or Verizon be able to censor your phone calls and text messages if they don't like the content? After all, they're private companies as well.

ISPs are private companies, too. Should they be suppressing political information as well?

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#143

Post by hackyhacky » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 11:50 PM UTC

centimeter wrote: post #106

timoth3y wrote: post #96

Many are confusing "censorship" with "content moderation". The difference is very important. Censorship is when you are prevented from publishing on your own platform. Content moderation is when a platform owner choses what can be published on theirs. Twitter decided they did not want their platform used to spread what they considered to be Russian disinformation and propaganda, but they in no way prevented the NY Po…

> censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security There's no sane way to interpret twitter's actions as anything except censorship. The fact that they're legally entitled to commit this censorship doesn't make it something else.

To have a sensible conversation, we have to acknowledge what the alleged Biden emails are: at best, stolen information; and at worst, intentionally manipulated or fabricated information. In either case, the information is being released now for the explicit goal of altering the outcome of the election in favor of those who are releasing it.

We haven't had this issue in history before: it's never been so easy to reach so many people with such bad information. This places intermediaries, including Twitter, in an awkward situation: they can "censor" by restricting access to intentionally misleading information; or they can release it, and thereby become pawns of the bad actors who propagate it.

As has been pointed out, this is a moral issue. We should step pretending that all censorship is bad, and that compelling intermediaries to publish literally everything is a moral good.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#144

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 11:51 PM UTC

haltingproblem wrote: post #2

I fear Taibbi is right, the suppression by Twitter, irrespective of the merits and veracity of NY Post's report, will now normalize all kinds of behavior by platforms of all kinds big and small. Which will then incentivize governments to take on the platforms. This also raises issues of unequal treatment - say the NY Post report was factually wrong - why pick on the NY Post only? Why not the hundreds of other "news o…

[deleted]

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#145

Post by srtjstjsj » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 11:52 PM UTC

ketamine__ wrote: post #132

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Content moderation is a form of censorship. Censorship isn't always bad. You can look up the history of the term if you want (hint: it shares the same origin as the term "census"). A closely related phenomenon to the pathological applications of censorship is the abuse and redefinition of language for political purposes like what you're doing.

The NY Post doesn't own the copyright to the photos it is publishing. Imagine if someone stole your laptop and published all your photos. I hope someone can step in and do to the Post what Peter Thiel did to Gawker.

That would require someone claiming to own the photos, which would likely hurt that person quite a bit.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#146

Post by googthrowaway42 » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 11:52 PM UTC

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #137

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech is a moral principle. Content moderation decisions can adhere to this principle or not. Removal of viagra bot spam from a blog comment section is a clear example where content moderation adheres to the principles of free speech. Removing content on a platform like Twitter simply because the Silicon Valley elitists/leftists that run Twitter don't like it is not in keeping with the principle of free speech…

"Content moderation" is about the speech someone running a website is willing to participate in. Requiring them to publish everything their users post would be what's called "coerced speech", which happens to be single biggest no-no of the legal concept of freedom of speech. Forcing someone to say something against their will is considered far worse than preventing someone from saying something they want to say. That…

I think you're stretching the idea of compelled speech to the point where it loses its essential meaning. Compelled speech is when someone forces you to say something, not when you are prevented from disallowing someone to say something under their own name on your website/property.

When I comment on HN I do not comment as HN itself.

What you're talking about seems like an application of the idea of private property rights (i.e. kicking someone out of your house/office for saying something you don't like).

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#147

Post by hackyhacky » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 11:53 PM UTC

[I posted this comment as a child of another comment below, but I think it's important enough to this discussion that I'm reposting it here.]

To have a sensible conversation, we have to acknowledge what the alleged Biden emails are: at best, stolen information; and at worst, intentionally manipulated or fabricated information. In either case, the information is being released now for the explicit goal of altering the outcome of the election in favor of those who are releasing it.

We haven't had this issue in history before: it's never been so easy to reach so many people with such bad information. This places intermediaries, including Twitter, in an awkward situation: they can "censor" by restricting access to intentionally misleading information; or they can release it, and thereby become pawns of the bad actors who propagate it.

As has been pointed out, this is a moral issue. We should step pretending that all censorship is bad, and that compelling intermediaries to publish literally everything is a moral good.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#148

Post by googthrowaway42 » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 11:54 PM UTC

sagichmal wrote: post #124

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You hear a lot more talk about the suppression than the actual story because the news media you follow isn't covering the content of the story. There are emails being released constantly detailing various business dealings with CCP linked companies including undisclosed loans from Chinese banks that the Bidens continually roll forward.

> because the news media you follow isn't covering the content of the story. That's not surprising, because it's manufactured and bogus.

Are you claiming that the content that has been published is manufactured and bogus (aka fabricated)?

I don't think anyone has actually claimed that. What makes you say this?

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#149

Post by srtjstjsj » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 11:54 PM UTC

chrisoverzero wrote: post #130

TeMPOraL wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this would make censorship a form of free speech. We've reach a contradiction, so there must be an error in the chain of reasoning. My money is on "content moderation is a form of free speech" being wrong.

>We’ve reach[ed] a contradiction […] No, it’s only that people are using differing definitions of “censorship” and talking past each other. Content moderation is, in fact, a form of free speech. Twitter (for example) is allowed to choose what they want to host on their website, and what they want not to host on their website. This is free speech – it’s their site, one can’t make them host what one writes. If choosing…

The contradiction is that "freedom" is paradoxical. It is impossible for everyone to be free if any two individuals disagree.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#150

Post by krapp » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 11:58 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #120

strathmeyer wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Content moderation is a form of free speech.

So this would make censorship a form of free speech. We've reach a contradiction, so there must be an error in the chain of reasoning. My money is on "content moderation is a form of free speech" being wrong.

Content moderation isn't free speech, it's freedom of association, or in constitutional terms, freedom of assembly.

Consider that Ben Franklin wouldn't publish libelous or slanderous material submitted to his newspaper - clearly a form of "content moderation." He believed in the right of the people submitting such things to express them and would suggest they try elsewhere, but also believed in his right not to publish those views on his "platform."

I don't think anyone would accuse Ben Franklin of not believing in free speech, so clearly a reasonable person can square the apparent circle. Freedom of speech isn't the only right relevant to speech, and freedom of speech doesn't guarantee a right to speak on all platforms.