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

‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

news.umich.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 645 posts

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#301

Post by bleepblorp »

6nf wrote: post #244
paxys wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? It's the exact opposite. In the US sites like Facebook & Twitter routinely refuse to censor conservative content even if it is against their policies because they are afraid of pissing off Republicans in Congress. A "liberal" on Facebook calling for the beheading of a conservative politican would be banned (possibly even arrested) immediately. The opposite can and does happen every day, with no penalty. And all…

Do you have examples of these calls for beheadings of non conservatives?

OP is probably referring to the Steve Bannon's recent statement calling for the beheading of Dr. Fauci. This has been very widely covered, even by Trumpist media. See:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-electio...

https://www.newsweek.com/bannon-calls-fauci-beheading-154528...

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/05/steve-bannon-makes-beheading...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/steve-bannon-s-twitter-acc...

https://nypost.com/2020/11/06/twitter-bans-steve-bannon-for-...

This kind of political speech has no place in a democratic society. The fact that it comes down to social media and Internet providers to regulate it, however, is reflective of a policy failure. Keeping calls for extremist violence out of the public sphere ought to be the responsibility of the criminal legal system, not private business.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#302

Post by bigger_cheese »

paxys wrote: post #143
AussieWog93 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The problem is that we didn't teach people about manipulation techniques I don't know where you're from, but it's part of the Victorian (possibly Australian) curriculum for all year 12 students. And we still ended up with Rupert Murdoch.

Maybe it is part of the curriculum because you ended up with Murdoch. That guy has been running the show since the 60s.

The Murdoch's have been influencing Australia Earlier then the 60's. It goes back to WWI, Keith Murdoch - Rupert's father made his name reporting on World War I, especially The Gallipolli campaign. He was hugely influential in shaping how the campaign was viewed and received in Australia.

It would later come out that there was exaggerations and embellishments in his reporting (https://insidestory.org.au/the-myth-of-keith-murdochs-gallip...)

In Australia, Gallipolli and the ANZAC mythos became part of our national identity. It is hard to explain to non-Australians the impact of the "Anzac legacy" on our culture it was like Australia's Gettysburg or Waterloo etc. Anzac Day is still celebrated and observed more than 100 years later it is a major patriotic celebration.

Murdoch also tried to use his influence to block the advancement of Sir John Monash (arguably the greatest allied general of WWI and the last person to ever be knighted on the battlefield).

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#303

Post by ccn0p »

ojbyrne wrote: post #181
paxys wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? It's the exact opposite. In the US sites like Facebook & Twitter routinely refuse to censor conservative content even if it is against their policies because they are afraid of pissing off Republicans in Congress. A "liberal" on Facebook calling for the beheading of a conservative politican would be banned (possibly even arrested) immediately. The opposite can and does happen every day, with no penalty. And all…

I think that the right has moved the Overton Window so much to the right that they see things that most of the world would see as mainstream (Black Lives Matter, Abortion, Medicare for All, Defund the Police, Anti-Fascism etc) as extreme.

That's funny that you say that because those who find themselves right of center generally say the same thing. The mainstream media, hollywood, and academia, have become so liberal that the center feels like extreme right to them.

Again, goes to show the polarization of the US.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#304

Post by konjin »

jimvdv wrote: post #146
busterarm wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse than that. We're seeing the teaming up of governments and giant corporations to control the narrative and tell people what's true and what isn't. It's the literal definition of fascism. And you see it being championed by people as defending against "the greatest threat to our democracy".

“Literally fascism” is a little overused. I’m not saying governments and corporations teaming up is a good thing, but let’s not use fascism here, that will only make it harder to recognise actual fascism. If corporations and a heavily authoritarian government team up to crack down on anyone who they believe is the slightest treat to the success of some imagined single-minded Volk, then yes we can talk about fascism.…

That is not Fascism. That is Nazism.

Words have meanings beyond "things I don't like".

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#305

Post by fantod »

konjin wrote: post #296
p1necone wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What benefit do you think the government gets out of lockdowns? (other than the obvious one of stopping the spread of the pandemic).

Mandatory real time tracking of every citizen. Sounds insane? So did the patriot act in the 90s.

Not every lockdown entails tracking of individuals.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#306

Post by TeMPOraL »

galangalalgol wrote: post #273
slg wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a binary choice between a fully state controlled internet and a fully free and open internet. There is a spectrum. I believe the ideal internet rests much closer to the free and open side than the state controlled side, but existing at the extreme of free and open would be come with its own set of problems. Just look at all the most popular places on the web that champion their lack of censorship or modera…

Is it possible that they become cesspools because poop isn't allowed to flow everywhere else? Is there a finite quantity of poop that could be diluted if it were spread out evenly, or is the supply unending?

The problem isn't quantity, but risk. There's a reason we restrict literal poop to a few designated places - while there's only a finite amount of excrement deposited any given time, you don't want every place you visit and interaction you're a part of to carry a chance of you witnessing someone defecating.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#307

Post by cogman10 »

rbanffy wrote: post #246
cogman10 wrote: post #61

I have to wondered how we "fix" our current internet situation. On the one hand, censorship appears to be appealing to stop the tide of misinformation. Anti-vaxx garbage is a prime example of something that should be censored into oblivion. It is actively harmful to the public. But, on the other hand, who pulls the levers of censorship is equally terrifying. I don't want a world where a dissenting opinion is censored…

> I have to wondered how we "fix" our current internet situation. Isn't Tor a tool made specifically for this?

Tor fixes access to banned locations on the internet. Tor doesn't fix the spread of misinformation and astro-turfing.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#308

Post by MinusGix »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #290
quicklime wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember those classes in VCE. Unfortunately a lot of people interpreted it as a class on "how to be persuasive" (as a writer) rather than "how to avoid being persuaded by propagandists" (as a reader). We were taught common logical fallacies, and then tested on how well we could spot instances of them in a news article. But I remember also being asked to write persuasive essays, without being taught how to reason i…

Its impossible to not be fallacious in any meaningful discourse that goes on long enough, and that's okay. Every single invocation of an expert is an argument from authority. Every single invocation of logic like "it is more like nature therefor it is more good" is a naturalistic fallacy. Do we even need to get to other ones like "appeal to emotion"? Maybe we should instead recognize that "logic" does not necessarily…

There's obviously levels to it, its not "This is a fallacy/incorrect argument" and "This is a good argument". Invocation of expert is not the end of all discussion, as there are non-truthful experts and authorities (such as Government) which are more obviously less trustworthy. That doesn't mean that you should ignore all authority (I've never seen that argued).

Naturalistic fallacy really depends on how much you value the natural state of things, but it is usually used to point out that just because it is 'natural' doesn't mean it is good or sensible to do/continue.

Appeal to emotion. Appeals to emotion are often used to incite people without them thinking through. "They killed our people!" sounds a lot more convincing/inciting than, "They had an altercation which unfortunately escalated, leading to the deaths of several people that we knew". Using emotion to obscure or not properly think about how it came to be to that point and what should be done from then on.

I think you're conflating logic (ex: mathematical logic, or far less rigorous careful reasoning) with an overly strict definition of a logical fallacy.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#309

Post by quicklime »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #290
quicklime wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember those classes in VCE. Unfortunately a lot of people interpreted it as a class on "how to be persuasive" (as a writer) rather than "how to avoid being persuaded by propagandists" (as a reader). We were taught common logical fallacies, and then tested on how well we could spot instances of them in a news article. But I remember also being asked to write persuasive essays, without being taught how to reason i…

Its impossible to not be fallacious in any meaningful discourse that goes on long enough, and that's okay. Every single invocation of an expert is an argument from authority. Every single invocation of logic like "it is more like nature therefor it is more good" is a naturalistic fallacy. Do we even need to get to other ones like "appeal to emotion"? Maybe we should instead recognize that "logic" does not necessarily…

All I'm trying to say is that high school students should be taught "how to reach a logical conclusion" rather than "how to be persuasive in an amoral way".

> Maybe we should instead recognize that "logic" does not necessarily describe reality

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but it sounds a dangerous path to go down. People have already discarded facts - I think discarding logic as well would make things even worse.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#310

Post by jedberg »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #235
d23 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you or the responders read the article? This reads like an assumption that the article is about tech companies in the United States and their effects to combat election misinformation. It's not. The part about the United States says this: > While the United States saw a small uptick in blocking, mostly driven by individual companies or internet service providers filtering content, the study did not uncover widesp…

HN really needs a way to force people to have at least clicked on the article before posting. Maybe something where the article has to be clicked on, and then a X minute timer is started so that people will be strongly incentivized to read the article before commenting.

We tried that on reddit a long time ago. It didn't work. We realized that a lot of people just want to see the discussion.

I always click on the comments first myself to see if the article is even worth reading.

Post reply on HN