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

371–380 of 645 posts

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

#371

Post by pop3 »

no_op wrote: post #345
VBprogrammer wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The president of the United States has been using these platforms to lie to the entire world unashamedly. For the most part not even the skillful half truths, statistics and selective quoting that politicians are known for, just complete fabrications and nutjob conspiracies. The corporations had the choice to continue to be complicit, silence him completely or provide some balance from other sources. It seems to me t…

Are companies that provide one-to-one communications services, like cell phone companies, complicit in drug dealing, insider trading, and all the other nefarious acts that are no doubt organized using their networks? I think most people would say they're not. Meanwhile, one-to-many communications services, like broadcast TV, by their nature require editorial decisions. If you're only broadcasting one stream someone h…

Cells phones are not comparable to an online service.

Property rights are a thing and those who own the servers can determine what they will store and present to other users.

Conservative groups that don't spread misinformation and hatred are thriving on FB and Twitter. Change the law to make them store and publish anything not already illegal will turn them into cesspools like the various *chan sites inside of a month and advertisers will leave as will people with a conscience.

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

#372

Post by tekknik »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #180
mistermann wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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. I think there may be some legitimate truth to this statement that you are not seeing. Donald Trump is far from the only bad actor we've had in our history, and things weren't running smooth as silk before he arrived on the scene, but you sure wouldn't know it from the way people ta…

I do agree with that to some degree. In fact I do find some of the pan rattling about how social networks "must combat disinformation" about the potential Covid vaccines troubling. However, maybe I'm just unlucky, but I have a number of family members who are predisposed to believing anything they see on the internet. I can see the need for social distancing when it comes to viral content too.

> However, maybe I'm just unlucky, but I have a number of family members who are predisposed to believing anything they see on the internet. I can see the need for social distancing when it comes to viral content too.

So censor what they see to ensure they only receive the information you approve of correct?

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

#373

Post by ttt0 »

tstrimple wrote: post #362
ttt0 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could bet money that the opposite of what you're saying is true. But I think that illustrates a much bigger problem. The society is so polarized, that we can't even agree on basic facts. Something went terribly wrong with the internet and the media and now we're living in two completely different realities, that are fundamentally incompatible with one another.

I would take that bet and your money. https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/10/two-new-studies-show-again...

I don't know, I haven't been on facebook since ages, because I got sick of constantly being banned for discussing politics.

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

#374

Post by cortic »

slg wrote: post #340
cortic wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone is in a bubble of disinformation The censorship of the good information is the problem. And it probably started with censorship of bad information that lead to the bubble in the first place. >work on preventative measures so people are never exposed This is where the analogy breaks down, its not a virus, its an idea, anyone can come up with an idea, good or bad. you want to protect people from themselves…

>The censorship of the good information is the problem. And it probably started with censorship of bad information that lead to the bubble in the first place. There is nothing nefarious about bubbles. They happen automatically when people are in control of what they consume. Imagine I join Twitter and I am given a list of people to follow. I don't like to hear from people with viewpoints that I think are crazy so I u…

>I am now in a bubble despite there being zero censorship of anything.

Its still censorship, but i see what you are getting at.

> Stopping that message from spreading to more people seems like a more effective approach

Your example would be stopped whether true or false, as it would likely be the wealthy in charge of whats deemed true.

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

#375

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

noodles_nomore wrote: post #368
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…

>This reads like an assumption that the article is about tech companies in the United States and their effects to combat election misinformation. I completely disagree with this. The parent didn't mention companies once. This must be some kind of 'blue-black or white-gold' thing because the rest of your post reads like nonsense to me. I'm sorry that I haven't got anything substantial to add to this, but I'm just very…

The source article is about countries forcing ISP-level bans on accessing certain sites, while the parent comment is about misinformation. Nobody's blocking gambling content, pornography, or Match.com because they're worried about misinformation.

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

#376

Post by lliamander »

leanstartupnoob wrote: post #277
lliamander wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What we LOVE is a market free of force and fraud, and we love rule of law. Within that there are very nuanced conversations to be had about when the threshold for force or fraud has been reached. Enforcement of contracts is essential to a healthy society, but is it good to enforce a contract where one party either lied or coerced the other to sign? No, or at least not necessarily. The nature of the contract between s…

Twitter is a private company with zero legal authority to enforce anything other than not sharing your tweets. Be honest that you really want to use the force of government laws to mandate that Twitter spreads your version of free speech across the platform paid for and developed by Twitter.

I honestly think you should stop trying to read minds. You aren't very good at it.

Perhaps you should try reading my words instead and responding to them rather than the imaginary things you pretend I actually think? It might work out better.

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

#378

Post by harry8 »

Whatever your views on the particular case being blogged about below, it is widely regarded as being hugely important for the freedom of journalists and journalism. In fact I haven't heard the argument that it isn't, if there is one at all. I've also seen nothing to suggest that the below is some kind of bold fabrication. If you're not worried by it, you probably should be. Whenever you hear "They can't be trusted to analyse and come to the correct conclusion." Means _you_ can't and won't get the chance. Make up your own mind is difficult advice to follow when you're not allowed the information on which to do so.

>Even my blog has never been so systematically subject to shadowbanning from Twitter and Facebook as now. Normally about 50% of my blog readers arrive from Twitter and 40% from Facebook. During the trial it has been 3% from Twitter and 9% from Facebook. That is a fall from 90% to 12%. In the February hearings Facebook and Twitter were between them sending me over 200,000 readers a day. Now they are between them sending me 3,000 readers a day. To be plain that is very much less than my normal daily traffic from them just in ordinary times. It is the insidious nature of this censorship that is especially sinister – people believe they have successfully shared my articles on Twitter and Facebook, while those corporations hide from them that in fact it went into nobody’s timeline. My own family have not been getting their notifications of my posts on either platform.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...

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

#379

Post by gitgud »

Surprising that there's no data on Australia here. The Australian government has implemented a ton of [1] regulation/censorship on the internet.

There's also been an [2] anti-encryption law recently passed to give the government unprecedented access to social media accounts and website in the name of national security...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Austral...

[2] https://fee.org/articles/australia-s-unprecedented-encryptio...

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

#380

Post by noodles_nomore »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #375
noodles_nomore wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This reads like an assumption that the article is about tech companies in the United States and their effects to combat election misinformation. I completely disagree with this. The parent didn't mention companies once. This must be some kind of 'blue-black or white-gold' thing because the rest of your post reads like nonsense to me. I'm sorry that I haven't got anything substantial to add to this, but I'm just very…

The source article is about countries forcing ISP-level bans on accessing certain sites, while the parent comment is about misinformation. Nobody's blocking gambling content, pornography, or Match.com because they're worried about misinformation.

varispeed talks about control and manipulation. That's far broader than misinformation.
Post reply on HN