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

Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

taibbi.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 340 posts

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#141

Post by opendysphoria »

root_axis wrote: post #95
emptyparadise wrote: post #46

My question to everyone supporting restrictions on speech and supporting privacy violations, even for good reasons, is this: are you prepared to have these tools fall into the wrong hands? The same methods used to quickly shut down a dangerous website or to track down a terrorist by their online posts can be used to silence protests and to hunt down political opposition.

Nobody is being hunted, that's pretty hyperbolic. If YouTube were silencing protests I wouldn't like that, but I don't rely on YouTube to understand what's going on in the world and I would encourage anyone concerned about YouTube's content policy to consider visiting other websites on the internet in addition to YouTube.

>Nobody is being hunted, that's pretty hyperbolic.

That's pretty hyperbolic.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#142

Post by bawolff »

natmaka wrote: post #117
bawolff wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What tools are these actually - the delete button? When it comes down to it - i like moderated spaces on the internet. I dont want to wade through spam, not to mention violent and abusive content. I don't like seeing shock images. So yes, i support having moderation. The question to me is not: yes/no moderation, its where you draw the line; what are your policies and how are they enforced. Fundamentally i think the s…

IMHO the central question is: do you tolerate zones moderated (or not moderated at all) by their owners exactly how they want it, provided that you remain free to avoid any zone and also to create your own zone(s)? No one likes spam, abusive content, fake news... However many won't qualify a given content the same way. IMO, for example, history shows that anyone thinking that he is _right_ and has to educate others b…

> IMHO the central question is: do you tolerate zones moderated (or not moderated at all) by their owners exactly how they want it, provided that you remain free to avoid any zone and also to create your own zone(s)?

Is that not what we do currently? (subject to certain legal restrictions, but generally in usa the restrictions other than copyright are pretty light. And if they aren't, well Tor). You have pretty wide discretion if you self-host, especially on bare metal. Not perfect mind you, but pretty wide.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#143

Post by opendysphoria »

danaris wrote: post #69
emptyparadise wrote: post #46

My question to everyone supporting restrictions on speech and supporting privacy violations, even for good reasons, is this: are you prepared to have these tools fall into the wrong hands? The same methods used to quickly shut down a dangerous website or to track down a terrorist by their online posts can be used to silence protests and to hunt down political opposition.

I...beg your pardon? What everyone's been talking about the past few weeks has absolutely nothing to do with shutting down dangerous websites, and any terrorist who leaves a trail of online posts that can be used to track them doesn't need anything special to be done to make that possible. People have been talking about the major social media platforms—who are, arguably, already pretty high up there on the list of "t…

Yes

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#144

Post by chrisco255 »

cratermoon wrote: post #37
tjr225 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a free market you can choose who your corporate “overlords” are. So; which are you for? Should the government prevent monopolies from having free speech? Because telling google or whoever what or what not they allow in their private platforms is anti free speech. 0r should the government simply prevent monopolies so you have the choice to go somewhere else to consume whatever frothing angry garbage you wish to con…

https://bitworking.org/news/2008/01/the-free-market-fairy/

12 years later...and our government has never seemed so trigger shy to take monopolies to task as they do today. Perhaps that's because our politicians are already owned by them? I'm not happy with the current situation and I'm not sure of the solution. It's very difficult to clear Congress of its incumbents.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#145

Post by thisiscorrect »

bawolff wrote: post #142
natmaka wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO the central question is: do you tolerate zones moderated (or not moderated at all) by their owners exactly how they want it, provided that you remain free to avoid any zone and also to create your own zone(s)? No one likes spam, abusive content, fake news... However many won't qualify a given content the same way. IMO, for example, history shows that anyone thinking that he is _right_ and has to educate others b…

> IMHO the central question is: do you tolerate zones moderated (or not moderated at all) by their owners exactly how they want it, provided that you remain free to avoid any zone and also to create your own zone(s)? Is that not what we do currently? (subject to certain legal restrictions, but generally in usa the restrictions other than copyright are pretty light. And if they aren't, well Tor). You have pretty wide…

DNS registrars have also removed sites with views they don't like.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#147

Post by CivBase »

The constitution protects our freedom of speech from the government, not from private entities on their own private property. Make no mistake, that's what centralized social media platforms are - private property.

Freedom of speech is not protected by the constitution on social media platforms and, frankly, I don't want 100% free speech on social media.

Take a look at HN. HN mods do a brilliant job of moderating. We don't have 100% free speech here and the platform is better for it. The discussions here tend to be much higher quality than on similar platforms like Reddit. That's probably a big reason why you're here reading this comment thread.

However... I've noticed a difference between HN and the likes of Facebook or Twitter. As far as I can tell, HN mods focus more on how you say something rather than what you say. If you're civil, respectful, and on-topic you're seemingly allowed to present just about any idea.

Meanwhile, most other social media platforms seem content to let other people be complete pricks to eachother as long as they don't present any ideas which the platform have decided are wrong or "dangerous".

I think the HN moderation strategy makes for a much better platform. I'd rather talk with a respectful person who I disagree with than a jerk with whome I agree.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#148

Post by [deleted] »

opendysphoria wrote: post #136
mercurialshark wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and I fundamentally reject the premise that inaccurate expression should be censored or moderated without a proximate cause to a specific harm or credible imminent apprehension of harm. I do not think censorship is justifiable for potential or non-quantifiable, collective psychic harm.

>I do not think censorship is justifiable for potential or non-quantifiable, collective psychic harm. Can you provide an example?

[deleted]

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#149

Post by Barrin92 »

bawolff wrote: post #137
Barrin92 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Born and lived most of my life in Germany, now UK. I'd be willing to make that claim for much worse governed countries. My birth place influences my position a lot. After the end of the war we enshrined the principle of 'militant democracy' in our basic law. Giving the state and its institutions the explicit power to deal with threats to the constitutional order, not repeating the mistakes of the weakened government…

Isn't that a counter argument to your point though? Like you're saying here that the weak weimar republic wasn't strong enough to check the extremist forces and hence that sufficient checks dont always exist.

My point is basically that I'm much more afraid of insufficient checks on radicalism and inability of society to deal with extremism than I am just with this abstract idea of tyranny.

To bring it back to the topic of the US and Facebook. To me the censorship is not a sign of authoritarianism or anything, but lack of strong institutions. In the face of rising extremism and disorder Facebook effectively has to step in and do something to their best ability because in general the US has very few tools to deal with this at a democratic level.

When I see pictures of someone dressed as a shaman on the dais of the senate and lawmakers cowering behind benches it's very weird to me to draw the conclusion that the pressing issue is too much authority and not enough freedom of expression.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#150

Post by jb775 »

marcinzm wrote: post #82
emptyparadise wrote: post #46

My question to everyone supporting restrictions on speech and supporting privacy violations, even for good reasons, is this: are you prepared to have these tools fall into the wrong hands? The same methods used to quickly shut down a dangerous website or to track down a terrorist by their online posts can be used to silence protests and to hunt down political opposition.

That is why I prefer these tools be used by private organizations to enforce their own private rules rather than being managed by government mandate. That ensures that enough social rules exist to maintain society but not rules which are so ingrained in law as to prevent progress or allow trivial total abuse.

When the private companies start getting billion dollar contracts with the government, or are lobbying politicians for laws massively benefitting the companies in the long run, it's safe to say the decisions behind the "private rules" will be impacted accordingly.
Post reply on HN