Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by nl » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 5:49 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #185

nl wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why can't we have a culture of tolerance? The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance. [1] If you haven't read Popper's "The Open Society and Its Enemies"…

I’m guess you haven’t read it? Because your summary is not accurate.

That summary is a direct copy and paste from the Wikipedia link I posted and references in that quote.

And yeah, I have read Popper as well as Wikipedia. Saying "it's not accurate" isn't accurate.

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

#212

Post by nl » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 5:51 AM UTC

xyzzyz wrote: post #168

nl wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why can't we have a culture of tolerance? The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance. [1] If you haven't read Popper's "The Open Society and Its Enemies"…

Have you read Popper? Here's a relevant quote from him about tolerance: > If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies ;…

I think this part: "as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion" is clearly relevant when the very facts public opinion is based on are attacked.

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

#213

Post by rrix2 » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 5:52 AM UTC

colllectorof wrote: post #206

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…

>if youtube becomes to dranicon, start a new website. You are clearly ignorant of the kinds of shit actual YouTube alternatives have to deal with. Their websites and videos get de-ranked or de-listed from search (Rumble [1]), their apps get removed from app store (LBRY [2]), their infrastructure gets constant attacks (BitChute [3]). Meanwhile, the mainstream media smears them at every opportunity. This is nothing lik…

You're telling me that incumbent platforms are behaving in anticompetitive fashions? if only someone would do something

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

#214

Post by emptyparadise » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 5:54 AM UTC

ogre_codes wrote: post #158

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.

Your television and radio broadcasts have been "censored" and curated since the dawn of time. Newspapers have curated their content and various newspapers are known for having left or right bias. This isn't just the stations own content. If you paid to put content on television, radio, or in the paper, the publisher has always had the right to publish or not publish content (with some limits, but nothing this article…

I think social media is not directly comparable to television and radio broadcasts. The public square analogy makes much more sense here. But even then, in a lot of places there are impartiality requirements on media outlets, as flawed as they may be.

Let me use your analogy, though.

Let's say there are many newspapers in town. Is it fair for me to refuse to publish certain things? Sure.

What if I own the only newspaper in town? It gets more complicated. But hey, perhaps the town has a thriving samizdat culture, so maybe it's fine.

But then what if I start buying out every printing press in town? And on top of that, what if I'm pressured by the mayor to not publish something? This is a big issue now, right?

How can that situation be addressed? People often suggest regulating that sole paper, but to me the answer is taking steps to ensure that we never end up with one newspaper in town. And we definitely don't let that paper control all of the printing presses.

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

#215

Post by Khaine » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 5:55 AM UTC

jb775 wrote: post #176

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.

Since I primarily see the canned response of "they can build their own youtube if they don't like it", I'll rephrase to help get your actual point across: Imagine if Hitler were currently alive and rising to power in Germany, and imagine if Silicon Valley were located in Germany. Would you be ok with Silicon Valley de-platforming and doing everything in their power to silence the Nazi-opposition political party? And…

You do know the Weimar Republic had hate speech laws and enforced them against the nazis:

Contrary to what most people think, Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilising anti-Jewish sentiment is, of course, irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech.[1]

[1] https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-v...

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

#216

Post by cbozeman » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 5:57 AM UTC

rebuilder wrote: post #210

cbozeman wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Budd Dwyer blew his brains out on live television. Thousands saw the broadcast live. The broadcast was actually shown unedited later that day. This kind of stuff isn't new. I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but I just do not see any way that you can navigate around this. As for all the Moms (and Dads) who clutch their pearls and scream to YouTube, "HOW COULD YOU LET ME SON/DAUGHTER/CAT SEE THIS KIND OF MATE…

I'm not talking about people being offended. I'm talking about people being murdered for publicity, as a propaganda effort, and YouTube having to deal with the fallout.

Right, and I get that. My point is, "Why is that YouTube's problem?"

What does it say about our society, where people will commit murder for publicity, thus totally and utterly destroying their lives, almost certainly for life, just for some validation of their existence?

I just cannot get shake the feeling its our culture that has a serious problem, not our tech platforms.

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

#217

Post by kiba » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 5:58 AM UTC

bloaf wrote: post #154

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…

Competition makes it harder for malicious actors to manipulate everyone's content, but lets not pretend that companies don't know how to create the illusion of competition [1,2] We already have the problem of people creating too many filter-bubbles in their online lives. A fragmented social media environment will not usher in an age where everyone gets exposed to a more diverse set of ideas, we'll just get FoxNewsBoo…

Competition makes it harder for malicious actors to manipulate everyone's content, but lets not pretend that companies don't know how to create the illusion of competition [1,2]

In real life, you get to choose the people to be friend with or associate with, and we all have number of circles with interests that doesn't necessary overlap the same circles. That's pretty much the same thing that I have on the internet when using certain social media. It's great since you don't have spammers, and you don't have to deal with racists or people who just turn up the temperature of a room. Maybe that's the way it should be.

It's also much more difficult to spread vitriolic meme since it has to infiltrate the various disparate communities.

Moderated communities are basically the HOA neighborhoods of the internet. There is nothing wrong with liking the high property values, but competition alone does not prevent their abuses [3].

OK. Pretty much any places that aren't garbage have moderation of some sort. If nothing else to keep out spam.

And a community isn't a HOA, which you are basically stuck with if you live in them.

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

#218

Post by xmprt » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 5:59 AM UTC

artificialLimbs wrote: post #162

CivBase wrote: post #147

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…

*incoming nitpick >If you're civil, respectful, and on-topic you're seemingly allowed to present just about any idea. HN heavily follows the religion of scientism. If you reject science, you will be downvoted nearly immediately. HN forgets that the reason that we don't fog our kids with DDT anymore is because 'settled science' was questioned. Yes I am generalizing by using "HN". This is still, however, one of my favo…

That's the site's "algorithm" (ie, the audience) at work and not anything the mods are doing.

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

#219

Post by blahblahblogger » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 6:00 AM UTC

andrewprock wrote: post #201

vmception wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has strong speech protections, somehow when people are wrong in their beliefs about what that means they move the goal post to this mythical “ethical” free speech maxim. I dont believe in what those people imagine free speech means. I believe in the “first amendment” which includes freedom of association including for the non-government people that create venues and platforms. “We have the right to refuse serv…

I have to agree with this sentiment strongly. As much as I may lament today's social media landscape, it is only a drop in the bucket when it comes to my ability to participate in our cultural zeitgeist. And as long as we are going to pursue capitalism with gusto, I am in favor of capitalists controlling their own business - modulo protected class issues.

> I am in favor of capitalists controlling their own business - modulo protected class issues

What does this mean?

Can you give an example of a protected class and how the business would be impacted?

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

#220

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 6:01 AM UTC

sneak wrote: post #175

joubert wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren’t there more ways how and more places where you can speak out today than ever before? Aren’t people able to say more radical or extreme things at scale than ever before? I’m reminded of folks claiming that their voices are silenced but say so on Twitter, at physical events, on the news, etc.? The irony seems mind boggling to me.

> Aren’t there more ways how and more places where you can speak out today than ever before? No. There was for a little while, but the number of avenues that one has for publishing unpopular speech are at a major low vs 10 or 15 years ago. Now, the internet has reached the status quo of broadcast media prior to it: a small handful of gigantic powerful organizations have total veto over what can be published.

I'm pretty confident that, no matter what idea you want to express, you can find a forum on the Internet which allows you to express it. Even the most offensive, socially toxic ideas typically have a handful of forums that welcome them. Am I misunderstanding your argument here?