Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship? • Hacker News Board

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#121

Post by machinehermiter » Sun, Jul 04, 2021, 9:27 AM UTC

plerpin wrote: post #14

The thing that really bothers me about Weinstein's approach is that, while he and his wife are scientists, they're exceedingly quick to assert their hunches as scientific fact. They wear their scientist labels on their sleeves but their thinking is far more ideological. In a recent podcast about fluoridation in tap water, they were talking about how they avoid iodized salt, because iodine is a reactive chemical and y…

I wouldn't listen to the Weinstein's about anything but so what if they do?

Should they have their mouths taped shut? This is the society you want to live in? I just don't understand when someone posts something like this.

Not to mention, as all times a ton of what we think of as correct today will be proven false in years to come.

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#122

Post by throwaway6734 » Sun, Jul 04, 2021, 12:27 PM UTC

trompetenaccoun wrote: post #117

throwaway6734 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't use facebook

Not an argument. Twitter heavily censors, as does Reddit. Even picture sites like Instagram "editorialize" user submissions. There isn't anywhere to go anymore, the internet has become unfree.

Don't use any of those sites then. The internet is more than them

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#123

Post by username90 » Sun, Jul 04, 2021, 2:23 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #112

kyrra wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that without Section 230 a company is effectively a publisher and takes responsibility for all content on the sites they host. I feel like that section should somehow be tailored to promote the First Amendment to let people say what they can that is legal. If you want protection from liability, you should allow people to post what they want as long as it's not illegal and then remove illegal content in a Good…

How do you envision HN working under such regulations? If I spam my startup on every post (which is clearly not in any of the exceptions to First Amendment protection), are they allowed to remove my comments or ban my account? What liability do they incur from doing so? Must they also remove anonymous posts complaining about employment at Amazon or whatever, because those defame Amazon?

Just say companies are counted as general social media after some % user penetration. Facebook with over 2 billion users is obviously a general social media site and should therefore have similar restrictions on what they can restrict as state governments, they can't be about some special topic with that many users. State governments do have the power to remove harassment and porn from public areas, so it could continue as is minus the political stuff.

HN with almost no users can continue as is.

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#124

Post by shkkmo » Sun, Jul 04, 2021, 2:30 PM UTC

inglor_cz wrote: post #118

shkkmo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self-destructing messages only really work if you trust every person who reads them AND their devices. They can somewhat limit exposure (especially in obscurity) but also introduce the risk of establishing unwarranted perceptions of security.

Your perspective is a cryptographic one, where most flaws are fatal. My proposal was a softer one: reduction of the "I met someone I hate, let me dig in his ancient comment history to get him fired" risk. Self-destructive messages are far from perfect in this regard, but still useful.

If self-destructing messages become the norm, you will see numerous efforts to log and cache those messages for journalistic, political, historic and economic reasons. This is why I made the second half of my comment. Self-destruction relies on obscurity of the practice to work and can create false feelings of security.

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#125

Post by _user112 » Sun, Jul 04, 2021, 2:44 PM UTC

Worse. Collusion and election inference.

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#126

Post by username90 » Sun, Jul 04, 2021, 2:53 PM UTC

SantalBlush wrote: post #111

spfzero wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We seem to be moving to the idea that people can not think for themselves and so need to be told what to do by "experts", who cannot be questioned. Your ability to think critically about what you see and hear, is being marginalized and ignored, in favor of gaining your obedience. Holding out examples of people who make bad decisions, is used to gain acceptance for the idea that no one can make good decisions, except…

Except no one is actually policing your thoughts or forcing you to have certain thoughts. You are here on HN, freely expressing your dissenting opinion. The problem is that decision makers and possibly the majority of the public disagrees with you and are also free to express their opinion, and you think that makes you a victim. This post is absurdly dramatic.

So if the 0.1% disagrees with people and just removes posts related to stuff that hurts them then it is fine? Facebook interfering with elections is just Mark Zuckerberg using his free speech? So you want to move the world towards a corporate dystopia?

And no, it doesn't really matter that we can talk here, as long as they can control the narrative of 90% of people they can just label everyone who disagrees as ignorant conspiracy theorists. There is a reason the Church could control Europe for such a long time without being an actual government, as long as you control the beliefs of the people then turning all of those people against an individual is essentially the same thing as the government labeling them a criminal, power over belief is therefore very similar to power as a government.

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#127

Post by api » Sun, Jul 04, 2021, 4:23 PM UTC

subjectsigma wrote: post #102

uniqueid wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I picture a future with hordes of millions of gullible fools who can be commanded like armies by social media demagogues. I watched a stream of a London anti-lockdown protest the other day, and that's more or less what occurred to me. https://youtu.be/hy7bmdDGKZ8 The stream is six hours long, but it's packed with moments such as: 35m — Crowd listens to some conspiracy theorist blame all the world's ills on 'Kabalah'…

The phrase 'hordes of millions' is important to take note of... By the most liberal estimate I saw, there were a few hundred people that attended these protests, the largest single one had a few thousand, overall we can say 10 to 15k across the whole country. That's 0.0002% of Trump's voter base, and 0.00005% of the American population.

Attacks only get better.

I also didn't mean to imply it was only Trump voters who were subject to this. That's just the most recent and most extreme example.

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#128

Post by olmecs » Sun, Jul 04, 2021, 4:32 PM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #106

Covzire wrote: post #11

Facebook's censoring of #Revolution via their claims of moral superiority should frighten the shit out of every free person on earth. While we still have it reasonably good in America, their willingness to suppress speech in good times doesn't bode well for people who will be oppressed during bad times. The first amendment made it clear that not even the government had the authority to use their vast moral authority,…

I know this isn't the simplest solution, but the only solution is to stop giving them your speech. If a child lights something on fire every time they get their hands on a book of matches (dating myself perhaps), you stop giving them matches . You're right if you bring up the fact that we've never had to deal with the entire neighborhood supplying the kid with matches, but I think my point stands. We can only control…

"to service nazis who got kicked off of mainstream services"

People you don't agree with are nazis? You are the lowest form of troll.

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#129

Post by api » Sun, Jul 04, 2021, 4:53 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #97

uniqueid wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I picture a future with hordes of millions of gullible fools who can be commanded like armies by social media demagogues. I watched a stream of a London anti-lockdown protest the other day, and that's more or less what occurred to me. https://youtu.be/hy7bmdDGKZ8 The stream is six hours long, but it's packed with moments such as: 35m — Crowd listens to some conspiracy theorist blame all the world's ills on 'Kabalah'…

What illustrated the "can be commanded like armies" idea?

People study the Holocaust all the time. Instead we should study the Rwandan genocide. It’s the best model of what a modern genocide might look like.

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#130

Post by UncleMeat » Sun, Jul 04, 2021, 7:19 PM UTC

olmecs wrote: post #128

rhizome wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this isn't the simplest solution, but the only solution is to stop giving them your speech. If a child lights something on fire every time they get their hands on a book of matches (dating myself perhaps), you stop giving them matches . You're right if you bring up the fact that we've never had to deal with the entire neighborhood supplying the kid with matches, but I think my point stands. We can only control…

"to service nazis who got kicked off of mainstream services" People you don't agree with are nazis? You are the lowest form of troll.

There are actual factual nazis. Not everybody on the far right is this way, of course. But it isn’t like people are being branded as such when nobody is displaying swastikas.