Live data from Hacker News

Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship

eff.org

271–280 of 600 posts

Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship

#271
post #30

This all sounds very nice, but there's a bit of sleight of hand here since the article goes out of its way to avoid details. That way everyone reads into exactly what they want, and it's totally non-obvious whether this is actually a workable proposal or not. But what's the concrete proposal here? How would things actually work? Will the services be forced to accept whatever unmoderated feed of filth the linked to se…

Why does a town square need moderation? You can't just ignore the fact that social networking has become the new town square because its inconvenient

>You can't just ignore the fact that social networking has become the new town square because its inconvenient

That's not a good analogy. Facebook is most used as a semi-private space (akin to an open-house), or as just private (private party with friends). No one moderates that; you don't want to listen to it, you don't join the party (aka follow the person/page).

In a town square, if you scream profanities, harass people, etc, they have to listen because it's the only town square.

Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Because uh, right now, we have Nazis. We do not, in fact, have Nazis. Allow me to re-phrase: Yes, censorship is bad, but which is worse: admitting a little bit of censorship, or Islamic Terrorists? Because uh, right now, we have Islamic Terrorists. At least one was real in the last couple decades.

It is an ironclad fact that more Americans have been killed by right-wing domestic terrorists than by Islamic terrorists since 9/11.

"since 9/11" is one hell of a cutoff

cf. https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/31/terrorists-vs-chairs-a...

Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship

#273
post #26

>First of all, the internet’s “marketplace of ideas” is severely lopsided at the platform level The marketplace of ideas itself has been show to be a bust in recent years, IMHO. Better ideas, better models of truth and reality don't win out. People have not shown themselves interested in intellectual debate or argument. We do not see the 'best' ideas rise to the top. And before anyone asks who I am to judge the best…

It's not clear to me that censorship isn't making it worse. You have a mass populist/anti-elitist movement in the country. You're telling me that a solution to this is to have elites at multi-national mega-corporations deciding what information should reach the unwashed masses? What exactly is the end-game here? You're not going to beat (or educate) the populism and conspiracy theories out of Americans. We're talking…

> You're telling me that a solution to this is to have elites at multi-national mega-corporations deciding what information should reach the unwashed masses?

No, I’m specifically not telling you that! I’m not sure I have any good solutions but I specifically called out that censorship probably wasn’t the best plan!

I just wanted to say that the concept of a marketplace of ideas, as commonly envisaged in terms of ideas with merit rising to prominence, seems to be naive, and when we’re building systems to facilitate an uncensored or uncensorable marketplace of ideas, perhaps we should keep that in mind.

Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship

#274
post #26

>First of all, the internet’s “marketplace of ideas” is severely lopsided at the platform level The marketplace of ideas itself has been show to be a bust in recent years, IMHO. Better ideas, better models of truth and reality don't win out. People have not shown themselves interested in intellectual debate or argument. We do not see the 'best' ideas rise to the top. And before anyone asks who I am to judge the best…

> factually incorrect, scientifically illiterate, conspiratorial, harmful crank ideas gain legs in the online world we've created I don't think this is unique to the online world. It's just how humans are. We are drawn to sensational, scandalous stories for some combination of entertainment and self-righteous outrage/virtue signaling to the others in our tribe.

It is not unique to the online world, but the online world does change the dynamics around these things significantly, because the social immune system that we have in the real world completely fails on the internet.

In a small, real world friend group "that guy" who talks about ancient aliens, flat earth and Pleiadians or whatever gets shut down real quick and suffers consequences within his social circle.

In the online world, "those guys" can find each other and egg each other on into more bizarre world views. This isn't a theory, you can watch this happen in real time with the qanon "movement".

People who (rightfully) feel estranged by mainstream media or left behind by politics pick up some weird idea, find communities who agree with them and end up holding on to those views longer than they would without the support. In some cases, this leads them to slowly becoming more estranged from real world contacts. Family and friends distance themselves because they don't want to hear any more about how Earth being a globe is somehow a big conspiracy and this little supportive online community eventually remains the only safe space to talk openly and they become more invested in it.

The problem is these communities harshly punish everyone who disagrees with the mob. Increasingly outlandish ideas are pushed into the conversation, and your only options are to agree or to be turned away, which becomes increasingly painful the more other contacts withdraw from you. It's a death spiral that is scary effective.

Eventually the only people that you can relate with is a group that also talks about how every bad thing that happens is orchestrated, democrats are all traitors that need to be put in front of a firing squad and baking soda treats cancer.

We need to come up with something to fight this deterioration of the social fabric, but I agree censorship is not sufficient or maybe even helpful.

Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship

#275
post #26

>First of all, the internet’s “marketplace of ideas” is severely lopsided at the platform level The marketplace of ideas itself has been show to be a bust in recent years, IMHO. Better ideas, better models of truth and reality don't win out. People have not shown themselves interested in intellectual debate or argument. We do not see the 'best' ideas rise to the top. And before anyone asks who I am to judge the best…

Glad to see your very good idea rise to the top.

And this is mostly because HN, partly though the excellent work of dang, does, well.... kinda the same thing. HN is censored. And I approve.... that's why I'm here rather than somewhere like 4chan.

Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship

#276

Not that Cory is wrong but his words would hold more weight if boingboing hadn't been engaging in the behavior he decries for over a decade. Memory holing people who they no longer feel "are wonderful" and removing vowels from posts they don't agree with are just two examples of the type of activity they've long engaged in. These aren't cases of off-topic discussion, threats, or other attempts at derailing discussion…

Can you share links to works from people that you deem memory holed by EFF, please?

Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship

#277
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, I genuinely don't have a good solution - I'm pretty sure "ban it" is not one. But I think we need to recognise, when we try to address this stuff, that our current picture of speech online is suffering not just from deplatforming, but also domination of some narratives by high volumes of motivated bullshit. > usually shit hits the fan in social issues of poverty, homelessness, abortion rights and such.…

I don't think antivax conspiracy makes a lot of impact. Current vaccination rate in the US is 55%. This is comparable with the number of people who, for example, do a dental check-up at least once a year, which is 60%, although there's no dentists conspiracy theory, at least not such a popular one. P.S. those downvoting, please feel free to, but I would highly appreciate a couple of lines on what's wrong with the mes…

The difference is dentists in the US cost money (unless you have a job with dental insurance which many low-end jobs do not). People who don't go to dentists regularly probably can't afford it. The Covid-19 shot is free (at least in the US).

Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ironic (or maybe appropriate) that this, talking about how better ideas don't rise to the top, is the top comment. The most abhorrent idea of all to me is that there are stupid, weak people that are worse than "us" that we need to shield from bad ideas because they are not smart enough (like we are) to handle them. Lots of support for this view in downstream comments (we're just intelligent apes etc). The strawm…

> we can be adults and let everyone get the same information and make their own choice One of the problems is that we don't all get the same information. > or we can go the other way where someone who thinks they know more than us (and you hope it's you but it doesn't have to be) gets to decide. Frankly, the latter idea is ridiculous to me. You've bumped into the exact same problem that exists with our democracy. Do…

> Do you want our future determined by a few well-informed, rational people? Or do you want it determined by an ignorant, short-sighted mass?

"I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University."

Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship

#279
post #251
post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I make no claims to be one of the group of enlightened ubermensch who should be able to decide for the rest I would say you did: > And before anyone asks who I am to judge the best ideas, I'll answer - nobody, but I can see that factually incorrect, scientifically illiterate, conspiratorial, harmful crank ideas gain legs in the online world we've created. Often at the root of these is a profit motive. You asked the…

> You continued on to imply that, in fact, you are in a position to sort out what's true unlike those other, inferior people who fall for conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. You missed that I was drawing a distinction between what is commonly thought of as the market place of ideas - in which rational discourse and honest debate enables people to learn, compare, agree and disagree, find greater truths, learn, etc…

> with actual vaccine science

Who decides what that is? Plenty of actual scientists publish papers in actual science journals that conflict with each other and with official public health advice. The whole vaccines cause autism idea came from what looked like actual vaccine science.

Knowledge isn't actually that sure. Sometimes the authorities are wrong. Remember when bread was at the bottom of the food pyramid?

> but the scale and severity seem to be.

Seem to be or actually are? Are you using "facts" or media sensationalization to form your opinion?

Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship

#280
post #26

>First of all, the internet’s “marketplace of ideas” is severely lopsided at the platform level The marketplace of ideas itself has been show to be a bust in recent years, IMHO. Better ideas, better models of truth and reality don't win out. People have not shown themselves interested in intellectual debate or argument. We do not see the 'best' ideas rise to the top. And before anyone asks who I am to judge the best…

Glad to see your very good idea rise to the top. And this is mostly because HN, partly though the excellent work of dang, does, well.... kinda the same thing. HN is censored. And I approve.... that's why I'm here rather than somewhere like 4chan.

Ha, perhaps the success of the comment disproves its content!
Post reply on HN