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

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

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 600 posts

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

#401

Post by hrh »

nights192 wrote: post #393
hrh wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be projecting onto me what you think I'm projecting. ;) I didn't call it a stronghold. There are certain subreddits that were aligned. The donald before it moved, conspiracy, conservative, etc. You ever see the greatawakening subreddit where they were acting like Trump was giving secret messages in speeches and calling for executions? If that exists on a site with leftism as a major demographic, what does…

I don't believe I am, though--you are, if I'm not mistaken, asserting that it's some prolific iniquitous undercurrent which these platforms are subtending in some manner. (Which would seem somewhat misleading to me, as your assertion that r/TheDonald moved was of their own volition, rather than a banning by the site.) Any platform harboring content will, as a matter of course, simply through the caprice of a moderato…

I think the number of discussions that are off-limits should be very small and platforms should be much much more transparent.

However, if allowing certain discussions means also allowing other discussions, I'm not broken up if sites like reddit were to ban a subreddit like conspiracy or at least try to reshape it to something much more objective.

If the owners a property decide certain views are abhorrent, that's their right, I can't think of a valid moral or legal complaint against that - it is their property. If we lack competition that is an issue of market competitiveness more than propaganda.

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

#402

Post by hrh »

CrazyPyroLinux wrote: post #397
hrh wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't do it productively, he made it into a rant about political parties; you can't get useful discussion on such a loaded topic like that. That's another part of this...you can't just say whatever you want and expect there not to be consequences.

It was no more of a rant than yours. But you disagree so you downvote and flag.

I did neither. Welcome to HN.

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

#403

Post by cratermoon »

cornel_io wrote: post #229
cratermoon wrote: post #122

Probably a good place for reposting this: https://publicseminar.org/essays/why-we-should-outlaw-oppres...

That's basically just saying that racism and hate speech are super ultra duper bad and we should outlaw things like that, as well as vastly expand what we consider beyond the pale so that it captures what are fairly mainstream opinions. I (as well as many others) disagree, and in fact I think that the people that argue for hate speech laws are far more dangerous than the tiny handful of actual white supremacists out…

Did you know that in the Aeropagetica, John Milton's 1644 pamphlet that is a landmark in the history of free speech, Milton literally said it was OK to censor Catholicism and superstition? [1]

Freedom of speech has always been subject to limitations, exceptions, and special pleadings. There is no absolute liberty, there is only freedom to the extent that society is indifferent to, or can at least tolerate.

"even opinions lose their immunity when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act" [2]

[1] "Yet if all cannot be of one mind—as who looks they should be?—this doubtless is more wholesome, more prudent, and more Christian, that many be tolerated, rather than all compelled. I mean not tolerated popery, and open superstition, which, as it extirpates all religions and civil supremacies, so itself should be extirpate" https://www.gutenberg.org/files/608/608-h/608-h.htm

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1919/11/the-bas...

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

#404

Post by nights192 »

hrh wrote: post #401
nights192 wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe I am, though--you are, if I'm not mistaken, asserting that it's some prolific iniquitous undercurrent which these platforms are subtending in some manner. (Which would seem somewhat misleading to me, as your assertion that r/TheDonald moved was of their own volition, rather than a banning by the site.) Any platform harboring content will, as a matter of course, simply through the caprice of a moderato…

I think the number of discussions that are off-limits should be very small and platforms should be much much more transparent. However, if allowing certain discussions means also allowing other discussions, I'm not broken up if sites like reddit were to ban a subreddit like conspiracy or at least try to reshape it to something much more objective. If the owners a property decide certain views are abhorrent, that's th…

There're certainly multiple places one could draw the line--the efficacy of a given position for these sorts of things varies by your objective or simply the severity one perceives.

Thanks a ton for providing the opportunity for some discussion on this!

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

#405

Post by threesmegiste »

When the trump accounts were shut down, the political stance and attitude silenced the criticism. it's too late now. The social media accounts of the president of the usa have been closed. The account of a man who received half the votes from the USA has been closed. then the majority could not say it was wrong. now it's too late to talk and complain

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

#406

Post by boring_twenties »

rootusrootus wrote: post #156
throwawayboise wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I doubt that half the population thinks that the COVID vaccine is a conspiracy to kill them, render them infertile, or depopulate the earth. I'm not vaccinated, and I don't believe those things. I do see the dentist every 6 months though.

Tribal politics is probably a better predictor than fringe theories.

I have a friend who's gone off the deep end in the past year (like so many others).

He freely admits that he doesn't believe the vaccine is bad, and might even be good. His sole reason for not taking it is, and I quote, "because they want me to." In other words, simple spite.

We're not talking about a teenager here, but a successful man in his 60's who is probably the single most well-read person I know.

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

#407

Post by cartoonworld »

shkkmo wrote: post #386
cartoonworld wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely incorrect, he had islet cell neuroendocrine cancer, which is a much less common form of pancreatic cancer. "Highly curable pancreatic cancer" is a totally ludicrous statement. The prognosis of these type of tumor is highly variable and he lived a pretty long time with it regardless. He did not 'disregard "the medical elite" and went on an all-fruit diet', he had the tumor removed[0] nearly 20 years…

The "highly curable" is relative to other types of cancer. While Jobs did undergo surgery, he waited 9 months and didn't get surgery until after the cancer had spread. I don't see amy credible medical claims that this dis not have an impact on his survival. > But Jobs refused surgery after diagnosis and for nine months after, favoring instead dietary treatments and other alternative methods...By the time Jobs finally…

This is at the very least a reasonable description of the actual events.

But even now that we have acknowledged "highly curable" to be relative to other types of cancer, pancreatic cancer being among the most sinister and deadly, I take great issue with the notion of highly curable pancreatic cancer.

  By the time Jobs finally opted for surgery, the cancer had spread. He had an under-the-radar liver transplant and began putting a lot of energy into researching the most sophisticated experimental methods, making a complete about-face from how he began his treatment years before.
  According to the New York Times, Jobs was one of the few people in the world to have his genome sequenced. Collaborating researchers at several institutions sequenced his DNA in order to develop a treatment that would target his specifically mutated cell pathways. He went for an experimental treatment in Switzerland in 2009, which involves using a radioactive isotope to attack the faulty hormone-producing cells of the body.[0]
This story is so much more about anger, denial, bargaining and the grieving process than it is about an (admittedly and certainly) aloof and incredibly powerful figure who was flagrant in the face of medical authority.

A previous romantic partner of mine's father was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and made startlingly similar choices against the behest of his entire family and everyone he knew. He was surely not an aloof billionaire who ate nothing but fruit, he was a very pragmatic union carpenter who took great pains to manage his health.

I know you did not make a claim like this, but I personally don't find it at all unthinkable for a somebody to make this sort of choice when faced with this diagnosis.

[0] Same, https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2011/10/24/steve-j...

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

#408

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

renewiltord wrote: post #38
sbuk wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This quote is taken out of context - see https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...

I have read all of these explanations multiple times and have always had trouble reconciling everything here. What do the words “liberty”, “purchase”, and “security” mean in this quotation? As best as I can tell: - liberty: the right to be sovereign and able to defend oneself - security: safety from having taxes levied - purchase: the guys being taxed said instead “look, we’ll give you money this one time instead but…

I wouldn’t necessarily assume that purchase means with taxes. I think there’s an interpretation this is a non-monetary cost.

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

#409

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

rat87 wrote: post #399
slashdev wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right now we are missing one of our best chances to end the COVID pandemic -- widespread vaccination -- because too many people are spreading lies about the vaccine on social media. That's mostly a trust issue. If you silence their concerns you're just going to confirm that it's a grand conspiracy theory. You have to fight misinformation with the truth, with dialog, not with censorship.

the "concerns" are mostly coming from a small number of people that you probably wont be able to convince. Better to not use your platform to amplify them https://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996570855/disinformation-doze... Just 12 People Are Behind Most Vaccine Hoaxes On Social Media, Research Shows

This should be a non-issue. If these 12 bad guys have no points, no arguments, no good faith motives - that’s them against the entire western scientific community, the entire media, almost all politicians, celebrities, unions, vested interests…

How do you explain these “12 people” aren’t immediately shut down with all the facts?

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

#410

Post by clucas »

stale2002 wrote: post #256
clucas wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this gets you into really weird places really quickly. How do you not end up with a censorship department of the government, that is tasked with writing moderation rules? It probably wouldn't be called a censorship office, but that's what it would be: a government office determining what can and can't be posted on social media. This seems entirely antithetical to the idea of the first amendment. Do you have a…

> How do you not end up with a censorship department of the government That department of censorship will exist no matter what. Internally, it is called the trust and safety department, at most big companies. The only question is do you want to have the decisions of that department to be limited by judges and rights that are laid out in the constitution, or do you want it to be an unaccountable free for all, where th…

> rights that are laid out in the constitution

Just to be clear, under US law, what you are describing (creating a government censorship department that determines how social media companies are allowed to moderate) would have NOTHING to do with the rights laid out in the constitution - it would in fact need to overcome the companies' constitutional rights to publish whatever they wish, just to exist.

You can argue that it's a good idea anyway, but claiming that government-mandated moderation is somehow enforcing constitutional rights is way, way off base.

Post reply on HN