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

Private censorship is not the best way to fight hate or defend democracy (2018)

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 330 posts

Re: Private censorship is not the best way to fight hate or defend democracy (2018)

#121

Post by PerkinWarwick »

nescioquid wrote: post #114
PerkinWarwick wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting theory, although I doubt that 19th century US farmers, among the most self-sufficient people in history, were lacking in religion, superstition, or conspiracies.

In fairness, it is trivial to point to any number of counter-examples throughout history if you just want to dismiss the observation. Hedges is a journalist and was referring to the changes he saw in the squeezed middle and lower classes through his career, and probably wasn't making a sweeping historic claim. I mentioned it as contrast to the parent comment who simply concluded people are incapable of rational thoug…

> if you just want to dismiss the observation.

I'm not and I'm willing to give it a chance. I'm just not seeing a strong correlation.

What I do see people doing when they lack control is to attempt to gain control. Put together a group, grab some of that sweet power through mass. The more ambitious ones fight their way up the power structure. Special bonus points if you can take over an existing seat of power.

Re: Private censorship is not the best way to fight hate or defend democracy (2018)

#122

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

brandonmenc wrote: post #58
nonameiguess wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What changed in 2020? Do you not remember the Dixie Chicks getting blacklisted for speaking against George Bush, Janet Jackson being deplatformed from record labels for showing a nipple on television, the LA DNC in 2000 cordoning off protesters into "free speech zones" 4 blocks away from the convention, gangsta rap and heavy metal being censored in the 80s and 90s, pushes for civil rights being met with dogs and fire…

> What changed in 2020? Liberals started doing it.

> "Liberals started doing it."

Let's be precise; the left started doing it. We are literally discussing how big parts of the political left in the US is moving away from the liberal ideals and philosophy that it once embraced and championed.

Re: Private censorship is not the best way to fight hate or defend democracy (2018)

#123

Post by micromacrofoot »

readams wrote: post #120
mardoz wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What free speech advocates ignore here is that even they generally draw a line somewhere. Death threats, defamation, pedophilia, sharing bomb making materials etc are usually accepted by everyone to not be acceptable. 'But those are different' is usually the argument here. But why though? Because they cause harm? Doesn't inciting racial hatred cause harm? Once we stop arguing over the issue being black/white but inst…

US law defines the line as speech that incites imminent lawless action. The speech must not only be encouraging such action, it must be imminent and likely. This is in practice a pretty good line. If you think that private companies should censor much more heavily, then you obviously don't really believe in free speech. There's no obvious reason why it's more acceptable because all the dominant communication platform…

If someone replies to my comment and says "I'm going to kill you" how do I determine how imminent or likely it is? Should that be protected under free speech? I find this incredibly hard to navigate.

Re: Private censorship is not the best way to fight hate or defend democracy (2018)

#124

Post by b3morales »

jaywalk wrote: post #110
joshuamorton wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes something an opinion or an idea versus a threat or an obscenity?

"Someone should kill (some public figure)" - opinion/idea "I'm going to kill (some public figure) tomorrow at (some event)" - threat

But then cf. "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"[0]

[0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur...

Re: Private censorship is not the best way to fight hate or defend democracy (2018)

#125

Post by gremloni »

naasking wrote: post #54
faet wrote: post #6

Banning hate communities does work though [0]. I assume that the results are similar for twitter and facebook. "Hateful" Reddit or FB communities also don't allow "free speech". The moderators will ban people who go against the grain. There is no free exchange of ideas or disputing as if you're going against the grain you'll just get banned from that community (but not the platform). As such, either the platforms all…

Sure it worked at reducing hate speech on reddit , but is that the right objective? It's not implausible to think that the resentment from such local measures could cause hate to increase in a more global sense. Kind of like entropy in thermodynamics: local work can reduce local entropy, but at the expense of causing a global increase in entropy. If the real objective should be a global decrease in hate, then maybe l…

The hate is in part generated by a continuous bubbled feedback loop. Cutting out the source(s) usually doesn’t lead to a redirection and rather has a chilling effect.

Re: Private censorship is not the best way to fight hate or defend democracy (2018)

#126

Post by unethical_ban »

wutbrodo wrote: post #105
y4mi wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They already were at that point, regardless of what people claim. Facebook had the ability to paint whatever picture they wanted as truth by controlling what their users saw at what time. And they utilized it proudly long before COVID to increase engagement.

Sure, and long before Covid, that was a valid (and much-expressed) criticism of them, as well as a general criticism of using non-federated platforms. But expanding explicitly into deciding what users are allowed to see and express to each other is a million times worse than the type of banal malevolence that arises from "show people what they like to see".

There's the fundamental difference! I love finding the "fundamental difference". The crux, the place where philosophies diverge, where the understandings break down.

I fundamentally disagree with the premise that "keeping harmful, intentional disinformation away from people" is worse than "letting people unknowingly subscribe to disinformation".

I would argue, perhaps, that there should be open policies on what topics are off-limits. That Facebook, et. al. should have to document to the public what "viewpoints" and disinformation they limit - and furthermore, that more of these content-display algorithms should be auditable, competitive secrecy be damned.

I wouldn't call hundreds or thousands of people dying due to disinformation-backed vaccine skepticism "banal", either.

Re: Private censorship is not the best way to fight hate or defend democracy (2018)

#127

Post by BobbyJo »

faet wrote: post #6

Banning hate communities does work though [0]. I assume that the results are similar for twitter and facebook. "Hateful" Reddit or FB communities also don't allow "free speech". The moderators will ban people who go against the grain. There is no free exchange of ideas or disputing as if you're going against the grain you'll just get banned from that community (but not the platform). As such, either the platforms all…

Define 'works'. This subject is an easy one in which to conflate goals. The goals of the platform are different than the goals of the public, lawmakers, etc. which is what the article is about.

The goal of the platform is to pull in more users. Having less abusive language and users is a means to that end, as is appeasing general public outcries for more moderation.

The goal of the public and lawmakers is, hopefully, more effective and meaningful discourse.

The paper you link measure for the prior outcome, not the latter.

Edit: Just to comment on the outcome you are referring to though, I don't believe the bans actually lead to more meaningful and effective discourse on Reddit. I don't even thing it lead to more civil discourse. You can click on literally any politically sensitive topic on the front page and you'll find that almost all the top comments both lean in a specific direction (diversity of discourse is terrible) and the deride anyone who disagrees. Maybe they use the 'F' word less, and no one is using the 'N' word anymore, but it is very obvious that it has become a strongly homogenized platform that doesn't welcome nuanced opinions.

Re: Private censorship is not the best way to fight hate or defend democracy (2018)

#128

Post by joshuamorton »

stale2002 wrote: post #113
joshuamorton wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Corporations are not humans (regardless of the "corporate personhood" doctrine) and thus should not be entitled to the full rights of humans. True, but corporations are just connections of people with shared goals. Should groups of people lose "fundamental" rights when they organize? > Fair-weather friends indeed. Yes, I fully support the rights of platforms to do stupid things. Use rumble or whatever if you want.…

> So, you think that we should circumstantially limit constitutionally protected rights According to your logic, you should think that common carrier laws should be repealed entirely. Think, the telephone company blocking certain political groups, or the only water company in town, refusing to deliver water to certain people who say things that they don't like. It is pretty similar, philosophically. Common carrier la…

I didn't take any particular position, I pointed out the incongruence in the one they espoused.

I'm admittedly mixed on common carrier laws, I think that they are "impure" in a sense, but I also think the benefits are greater than the costs, even taking into account the potential theoretical erosion of our rights.

I absolutely agree that there are major counterexamples, and I'm overall fine with that, but I'll also freely admit that I'm not a free speech absolutist of any form.

Re: Private censorship is not the best way to fight hate or defend democracy (2018)

#129

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #98
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " How can you support free speech but prevent a company from exerting that speech? " Corporations are not humans (regardless of the "corporate personhood" doctrine) and thus should not be entitled to the full rights of humans. Semi-monopolies like Youtube are especially not entitled to use their dominance to manipulate public opinion, given how easily it can be abused. Ask yourself, if YouTube were pushing conspira…

> Corporations are not humans (regardless of the "corporate personhood" doctrine) and thus should not be entitled to the full rights of humans. True, but corporations are just connections of people with shared goals. Should groups of people lose "fundamental" rights when they organize? > Fair-weather friends indeed. Yes, I fully support the rights of platforms to do stupid things. Use rumble or whatever if you want.…

> "So, you think that we should circumstantially limit constitutionally protected rights, for the greater good?"

Why, yes, I do. Ask yourself: what was the various civil rights victories and legislation for minorities, women, LGBTQ other than saying "We are circumscribing your rights, including ones formerly interpreted as constitutionally protected, so that these protected classes may be treated equally, for the greater good"? Sounds like you'd argue against that.

Re: Private censorship is not the best way to fight hate or defend democracy (2018)

#130

Post by majormajor »

commandlinefan wrote: post #107
faet wrote: post #6

Banning hate communities does work though [0]. I assume that the results are similar for twitter and facebook. "Hateful" Reddit or FB communities also don't allow "free speech". The moderators will ban people who go against the grain. There is no free exchange of ideas or disputing as if you're going against the grain you'll just get banned from that community (but not the platform). As such, either the platforms all…

> Banning hate communities does work though [0] That's like saying banning smoking in the park reduces smoking because nobody's smoking in the park any more.

A lot fewer people smoke now in the US than several decades ago.

So let's do it. Let's isolate and restrict the hateful, the angry, the irrational EXACTLY like we did smoking.

Post reply on HN