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

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

#141

Post by majormajor » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 6:31 PM UTC

londgine wrote: post #44

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 ... The sentence is incomplete. Banning X communities does work to achieve the goal of people not talking about X. I don't think that your linked study is really necessary, the Chinese cultural revolution worked really well (to achieve the goal of "preserving Chinese communism") [0]. Imagine if 30 years ago large digital monopolies banned what was considered unmentionable b…

Homosexuality in general was effectively banned by dominant platforms in the US for quite some time! It was a BIG DEAL to people when gay characters started becoming more common in mass media.

But note the order it happened. The privately-set standards moved with the times much faster than the government ones did!

Writers/tv execs/etc heard both the pro-equality arguments as well as the anti-homosexuality arguments and made their own choices as they were persuaded to. Many states, on the other hand, never legalized gay marriage before the court decision overruled their laws.

So that seems to show that we should empower private parties to have control over what their platform shows, over either the government or just the loudest mobs (there were MANY protests/boycott threats/etc from religious groups over this). The market gives this the advantage over the government here: the private publisher can test what sells, and over time is going to be increasingly forced to move with societal changes, while the government is much more likely to be captive to small-but-loud contingencies (especially in a gerrymandered world).

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

#142

Post by swagasaurus-rex » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 6:31 PM UTC

alex_c wrote: post #49

BitwiseFool wrote: post #2

2020-2021 has shown me that most people happen to be 'fair weather fans' of civil rights. Everyone claims to love free speech but when suppression of speech opposing their own worldview comes into play, they suddenly dither and fall back on other rationalizations to justify the censorship. Well, it's not free speech being violated when it's 'hate speech'. Well, it's not free speech being violated when it's 'misinform…

The last few years have shown me how many people are willing to believe utterly stupid things, and how easy it is to make people turn against each other. I knew this in the abstract, but watching it happen in real time is something else. The human mind (myself included) has some serious bugs, and "we" as a society - with help from technology - are getting better and better at exploiting these bugs at scale. I don't t…

News companies have known for centuries that Fear Uncertainty and Doubt are profitable. They've shrouded the FUD behind claims of professionalism and legitimacy.

The internet has made it instantly and continuously accessible, and just as dangerously, largely fabricated. Even news about things that actually happened can have its comments astroturfed by bad faith arguments or straight up lies.

Censorship doesn't solve the FUD; that will never go away while there's a profit motive (IE, increase clicks).

Censorship can't distinguish between truth and lies, that's a problem journalism used to solve when it was profitable.

Censorship does solve brainwashing. Is the tradeoff worth it? Hard to say.

All I know is all platforms legally need to censor illegal content, so it becomes a hammer looking for a nail.

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

#143

Post by N00bN00b » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 6:32 PM UTC

rjbwork wrote: post #106

N00bN00b wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm being censored on Reddit myself. I'm not really sure why exactly. I suspect it has to do with having a NSFW tag on my account (that I didn't put there) that I'm afraid to turn off, because of the warning that's next to that button and it doesn't explain what "swearing" is exactly and if I turn it off and write "fuck" I might get banned. My account provides a lot of help to other people, it's highly valued by the…

I don't think I've ever seen an account with an NSFW tag/flair. Posts? Yeah. Subreddits? Yup. Possibly a flair for your user on a particular subreddit added by a mod for some reason? Sure. But not accounts. Can you link to this tag?

Oh yeah. Accounts have NSFW tags these days. Also impacts chat functionality. You'll get warnings there. They call it "profile" but your profile is 100% of your account activity.

https://www.reddit.com/r/help/comments/pfpw4y/any_way_to_rem...

This link has pictures in it, showing you the NSFW tag:

https://www.reddit.com/r/techsupport/comments/8qhay9/why_is_...

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

#144

Post by jan_Inkepa » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 6:33 PM UTC

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #51

iammisc wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused.. isn't a secularist party in favor of not involving personal religious beliefs in Civic issues? In that light, what's wrong with someone with personal religious beliefs from participating? Others made his religion important not him, from what you describe

I'm sorry, but: Wouldn't it be important to make sure the person actually wants secular values in politics when parts of their religion doesn't think the same way? I mean, if he doesn't personally think folks should be using birth control or that same sex marriage is bad (as the Catholic Church does), isn't it important to ask how they deal with this? Does it come out in votes or does the person think that they shoul…

Hey, I think your comment is interesting and raises a number of valid points, and I basically agree with you. I spent about 40 minutes drafting and redrafting more detailed replies, but everything I could think of saying read like kicking off a very rote/standard internet discussion about politics and religion, and I wouldn't wish that upon either of us.

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

#145

Post by ModernMech » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 6:33 PM UTC

N00bN00b wrote: post #90

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…

I'm being censored on Reddit myself. I'm not really sure why exactly. I suspect it has to do with having a NSFW tag on my account (that I didn't put there) that I'm afraid to turn off, because of the warning that's next to that button and it doesn't explain what "swearing" is exactly and if I turn it off and write "fuck" I might get banned. My account provides a lot of help to other people, it's highly valued by the…

Reddit’s search is incredibly (purposefully?) broken. It won’t give you nsfw results for anything. You have to go to old.Reddit.com and use that search system. It has a checkbox for “include nsfw results” that is missing from the new ui. Check that and see if it helps you find yourself.

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

#146

Post by lowbloodsugar » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 6:35 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #136

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…

> 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. Assuming we're talking about the abstract concept of free speech (as opposed to 1A, which dictates what the US government is allowed to censor), the "line" is around expression of ideas. A death threa…

Compare:

"My followers, I order you to go out and kill this man"

vs

"I wonder if the world would be a better place if this man did not exist"

However you define free speech, anyone can order someone killed while being acceptable to your rules.

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

#147

Post by short_sells_poo » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 6:35 PM UTC

dude187 wrote: post #131

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…

Nobody is bound to that stance. Some people, myself included, believe that there is no line. You have the right to say anything.

I agree with this line of reasoning, but then we have to ask the question: are platforms obligated to host all speech that is not illegal (in whatever jurisdiction they reside in)? Should they be obligated? If I as a private citizen decide to create a platform to host discourse, do I have the freedom to decide what is permitted there?

If the answers to the followup questions are "yes", then we arrive to the status quo, where most of the big platforms heavily censor the content. This means that if you want to say something that'd be censored, you have the right to do so, but you don't have the means. I suppose you can walk out into the street and say to the people there, but there's a certain lack of reach in that approach :)

So there's also a practical aspect, where you may have full freedom of speech by law, and yet in reality you have no freedom because nobody will give you the possibility to actually communicate what you want to say. You may try to build your own platform, but then you run into second order problems where you'll find that no service provider will want to host your servers.

At one point, you may hit a barrier where you have no monetary means to build all the infrastructure necessary to be able to provide a truly free speech shelter.

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

#148

Post by throwaway894345 » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 6:36 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #89

jaywalk wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not a matter of most people being enemies of free speech I disagree. If you believe in censoring opinions and ideas, you do not believe in free speech. Period.

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

Intent. If your speech is intended to compel someone (compulsion != persuasion), then it's a threat. Of course, accurately assessing intent is difficult because threats are often implied rather than explicit (precisely because the one issuing the threat wants to avoid the consequences of issuing a threat).

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

#149

Post by throwaway894345 » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 6:38 PM UTC

kgwxd wrote: post #92

BitwiseFool wrote: post #2

2020-2021 has shown me that most people happen to be 'fair weather fans' of civil rights. Everyone claims to love free speech but when suppression of speech opposing their own worldview comes into play, they suddenly dither and fall back on other rationalizations to justify the censorship. Well, it's not free speech being violated when it's 'hate speech'. Well, it's not free speech being violated when it's 'misinform…

IMO, if the government isn't using the extraordinary power's granted to them (search, seizure, arrests, fines, imprisonment, etc) against it's citizens strictly for the words they say or write, "free speech" hasn't been violated and it would be incorrect to use the term in that context. I think even a government hosted forum could filter content without violating even the spirit of "free speech", and I'm pretty sure…

> IMO, if the government isn't using the extraordinary power's granted to them (search, seizure, arrests, fines, imprisonment, etc) against it's citizens strictly for the words they say or write, "free speech" hasn't been violated and it would be incorrect to use the term in that context.

"Free speech" is overloaded. There's the abstract concept of "free speech" and then there's the first amendment which specifically limits what the US government is allowed to censor.

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

#150

Post by swagasaurus-rex » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 6:42 PM UTC

cratermoon wrote: post #37

Harmful speech and misinformation should not have a platform.

There is a platform. In private, where that sort of talk has always existed.

When it's limited to private, it's obvious to the speaker that holding those opinions is a personal choice, not a publicly acceptable opinion.