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)

#231

Post by unethical_ban » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 9:05 PM UTC

wutbrodo wrote: post #167

unethical_ban wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 topic…

> "keeping harmful, intentional disinformation away from people" This is begging the question though. It's assuming that "harmful, intentional disinformation" is 1) well-defined and 2) always going to be determined by those with your best interests at heart. It relies on a blind faith in the fundamental and eternal moral purity of Facebook and other mega-corporations. I wholeheartedly disagree that they fit this mold…

Your entire paragraph of "if you've paid any attention" are questionable.

I never heard people get mocked at any point for wearing a mask during the pandemic, even in the beginning when the CDC said it wasn't necessary.

In my PERSONAL opinion, the "lab leak" theory was never misinformation, but uninformation: Discussion pushed forward by right-wing outlets to generate an enemy, a "they" to blame. They used it as a cudgel without evidence against Anthony Fauci, and they beat the shit out of Asians because of it. Most importantly, it was completely irrelevant to the extent of us debating it, when the focus was on containing a disease for which there was no cure or vaccine.

And while there was some public skepticism about the pace of the vaccine process, I likewise don't think there was a "switch-flip" of trust in it like you suggest. When it came time to take it, everyone who wasn't a vaccine skeptic already went to get it when they could, and clearly the Trump admin was in charge through the development of the vaccine.

---

There is also a difference between someone posting "I do not trust the government not to be incompetent, or not to run a mass trial on people" (though I think those people are nuts re: the vaccine), and someone saying "I know that Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci put microchips into a bone-melting serum that will activate in a year!"

It's a huge, multi-faceted issue. In the end, the problem to TRY to solve in coming years will be sifting between legitimate skepticism and good-faith debate, and nation-states/Fox-News lies that intend to manipulate you into anger and division, and whether private entities have the obligation to allow harmful information across their channels.

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

#232

Post by PerkinWarwick » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 9:08 PM UTC

PerkinWarwick wrote: post #223

nescioquid wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I do see people doing when they lack control is to attempt to gain control. One way in which people gain (the feeling of) control is to imagine the world differently (superstition, conspiracy, religion) in a way that makes them virtuous or special and others not (i.e. essentially Nietzsche's idea of ressentiment). If you haven't the power to take part in a real struggle, this is not so surprising to me.

That's a good point. Perhaps the temptation is to choose philosophies that have the appearance of power. Sticking pins in a voodoo doll of your boss, Mr. Scrooge for example. Some acquaintances of mine did that at their job once and it worked a charm. The boss was permanently off on sick leave within a month. Maybe there's something to it.

I usually go a hundred or so and then change up.

Honestly Mr. Dang, I'll probably just bail. HN is 50% non-technical, it's easy to get drawn into that, nothing of real value is said by anyone (including me).

Add that in with the downvote system, which is incredibly irritating, and you simply have a Reddit knock-off.

It isn't like 'hackers' and 'startups' do much of value anymore given the move in concentration from workstation software and complex devices to moar and moar internet software components and surveillance marketing companies.

Seriously, have a wonderful rest of the week, but make an effort to do things of real value.

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

#233

Post by BobbyJo » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 9:11 PM UTC

kitsunesoba wrote: post #202

BobbyJo wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I suspect that for reddit specifically, homogenous opinion and lack of meaningful discourse has more to do with the voting/karma system and its inability to scale well. Nuance gets crowded out because posts and comments presenting polarized opinions are much more likely to get acted on by readers than their more nuanced counterparts are. Posting and voting becomes more about the dopamine hit from the gained karma and…

I agree with most of what you've said. I really only disagree with the last bit, as it ignores the network effects of moderation, and the fact that moderation applied by topic is necessarily polarizing along the lines of that topic.

I didn't intend to prove "bans cause homogenization", but rather cast doubt on "bans achieve the stated goal".

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

#234

Post by BobbyJo » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 9:16 PM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #137

BobbyJo wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 discourse" is probably far too aspirational a goal for lawmakers/government. It's also probably too subjective. Less violence, on the other hand, is a clearer goal that aligns with existing laws against violence, so it has a firmer basis, in line with existing restrictions on speech. It also gives you a non-partisan measuring stick. Private platforms, on the other hand, will have more flexibility in t…

It's no more subjective than 'less violence' provided the interested parties define measures for success. I mean, if the government can set goals for employment, then surely they can set them for civic engagement and disinformation.

Totally agree with your last two points.

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

#235

Post by notchFilter54 » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 9:17 PM UTC

fighterpilot wrote: post #230

notchFilter54 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And your argument is that if the venues hosting Hitler's speeches had Reddit's moderation policies then Hitler would not have been elected?

You're trying to draw analogies between modern technology and the old town square. You should stop doing that because instant distribution to a billion people isn't the same thing as a speech to a thousand. I provided examples of speech in the old town square leading to pathological outcomes, but we are in a very different regime now and analogizing too much isn't helpful.

So who should decide what moderation policies we have for the public? The general populace, who as you say would elect literally Hitler, or the government itself of which Hitler was once a part and used these very moderation mechanisms to suppress the Jews? The tyranny of a minority of special moderators like perhaps a nominally communist censor committee may have? We allow Naziist speech to exist precisely because we don't want the government or the tyranny of the majority or minority choosing what political speech is allowed, such as outlawing speech that doesn't promote Naziism.

>You're trying to draw analogies between modern technology and the old town square.

No I'm trying to find out how you want to apply moderation strategies to "reduce the likelihood" (my apologies if I misquoted your deleted comment) of democratic election of those who some censors decide have the wrong political views or speech.

>You should stop doing that because instant distribution to a billion people isn't the same thing as a speech to a thousand.

Are you also one of those that thinks the first amendment doesn't apply to the internet because the founders never imagined something that distributes so much faster than the printing press could exist? I know this is a straw man but I can't help but think this is where this is leading.

>And your argument is that if the venues hosting Hitler's speeches had Reddit's moderation policies then Hitler would not have been elected?

The fact that you didn't answer this question (well you did, but you deleted it) really is an damning answer of itself.

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

#236

Post by gremIin » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 9:18 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #185

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " 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.

There should be a term for this, when conservatives in USA have so little exposure to actual leftists that they confuse MSNBC, the Democratic Party, and censorious anklebiters with "the Left". Here's a hint: actual leftists aren't cheering on the persecution of Assange, like everyone on MSNBC is.

The term exists and it is called the Overton Window. It has been an intentional tactic and it is happening across several political spectra. For example, being against illegal immigration now gets you labelled anti-immigration. Wanting the police to be held accountable for their actions is now considered leftist instead of normal. Being anti-vax is considered a personal choice worthy of consideration instead of a fringe/lunatic view.

I would be very happy if I were Russia/China.

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

#237

Post by jaywalk » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 9:22 PM UTC

b3morales wrote: post #124

jaywalk wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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...

Not sure how that has anything to do with free speech.

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

#238

Post by nyx_land » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 9:26 PM UTC

The irony of private platforms censoring hate groups (for their own PR I might add; let's not forget that YouTube's algorithm famously favors alt-right content because weirdly enough algorithms that favor "engagement" tend to end up favoring lowest common denominator populist reactionary politics) is that it 1). Legitimizes the claims of groups that otherwise might sound like delusional paranoid conspiracy theorists, and 2). Forces these groups to adopt decentralized alternatives that make them even harder to do anything about. Tech companies engaging in performative content moderation is really just creating selection pressure that will ultimately create more resilient, technically competent hate groups that will also have an increasingly legitimate case to make for being persecuted by powerful organizations.

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

#239

Post by fighterpilot » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 9:29 PM UTC

notchFilter54 wrote: post #235

fighterpilot wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're trying to draw analogies between modern technology and the old town square. You should stop doing that because instant distribution to a billion people isn't the same thing as a speech to a thousand. I provided examples of speech in the old town square leading to pathological outcomes, but we are in a very different regime now and analogizing too much isn't helpful.

So who should decide what moderation policies we have for the public? The general populace, who as you say would elect literally Hitler, or the government itself of which Hitler was once a part and used these very moderation mechanisms to suppress the Jews? The tyranny of a minority of special moderators like perhaps a nominally communist censor committee may have? We allow Naziist speech to exist precisely because w…

> So who should decide what moderation policies we have for the public?

There's three possibilities:

(1) No moderation at all, beyond what's illegal.

(2) Private voluntary self-regulation.

(3) Government censorship.

In my opinion, (2) is the lesser evil, which isn't to say that it doesn't have its own pitfalls. (1) is infeasible due to the 8chan experience, and our understanding of social contagion and human tribalism. (3) has a much bigger slippery slope risk.

> The fact that you didn't answer this question

I deleted my answer because these analogies are too tenuous. You're trying to compare modern social media with how information spread 90 years ago. How can I map "Reddit's moderation policies" onto 1920s beer halls and Der Sturmer and newspapers? You can't do it. We're in a new regime and we need to reason about this new regime from first principles.

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

#240

Post by N00bN00b » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 9:33 PM UTC

ModernMech wrote: post #145

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…

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.

I don't really need to find myself, you know. I know where I am. The problem is more that others can't find me and don't even know that I'm missing. Maybe you're right about the reason, but even that's irrelevant.

It's scary. I happen to know this was done to me. How many times have others made you disappear without you knowing you were scrubbed without being given any notice?

This isn't my first account on hackernews (not my second one either, though with one exception they are all in good standing).

But my very first account, I was happily participating here for years, until someone kindly told me I had been shadowbanned and I don't how much of my voice was censored exactly and I don't know why.

So the issue isn't reddit. And apparently it's not really about me. The problem is exactly what this article is about, private censorship. Web3 is supposed to address issues like this (though, I don't know how much of that is handwaving and make believe). As soon as I can, I'm going to move there.

I just can't trust these corporate entities, they don't operate in good faith, aren't transparent and avoid accountability for their actions. The utopia that was promised to me has failed and is in full decay, the signs are everywhere. It's time to move on.

It's sad that a "normal user" like me ended up with those beliefs.

I just wanted to be left alone and allowed to voice my opinions, I don't want to have to deal with censorship, I don't want to have to tell others how I've been impacted by it, to make them aware of what's happening behind their backs. Instead, here I am having a discussion like this with others.

Am I even allowed to say this? Will this be wiped as well? I don't know. I wish this was all a joke. What kind of dystopian future is this? It's ridiculous beyond belief.