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

241–250 of 330 posts

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

#241

Post by eigengrau5150 »

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…

A friend of mine got permabanned from Reddit a couple of days ago for calling himself a faggot. Apparently reclaiming a slur is hate speech over there.

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

#242

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#243

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

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.

No true Leftist, hmm? Okay, I'll humor you, what should we call "MSNBC, the Democratic Party, and censorious anklebiters" (sic) and the rest of the broad coalition to the left of the American center, if not the left?

Aside from that, if you're suggesting I'm a conservative (no worries, it's a common mistake; it's tough being politically homeless), I'm a liberal unhappy with the broad coalition that used to be called the left. If that makes me a "conservative" in your eyes, well, there probably should be a term for that too.

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

#244

Post by TulliusCicero »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #177
TulliusCicero wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could use the same reasoning like > Making bad things illegal seems like a decent idea until they make something you like doing illegal Therefore just have no laws, I guess? Sometimes an imperfect, abusable system is better than no system. In fact, I'd wager that's usually the case.

> Therefore just have no laws, I guess? No. But have a system where some single powerful person can't just make up laws on a whim.

Well, they generally can't: laws are written and passed by a legislature.

You could make this sort of argument for executive orders, though.

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

#245

Post by gremloni »

burnafter182 wrote: post #87
simonh wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose to the extent these channels of communication recruit and radicalise, if they are shut down they will not be able to recruit and radicalise. The act of shutting them down might infuriate regular users of these channels, but they’re already radicalised anyway.

What you end up with is recruitment. If the user remains on Reddit or Twitter they're exposed to the gamut of human thought. However extreme they may be, they're still attached, there may exist some sort of analogue for a cleavage furrow, but nonetheless the cell remains. It's only at the point where you've so alienated and shorn their attachment to the whole that they become a fully independent entity, and that they…

The point someone is “recruited” is subjective. Either ways cutting out new recruits is a great solution.

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

#246

Post by gremloni »

inglor_cz wrote: post #79
simonh wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose to the extent these channels of communication recruit and radicalise, if they are shut down they will not be able to recruit and radicalise. The act of shutting them down might infuriate regular users of these channels, but they’re already radicalised anyway.

If ISIS can recruit in person by talking to vulnerable people in the right mosques, surely other extremists have backup channels as well.

The more someone has to rely on backup channels and then backups of the back channel, the less likely you enroll new members.

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

#247

Post by gremloni »

inglor_cz wrote: post #117
simonh wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But surely fewer channels means fewer recruits? Ultimately it's about what kind of content these platforms want to publish though.

It might also mean "higher quality recruits".

And that’s okay. Fewer “higher quality” recruits are easier to go after individually.

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

#248

Post by notchFilter54 »

fighterpilot wrote: post #239
notchFilter54 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tribalis…

We're in agreement, although I might add (2) is essentially the same as the censorship policy in the Weimar Republic under which Hitler was elected, where public censorship was nominally and constitutionally illegal [1] (except in narrow circumstances, such as anti-Semetic expression) and any censorship essentially relegated to private and/or voluntary regulation

> How can I map "Reddit's moderation policies" onto 1920s beer halls and Der Sturmer and newspapers?

The same way the first amendment is applied to both beer halls and the internet. There's not a single rule in Reddit's content policy that cannot be applied to a beer hall [0]. If you fail to find a way to apply these rules you're either not putting in any effort or you're a lot dumber than you sound (methinks the former).

Given that what you advocate for is virtually identical to that under the Weimar Republic, I assert your chosen policies would have little to no effect on the election of Hitler.

[0] https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy

[1] Ritzheimer, Kara L (2016). 'Trash,' Censorship, and National Identity in Early Twentieth-Century Germany. Cambridge University Press.

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

#249

Post by gremloni »

naasking wrote: post #139
gremloni wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A plausible hypothesis, but needs data.

Pretty much how it played out with r/fatpeoplehate. Anecdotal yes, but there are quite a few more examples on Reddit alone.

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

#250

Post by babypuncher »

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.

Maybe, but it does make the park a more pleasant space for everyone else to spend time in.
Post reply on HN