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

Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

on.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 606 posts

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#181

Post by jimmygrapes »

throwawaygh wrote: post #165
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internet? Anybody can dangle their own leaf on this inconceivably large tree.

This is 100% what I used to think re: the censorship debate, so hear me out. The problem isn't censorship or dangerous speech. The problem is NOT censorship! Literally everyone can throw apache on an old laptop and then punch a hole in port 80 on their home router. Some issues with that setup, sure, but we had billionaire POTUS crying censorship. Fucker could buy a bunch of data centers with a week's income or whatev…

To add on to your thought, I think the problem is somewhere closer to "network effects" or "expected reach".

Hear me out: there is Ana increasing expectation, realistic or not, that every voice CAN be heard (or words read, or whatever disability compliant version you like) by everybody else. That you have the RIGHT to be heard. That if you aren't heard (and maybe even amplified), you are being unfairly punished.

In the U.S. and E.U. and others there is some aspect of that enshrined in the founding documents, in the form of right to petition[1] but it generally doesn't spill over into the right for your ideas to be spread to your fellow citizen/countryman/human/otherkin beyond the government.

After all, why should [popular person] get so many views when MY videos or writings or recordings are so much better?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_petition

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#182

Post by throwawaygh »

thephyber wrote: post #178
throwawaygh wrote: post #110

I say Bah to the entire censorship debate! My critique of Substack is that our lesson from the last ten years is simple: speech should happen primarily on platforms that are prohibited from profit-seeking and run in the public interest. Censorship on these platforms should be prohibited, of course, but so should any form of profit seeking. Our problem isn't censorship. Our problem is that our political/economic/relig…

This comment just feels like you are only pointing fingers at large corps while ignoring the massive numbers of smaller niche websites (like forums) run by people with small pockets, which allow differing amounts of diversity of discussion. The Facebook/Twitter backlash is pretty far along and some people have migrated to Gab, Parler, Truth, etc. They are low SNR for me, so I don’t care to join them, as much of the U…

> This comment just feels like you are only pointing fingers at large corps

Good to know. That's not my intent. I am distinguishing between platforms and forums, not big vs. small. Platforms tend to be large corps, but there are many smaller players in the platform space. You named a few. I think all of those should be forced to be public benefit corps as well.

The line between forum and platform is weird, but I think I'd roughly define it using something like Section 230. Forums are for cohesive groups.

> I get the feeling that those who advocate for maximum freedom don’t have a good understanding of history of the USA.

I tend to agree. My current stance on social media issues comes from walking around Boston during the pandemic and thinking about exactly this topic.

> This country was founded 2000 years before the modern internet

2,000 years? Damn straight! Jesus was white as a pearl, 'Murican as you or I, and died for our freedom! (Let's not forget to laugh ;-))

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#183

Post by jimmygrapes »

daveevad wrote: post #167
throwawaygh wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't have to be one thing. You can let there be a market of platforms. Just no profiteering, either directly or indirectly. Easier said than done, of course. Also, shouldn't be .gov. Public benefit but not government-owned.

> government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth

very underrated comment and observation, and something that set off a cascade of fantasy scenarios and services in my mind where such an idea was more important and protected than any other. gonna have weird dreams tonight I think.

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#184

Post by systemvoltage »

mindslight wrote: post #63
systemvoltage wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually believe in Institutions with a capital I and want them to succeed, build trust and help educate people of their reputation, historical significance and their importance in society. I’ve worked with NIST for many years - brilliant people doing good work. But when they continue to lie to public, suppress facts, have a political agenda, and media is along with it, it’s becoming harder. I still think CDC does…

> I still think CDC does good work. Just that the leadership needs to come out clean and apologize the public for being partisan. Why are you saying "partisan" rather than "incompetent" ? It's surely convenient to blame the institutional incompetence on a strawman "other side", but the fact of the matter is that under administrations from both Parties they've repeatedly dropped the ball. Distributing free rapid tests…

It was partisanry. Francis Collins (NIH Director) and Fauci from NSAID were afraid of appearing to support Trump's rhetoric of China-virus. So they doubled down on supression of information and completely shutdown any discussion in the entire scientific community regarding Lab Leak origins.

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#185

Post by harry8 »

OrvalWintermute wrote: post #174
harry8 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We never trusted politicians. We never trusted corporate executives. We never trusted lawyers. We used to trust that the large news organisations were somewhat self-correcting and accountable. The New York Times, Washington post, Wall st Journal, CNN, NBC, CBS, NPR, etc. After the total lack of accountability for Iraq and WMD, for 2 decades of Afghanistan, The Russiagate debacle and you can add a hundred things you'v…

> We never trusted politicians. We never trusted corporate executives. We never trusted lawyers. And we should keep it that way! These individuals objectives are not aligned with those of Joe & Jill Everyman.

Nobody ever did, nobody ever will trust such politicians whether you want them to or not. This kind of "trust" is not the point, has not and will not change.

There is another kind of trust that has been greatly damaged at considerable cost. The trust of the corrective mechanisms we use to keep the powerful (who we never have nor ever will trust) in check.

Starting with every large news source, journalist and pundit who cheered for the Iraq war and WMD to do a full and proper account of how they were used to dupe their readers and what they learned from it.

The next war is WMD with the same lying assholes cheering for it. And the one after that. The war machine is simply the most obvious and irrefutable case of it. 20 years and 3 trillion in Afghanistan - lets up the military budget again Joe! Just like Donald did. With zero "how is this paid for?" stories. With zero. "Is this value for money?" stories. With zero resistance to being passed...

Note that if the case for ever more military funding is strong, these questions can be asked, answered and debated thoroughly in the media. and by elected officials? So why aren't they?

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#186

Post by onphonenow »

OrvalWintermute wrote: post #33
onphonenow wrote: post #9

One problem I am having is that on the left I thought things were pretty high quality from a facts / science side, and that has eroded. Fair disclosure - I'm a max dem donor and will likely continue to vote 100% dem. 7,000 (!) scientists have signed the John Snow memorandum. It states that "Furthermore, there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection". https://www.johnsn…

> then says masks don't help Actually, they said this: Masks don't help Masks do help, but save them for the healthcare workers Masks do help, get one, a cloth one is fine. Masks do help, double-mask Mask do help, but you need N95 masks Given that even with a properly fitting N95 mask that is form fitting you can still smell everything right through it, I think a properly fit, and negative pressure tested N100 or P10…

I started wearing an N95 with vent immediately. Pretty sure it works to protect me. I asked local public health folks if this was OK (back when they were saying only wear if sick) pointing out it just costs pennies. They said not to believe "misinformation" but they would not arrest anyone for wearing a mask.

Vent makes it extremely comfortable, no glass fog etc. Then they said the vent somehow was bad for others, but let others wear cloth masks. That made no sense, the vent is a hard stop and then exhalation goes towards ground. There are still plenty of people who think / lecture about a vent being bad.

And the lists goes on.

I had a friend who was a doctor who did an N95 + face shield and did not catch covid for months treating covid patients, so I do have some faith in N95.

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#187

Post by tick_tock_tick »

thephyber wrote: post #178
throwawaygh wrote: post #110

I say Bah to the entire censorship debate! My critique of Substack is that our lesson from the last ten years is simple: speech should happen primarily on platforms that are prohibited from profit-seeking and run in the public interest. Censorship on these platforms should be prohibited, of course, but so should any form of profit seeking. Our problem isn't censorship. Our problem is that our political/economic/relig…

This comment just feels like you are only pointing fingers at large corps while ignoring the massive numbers of smaller niche websites (like forums) run by people with small pockets, which allow differing amounts of diversity of discussion. The Facebook/Twitter backlash is pretty far along and some people have migrated to Gab, Parler, Truth, etc. They are low SNR for me, so I don’t care to join them, as much of the U…

The barrier to entry for making you're own twitter is building you're own damn internet. How can you say no barrier to entry when every major tech company will act in lockstep to refuse to do business with you? Hell even there datacenter started to refuse to do business; at that point you need to build a parallel world which is a pretty damn big barrier.

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#188

Post by mike_hock »

ziroshima wrote: post #4

No doubt, these censors and would-be censors have the best of intentions. But you've really got your head up your own ass if you convince yourself that you are protecting people by deciding the information that is appropriate for them to be exposed to. I just don't understand the shortsightedness, the naivete, or the willingness to discard the principle of free speech.

> No doubt, these censors and would-be censors have the best of intentions.

[citation needed]

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#189

Post by double_nan »

throwawaygh wrote: post #94
SQueeeeeL wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>that is appropriate for them to be exposed to. Once the idea of dangerous speech becomes aknowledged, censorship just becomes a game of degrees.

This isn't at all true. Many free speech absolutists will happily concede the existence of dangerous speech and dangerous ideas.

But should these ideas be censored though?

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#190

Post by yabbutz88 »

ziroshima wrote: post #4

No doubt, these censors and would-be censors have the best of intentions. But you've really got your head up your own ass if you convince yourself that you are protecting people by deciding the information that is appropriate for them to be exposed to. I just don't understand the shortsightedness, the naivete, or the willingness to discard the principle of free speech.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN