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

221–230 of 606 posts

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

#221

Post by anonygler »

asiachick wrote: post #219
anonygler wrote: post #218

I was trying to find those “fake face masks” just so someone knew what I was talking about, and apparently they were all deplatformed from Google searches. I didn’t want to buy one, just reference it. But nada. Found it on DuckDuckGo and it’s now my default search engine. It’s just so offensive they think they should control what I’m exposed to. Creepy and offensive. Google has lost its mission of making the worlds i…

I just search for "fake face masks" on google and they came right up https://www.google.com/search?q=fake+face+mask&tbm=isch

That’s image search. Try searching for this company: https://fakemaskworldwide.com/all-products/

There’s others like it that are also censored. First result for “Fake face masks” on DuckDuckGo.

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

#222

Post by Nursie »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #54

Clearly, part of the problem is over reliance on experts. Somehow the professional class (empowered by Twitter and Social Media) has now convinced themselves that they're God's gift to to the world ... because they read a book. And is totally oblivious to how stupid some of those things they're advocating for are. When I go to a doctor, chances are he will prescribe me some drugs. Why? because thats what they're trai…

> This is now somehow bad, and we're supposed throw out personal autonomy, and trust experts

How do you apply your personal autonomy to a domain you know nothing about? In fact, how do you even figure out you don't know enough about something to make a good judgement?

You might not need pills, but what if you do? Your personal judgement, made from a position of more or less total ignorance, is going to be wrong. In that case fine, your condition gets worse and has serious consequences, it's your choice I guess.

But when it comes to public health measures, and particularly contagious diseases, you're making the decision for other people too. Is your ignorant autonomy more important than other people's lives?

These are not easy questions, and I'm not proposing specific answers here, but "use your own judgement" isn't a panacea, especially when other people have to live (or die) with the fallout.

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

#223

Post by Nursie »

> we believe open discourse is better for writers and better for society.

In the abstract, it is. But platforms that allow hate to thrive usually find it shouts down all other voices, and those who wish to discuss ideas honestly and openly will find somewhere else to do it.

> While we have content guidelines that allow us to protect the platform at the extremes

Oh, your censorship is better.

I see.

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

#224

Post by DantesKite »

Nursie wrote: post #223

> we believe open discourse is better for writers and better for society. In the abstract, it is. But platforms that allow hate to thrive usually find it shouts down all other voices, and those who wish to discuss ideas honestly and openly will find somewhere else to do it. > While we have content guidelines that allow us to protect the platform at the extremes Oh, your censorship is better . I see.

Substack explicitly bans writers who plagiarize, promote child pornography, and calls to violence.

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

#225

Post by water8 »

canadaduane wrote: post #135
throwawaygh wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The status quo is a messy conflagration where initial beliefs were the brush, a combination of mental health issues and social frustration were the trees, and the perverse incentives of engagement metrics provided the high winds. So I'm in the awkward middle ground of believing it's counter-productive to try to shelter people from ideas but also believing that lots of people are very easy to manipulate, even so easy…

I would love to hear more of your thoughts on this. One thought experiment that has helped me get my mind around the problem is "why is it necessary that parents shield children from some information?" I think free speech might have a context that is invisible to us. Something like a prior, or trained neural net, in which free speech and no censorship is absolutely the right thing. And then there might be other conte…

To rephrase, your argument: Why lying is ok in small doses. It’s still a morally dubious and supremely arrogant position

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

#226

Post by sgustard »

jltsiren wrote: post #85
hn_version_0023 wrote: post #12

We don’t have a trust problem. We have a lack of trustworthy people in positions of power problem. I see how one can be easily confused. But we (the People) don’t trust politicians or business leaders because they have show repeatedly they’re not worthy of trust.

That exactly is the trust problem. Why would trustworthy people even try to gain power, if the public assumes that those in power are untrustworthy and corrupt? And why would those in power remain trustworthy when the incentives are clearly in favor of abusing your power and the public assumes that you will do that anyway? It's a vicious cycle, but a virtuous cycle would also work in the same way. Reality shapes peop…

These conditions (power breeds corruption) have been true since the birth of democracy. And yet you could argue democracy in the US has a reasonable track record, with only the occasional civil war. Why is now the time it is under such attack?

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

#227

Post by EarlKing »

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.

> best of intentions

.......what does Marcellus Wallace look like?

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

#228

Post by yaboy »

EarlKing wrote: post #227
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.

> best of intentions .......what does Marcellus Wallace look like?

a bitch?

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

#229

Post by Nursie »

DantesKite wrote: post #224
Nursie wrote: post #223

> we believe open discourse is better for writers and better for society. In the abstract, it is. But platforms that allow hate to thrive usually find it shouts down all other voices, and those who wish to discuss ideas honestly and openly will find somewhere else to do it. > While we have content guidelines that allow us to protect the platform at the extremes Oh, your censorship is better . I see.

Substack explicitly bans writers who plagiarize, promote child pornography, and calls to violence.

That's good, though I see some grey areas there, particularly around what constitutes a call to violence.

Regardless, the point stands - they still censor voices and ideas, but they've drawn a line where their ideology places it. It's a matter of degree, not absolute.

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

#230

Post by Bud »

iqanq wrote: post #131
pdonis wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. No such platform has ever existed. How would you propose building one?

The American government should provide citizens with a basic public web hosting service where constitutional freedoms are respected.

It seems to me like this sort of suggestion betrays a fundamental lack of comprehension about what "Constitutional freedoms" actually are.

All of the kinds of "censorship" being griped about on here are not remotely protected against by the First Amendment. In any way.

Post reply on HN