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

291–300 of 606 posts

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

#291

Post by Nursie »

cf141q5325 wrote: post #272
Nursie wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue with that approach to me is you end up saying every piece of information is as valid as any other. We know some things are wrong, we have evidence that they're wrong, and believing in some of those things can cause people to take actions which endanger and even kill others. So what do you do? I'm not advocating censorship as a solution, but simply throwing up your hands and saying "who are you to judge?" is…

>We know some things are wrong, we have evidence that they're wrong, and believing in some of those things can cause people to take actions which endanger and even kill others. That concerns you as well. Thats the whole issue. There is no "reasonable default" to fall back on. That you have identified some rather obnoxious idiots doesnt mean you are suddenly smart enough to tell the rest of the world what to do. Espec…

By your logic, we should never try to establish facts and "I didn't do it" should always be a valid defence for murder, as reality is really complex and making a determination of truth or facts is impossible. What's more in decreeing one version of events to be factual, and imposing a prison sentence on someone for 'murder', the state is acting as an authoritatiran arbiter of reality.

Just to add - I specifically said I didn't advocate censorship, and asked what actions might be taken. Do you have any ideas in that direction? Or is the idea of taking any action, however small (for instance better education in evaluating information) offensive to you in an axiomatic way?

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

#292

Post by jimkleiber »

dools wrote: post #283
jimkleiber wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was noticing that pattern as well, many people seem to be hurling the same insult but from opposite sides. In a way, it worries me, because the words lose their theoretical meaning and stand more for the assumed malevolence of the other side. If I could wish one thing on the world at this moment it would be for us to realize that most of the people who we believe are attacking us don't actually believe that they ar…

Yep. I had this conversation with my daughter the other day. She was like "But ... they just think the same thing about what you're saying". I was like "Totally, the only difference is that I'm right, and they're wrong". She was like "how do you know?". That lead to a much longer session of reviewing types of biases and fallacies, the scientific method and various other critical thinking tools I've developed over the…

Lol exactly. This is why I try to remind myself to pay attention to how I and others may be feeling underneath, and have even dedicated my professional life to it, because I have honed very strong rationalizing skills.

I find often the people who disagree with me the strongest can also go toe-to-toe with me in finding stories and evidence that confirms our beliefs and if I remember (and have the courage), I try to go deeper to talk about how I'm feeling afraid of this, this, and this, angry about this and this, ashamed of this, and so on, and try to imagine how they might be feeling across those contexts, and more often than not, realize we're both two humans trying our best. But goodness I can avoid going there sometimes, and if I do get there, it can be after a long long discussion with someone, and sometimes one or both of us gives up before we get to that point.

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

#293

Post by cf141q5325 »

throwawaygh wrote: post #92
nickff wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I would contend that profit is at least partially the intention of these actors, largely indirectly by people who are invested in stock markets." Profit is definitely one motivation for censorship, but there has been plenty of censorship in non-profit-centric situations. Communist countries and other government actors have been leaders in censorship, with no obvious profit motive.

OP is clearly referring to censorship in the "admin bans you from their website if you say things they don't like" sense, not the "government throws you in jail if you say wrong thing" sense. These conversations tend to become unproductive and devolve when folks conflate these two senses of the word censorship. IMO, we should use "content moderation" for the former and "censorship" for the latter, congruent with hist…

It makes misunderstandings more likely, however i am not so sure if the distinction still exists when every conversation online is covered by private-sector censorship. Seeing as in the end the private sector always has governments influencing their moderation policy. And be it just through liability.

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

#294

Post by mns »

Nursie wrote: post #222
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 t…

> 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?

Mostly because the experts don't care about you and don't have the time to care about you. What trust can people have in doctors if they treat people like ATMs? My partner went to one of her doctors and he prescribed her a vaccine (not COVID or anything like that) for something that's more of nuisance than anything else. She wanted to take it but checked about it first. She also has an autoimmune disease. Turns out, even though her autoimmune disease is in her file, the doctor didn't even read the file and prescribed her a vaccine that should never be prescribed to someone with that particular AI disease. So yeah, talk about good judgement and trusting "experts".

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

#296

Post by Rebelgecko »

mike_hock wrote: post #188
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]

Even if you don't understand their motivations, nearly everyone believes that they're doing the right thing. As I've internalized that, it becomes a lot easier to empathize with people who have different viewpoints: instead of being a bunch of cackling fascists, maybe they are just well-intentioned people with different values than I hold (or perhaps even the same values, just weighted differently)

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

#297

Post by michaelmrose »

cf141q5325 wrote: post #272
Nursie wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue with that approach to me is you end up saying every piece of information is as valid as any other. We know some things are wrong, we have evidence that they're wrong, and believing in some of those things can cause people to take actions which endanger and even kill others. So what do you do? I'm not advocating censorship as a solution, but simply throwing up your hands and saying "who are you to judge?" is…

>We know some things are wrong, we have evidence that they're wrong, and believing in some of those things can cause people to take actions which endanger and even kill others. That concerns you as well. Thats the whole issue. There is no "reasonable default" to fall back on. That you have identified some rather obnoxious idiots doesnt mean you are suddenly smart enough to tell the rest of the world what to do. Espec…

The is no single default but there are entire hosts of different defaults that will work across different communities and some norms that ought to exist across all communities. Hacker News wont let me abuse you verbally and if I make a credible threats of violence against you most places OUGHT to lock me up in order to prevent you from being murdered. Turns out there are TONS of reasonable defaults, some of which we can arrive at by simple logic others which we can arrive at by trial and error.

It would be shocking if communication was literally the only area of human endeavor which couldn't or shouldn't be regulated. Stranger yet to pose the idea on a moderated forum. Turns out authoritarian solutions do work.

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

#298

Post by colordrops »

epgui wrote: post #244
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.

Imagine you have free speech. Yay! Now what? Why was this so important again? Free speech is not an end goal. It's a tool that serves a purpose. In the relationship between a powerful government and a collection of individually vulnerable citizens, it pushes the power balance farther toward the individual. Is the goal to give all the power to the individual? No, that's not the goal. The goal is to have some sort of e…

Free speech by our definition in the US is a sacred and mostly irreducible "holy" thing, as being the very first amendment of the constitution. There is no true democracy without free speech. Free speech is a fundamental atom of a healthy and fair democracy. There is almost never a case where restriction of speech isn't abused to give one individual or group political advantage over another.

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

#299

Post by cjfd »

epgui wrote: post #244
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.

Imagine you have free speech. Yay! Now what? Why was this so important again? Free speech is not an end goal. It's a tool that serves a purpose. In the relationship between a powerful government and a collection of individually vulnerable citizens, it pushes the power balance farther toward the individual. Is the goal to give all the power to the individual? No, that's not the goal. The goal is to have some sort of e…

Actually, free speech is an end goal. It is a human right. As such only grave reasons are valid to infringe upon it.

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

#300

Post by bondarchuk »

epgui wrote: post #244
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.

Imagine you have free speech. Yay! Now what? Why was this so important again? Free speech is not an end goal. It's a tool that serves a purpose. In the relationship between a powerful government and a collection of individually vulnerable citizens, it pushes the power balance farther toward the individual. Is the goal to give all the power to the individual? No, that's not the goal. The goal is to have some sort of e…

Free speech is a tool that serves a purpose. The purpose is a stable society. To have a stable society requires censorship. Very clever lmao.
Post reply on HN