Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse • Hacker News Board

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

#371

Post by raxxorrax » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 11:13 AM UTC

dools wrote: post #240

The funny thing is that everyone commenting here thinks that we're headed towards an authoritarian nightmare, but for different reasons. It's not until you sit with someone and nut out what they mean by "authoritarian" and "censorship" and so on that you realise you're completely morally and politically opposed to them. This shallow political take is what allows so many strange bedfellows to unite on the "political r…

The "political right" (which doesn' really include classical conservatives) is correct on the topic to err on the side of freedom in regards to information. I believe there is freedom to be gained through individualism and collectivism both, but the topic of censorship doesn't touch that in my opinion.

It is as you said, this even connects people that have different beliefs about sensible policy.

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

#372

Post by giantrobot » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 11:19 AM UTC

Pyramus wrote: post #330

bondarchuk wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did I go wrong in my analysis? You say free speech is a tool that serves a purpose. Then you imply that the purpose of the tool is to push the balance of power toward the individual. The goal in pushing the balance of power to the individual is to have an equilibrium between the individuals' and the government's power. This equilibrium is characterized by an increase in stability. It seems fair to summarize thi…

You are making a false equivalence here: Restriction of free speech != censorship. Every single Western democracy on this planet restricts free speech in exactly the way parent described - as a trade-off between the rights of the individuals and the rights of the souvereign [1]. Even the US has a long list of restrictions to free speech. The question is not whether to restrict free speech, the question is where to dr…

> Restriction of free speech != censorship.

You're making a false assertion that attaching consequences to some speech is censorship. No one can prevent you from yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. There are however post hoc consequences for doing so falsely, as doing so is very dangerous to others.

Even then you have the opportunity to defend yourself in a court of law. You may have been thought there was a fire in the theater but simply been mistaken. That's why laws include clauses of intent.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of that speech.

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

#373

Post by zriha » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 11:23 AM UTC

jcbrand wrote: post #344

zriha wrote: post #331

First online media that removed editor for the homepage and put an algorithm to decide which article is more important than other (based on clicks and shares), we got Kardashians, flat earth believers and everything went sideways. As someone who is 15 years in comms, public relations and media relations, for me, influencers were journalists, not some kid with 1 million followers on Instagram or TikTok. Now they are i…

> for me, influencers were journalist Journalists have been serving the interests of moneyed elites since well over a hundred years. It's good that they finally have some competition, even if it means that flat earthers also get a voice. > It is important for the whole society to engage in critical thinking and build trust. Critical thinking means listening to diverse viewpoints, weighing up the evidence and the argu…

> Journalists have been serving the interests of moneyed elites since well over a hundred years. It's good that they finally have some competition, even if it means that flat earthers also get a voice.

Well, I wouldn't agree with you, as journalists (and here I mean real journalists) are often members of professional organisation and they have code of conduct. Random people on Facebook or influencers doesn't have that.

Thanks to investigative journalists, you have things like Pandora papers.

You have to ask yourself where is the line for critical thinking, for example flat earthers - where do we draw the line and when it become apsurd? What we have is that people will now believe in anything, something that we proved and live with for centuries.

What we will have, oxygen deniers? They don't recognize oxygen?

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

#374

Post by Mikeb85 » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 11:27 AM UTC

bambax wrote: post #310

The reason Substack has "content guidelines" is because they want to make their own laws. If they only followed the law, they would only need to remind users what's illegal and what's not. And so they have to go to great lengths to explain those laws that they are making, and why they exist, and how they're enforced, etc. And of course they present them as necessary and reasonable, and "the only way". > We will conti…

> currently accepts antivax

What is antivax? Some things which EU governments accept as law is deemed antivax in Canada (recognizing immunity from past infections)... M-W dictionary recently updated antivax to include those opposed to vaccine mandates. But now entire governments are dropping vaccine passports and not implementing mandates at all...

So what exactly does antivax mean and why should Substack not allow debate on the matter?

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

#375

Post by yunohn » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 11:28 AM UTC

zriha wrote: post #373

jcbrand wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for me, influencers were journalist Journalists have been serving the interests of moneyed elites since well over a hundred years. It's good that they finally have some competition, even if it means that flat earthers also get a voice. > It is important for the whole society to engage in critical thinking and build trust. Critical thinking means listening to diverse viewpoints, weighing up the evidence and the argu…

> Journalists have been serving the interests of moneyed elites since well over a hundred years. It's good that they finally have some competition, even if it means that flat earthers also get a voice. Well, I wouldn't agree with you, as journalists (and here I mean real journalists) are often members of professional organisation and they have code of conduct. Random people on Facebook or influencers doesn't have tha…

> members of professional organisation and they have code of conduct

Laws exist, so there are no crimes?

> Thanks to investigative journalists, you have things like Pandora papers.

Yes, but that’s their point - not everyone is exposing things, because the elites control the media. Do remember that the Panama Papers whistleblower got mysteriously car-bombed.

Here’s a viral modern-day example: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/2/17189302/si...

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

#376

Post by piaste » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 11:30 AM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #338

cf141q5325 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agreed with you, i am just pointing out that you missed a perspective. When you say that the problems is idiots that would just need to be told what to do its a fetching argument. The problem is to identify actual smart people to do the telling. Being smart would entails understanding not just the facts but the consequences of actions. If you would understand them, and could communicate them, you wouldnt need to fo…

I think we must be talking at cross purposes, I didn't say anything about "stupid people", or forcing people to have any particular viewpoint. You seem to be lost in a sea of relative opinion, and of all viewpoints being equally valid/stupid. That's far from always the case. Again, by this logic, we should never address crime because by it's very nature a court case is trying to establish what are or are not real fac…

> Are we too stupid to have courts?

I have a slightly different opinion from /u/ cf141q5325's. I think the problem isn't stupidity, it's hunger for power.

When you grant someone the authority to decide what other people should do, you can optimize for intelligence all you like, but the ones who will actually _struggle_ to get that position are the ones who want to be able to tell other people what to do.

Separation of powers is a partial remedy to this. You can either make the rules, or enforce the rules, but not both. (Democracy is another remedy, also partial.) We _can_ have courts because becoming a judge isn't quite as attractive as becoming a dictator.

A gigantic issue with the current 'fight against misinformation' is that it features no separation at all. When it comes from the government, it's typically designed, evaluated, and enforced by the executive branch alone. And when it comes from private entities, it's completely arbitrary and tyrannical according to whatever mood the CEO wakes up in that morning.

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

#377

Post by Chris2048 » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 11:32 AM UTC

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…

> will claim I'm being biased, even though I view the whole debate as a bit of red herring that distracts from the real issues

This implies you don't think "content moderation" is a "real" problem, which suggests to me you are biased. Also, "moderation" to me suggests mere moderation (consistent with fair, stated guideline) versus moderation "if you say things they don't like".

This kind of fight happens all over the place (e.g. what counts as hate/rape/murder etc), but I feel "moderation" is fairly neutral sounding without the implication of injustice befitting the act of being deprived of a a voice on omnipresent and monopolising platforms. It's also clear to me that some publications use comments sections as a way to manipulate public opinion, so cherry-picking/censoring them is an exercise in PR if (and only if) it isn't clear that result are being manipulated.

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

#378

Post by Mikeb85 » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 11:33 AM UTC

GekkePrutser wrote: post #360

I really like substack as a platform. They seem to be not as aggressive on monetisation as medium. On my blog I don't want my users be tracked and I want to offer my content for free. Their stance on free speech here I also applaud. Unfortunately substack is not yet as good on the discovery side.

> Unfortunately substack is not yet as good on the discovery side.

It's getting better. A few months ago all the searches I did brought up only the top Substacks from barely-related category. Now you can search the name of a Sub with no subscribers and it actually comes up, and when you search specific keywords it's far more contextual, doesn't just bring up the top Subs from other categories.

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

#379

Post by cjfd » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 11:33 AM UTC

Pyramus wrote: post #340

cjfd wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After that one gets into philosophical ethics rather quickly. In practice people not having human rights degrades into much suffering quickly. You said something not-so-nice about the government? Now we throw you in jail! So, why is that wrong? I am sure one can talk pretty endlessly in a philosophy course but in practice there does not seem to be much point. Also, we should keep history in mind. In fact, there is re…

Let me ask the question differently: Who would protect human rights? Extrapolating from your examples it seems that only democracies (and the hypothetical benevolent dictator) grant individuals human rights. The question is: What comes first, democracy or human rights?

Human rights are a precondition to democracy. The key idea is that in a democracy people can get laws changed if they can get enough others behind the idea. To do this one needs, at the very least, to tell other people about this idea that one has about this law that needs to be changed. If such speech is prohibited then democracy stops at square one. Your hypothetical benevolent dictator already points in this direction. A benevolent dictator could in principle respect all human rights but he would still write all laws so it would not be a democracy. It could even be allowed to say that the dictator situation sucks but it would just be impossible to change. So human rights precede democracy logically speaking, but perhaps not practically speaking.

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

#380

Post by Mikeb85 » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 11:35 AM UTC

paulpauper wrote: post #37

cwoolfe wrote: post #34

I seem to recall reading "You either die an MVP or live long enough to build content moderation" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28684250 I hope substack can really change the game here because their business model delivers content you paid to receive rather than competing for your attention. More on that here: https://on.substack.com/p/substacks-view-of-content-moderati...

I wish substack had better discovery features like Medium and fewer spammy emails. I signed up for Scott's blog and got like 30 emails in a week. Annoying

As a writer you can control how many emails are going out. You can create articles without sending an email at all. So it's that creator choosing to spam those emails...