Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health • Hacker News Board

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#41

Post by FpUser » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 1:56 AM UTC

encryptluks2 wrote: post #26

While I don't agree with censorship, I think that companies are smart in censoring any fringe ideas, even if those viewpoints ultimately the accepted norm. As soon as a business takes a political stand, then they paint a huge target on their back from legislators and the majority who are fine with them just toeing the line somewhere in the middle. Statistically (which I'm sure they've done studies) it doesn't work in…

>"As soon as a business takes a political stand, then they paint a huge target on their back"

Well it does not seem to scare big gorillas of companies. Their type of censorship screams "political stand"

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#42

Post by asveikau » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 1:56 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #6

JohnTHaller wrote: post #3

"We are a digital media company providing engaged citizens with fact-based reporting and commentary on politics, policy and culture—informed by conservative principles." A ton of conservative opinion pieces are being posted to Hacker News every single day lately. Often by younger accounts that tend to post a lot of things in a similar vein. Political opinion pieces generally don't belong on HN: "Off-Topic: Most stori…

I come to HN for a diversity of opinion. I'm more interested in the ideas than the ideology of the authors. Good ideas can come from anywhere.

I feel like the recent thread on Joe Rogan was a bit less "diversity of opinion" and more "a large crowd expressing fringe narratives".

While most people in other places were talking about Joe Rogan's support for ivermectin, telling people to avoid vaccines, or platforming the guy who calls pandemic response "mass psychosis", over here, the story was that Spotify was censoring him, and what an outrage that is.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#43

Post by kevin_nisbet » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 1:57 AM UTC

tomlockwood wrote: post #5

I think this article misses one big point which is how we - the people on this website - have actively constructed a world where advertisers can shift spend really quickly. Brand safety is a big reason for censorship - the idea of keeping ads for a company away from content that people might not like. YouTube demonetizes loads and loads of controversial topics across the political spectrum - and that's a Feature for…

Sorry, I'm not sure I really understand this angle. Usually not wanting to be associated with specific content, and not funding that content wouldn't be censorship. I would expect it exists in the same way in non digital mediums, advertisers can choose how they spend their money.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#44

Post by panny » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 1:58 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #6

JohnTHaller wrote: post #3

"We are a digital media company providing engaged citizens with fact-based reporting and commentary on politics, policy and culture—informed by conservative principles." A ton of conservative opinion pieces are being posted to Hacker News every single day lately. Often by younger accounts that tend to post a lot of things in a similar vein. Political opinion pieces generally don't belong on HN: "Off-Topic: Most stori…

I come to HN for a diversity of opinion. I'm more interested in the ideas than the ideology of the authors. Good ideas can come from anywhere.

>I come to HN for a diversity of opinion

Articles are auto [flagged] based entirely on domain name here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17974697

Wouldn't it be interesting to see the list of domains that are flagged automatically?

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#45

Post by commoner » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 1:58 AM UTC

JohnTHaller wrote: post #3

"We are a digital media company providing engaged citizens with fact-based reporting and commentary on politics, policy and culture—informed by conservative principles." A ton of conservative opinion pieces are being posted to Hacker News every single day lately. Often by younger accounts that tend to post a lot of things in a similar vein. Political opinion pieces generally don't belong on HN: "Off-Topic: Most stori…

I'm disappointed that this submission was (edit: had originally been) flagged. While The Dispatch leans center-right (and anti-Trump),* this particular article argues from a libertarian position and tries to appeal to everyone from the left to the right. I don't think it's off-topic, because HN has had a ton of submissions about social media removals hit the front page, and individual rights like speech are often discussed on HN.

* https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/09/the-dispatch-is-bank...

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#46

Post by klyrs » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 1:58 AM UTC

JohnTHaller wrote: post #3

"We are a digital media company providing engaged citizens with fact-based reporting and commentary on politics, policy and culture—informed by conservative principles." A ton of conservative opinion pieces are being posted to Hacker News every single day lately. Often by younger accounts that tend to post a lot of things in a similar vein. Political opinion pieces generally don't belong on HN: "Off-Topic: Most stori…

I don't think this is a conservative opinion piece -- or at least, it's not well aligned to the Republican tribe. While it does mention some examples of cancellation on the left, it also devotes significant focus to legislation by Republicans attacking the freedom of speech in academia.

But, sadly, it appears that most of the commenters here are responding to what they expect from the title.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#47

Post by Nursie » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 1:58 AM UTC

josephcsible wrote: post #36

Nursie wrote: post #18

The rants about "cancel culture" from the US right are hilarious, given their long history of boycotts of brands they dislike and escalating hate and fear for everything up to actual book burnings of material like Harry Potter. I'm not saying that the accusations of cancel culture are unfounded, I'm saying they are wildly hypocritical. (It's good that efforts at censorship on the right are raised in the article as a…

Legitimate boycotts are against stuff that people are currently doing bad, and they end when the bad stuff does. Cancel culture goes after people that tweeted something bad 15 years ago, that they've already recanted and apologized for, and never ends.

And burning Harry Potter books? Trying to fearmonger about D&D and heavy metal?

Are these legitimate boycotts?

> they end when the bad stuff does

I would dispute this too, actually. Once you've proven yourself to be a shitbag, I'm not going back to your products ever if I can help it. Nothing illegitimate about that, it's called "voting with your wallet", which is nicely capitalist behaviour.

Regardless, whichever way you want to define legitimate vs illegitimate, the US right have been doing it for generations.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#48

Post by Sebb767 » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 1:59 AM UTC

josephcsible wrote: post #23

Sebb767 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He actually handles that distinction early in the article as a quote: > [...] he noted that there exists not just a right to speak but a right to hear. “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.” But this is of course a gray area. You don't have to listen to anything anyone has to say, but it's also possible to sideline something enough that it is…

I don't see how that quote addresses it. Wouldn't the relevant right be a "right not to hear", which he doesn't mention? > You don't have to listen to anything anyone has to say If you're a student, and it's in the state mandated curriculum, then you do. > it's also possible to sideline something enough that it is effectively censored without being outright forbidden. I 100% agree with this.

> I don't see how that quote addresses it. Wouldn't the relevant right be a "right not to hear", which he doesn't mention?

You're right, I misread your comment. He really does not differenciate this clearly, despite having examples for both cases.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#49

Post by tomlockwood » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 2:00 AM UTC

kevin_nisbet wrote: post #43

tomlockwood wrote: post #5

I think this article misses one big point which is how we - the people on this website - have actively constructed a world where advertisers can shift spend really quickly. Brand safety is a big reason for censorship - the idea of keeping ads for a company away from content that people might not like. YouTube demonetizes loads and loads of controversial topics across the political spectrum - and that's a Feature for…

Sorry, I'm not sure I really understand this angle. Usually not wanting to be associated with specific content, and not funding that content wouldn't be censorship. I would expect it exists in the same way in non digital mediums, advertisers can choose how they spend their money.

Its not just funding - content is often removed because its perceived as unpalatable to advertisers and payment processors. This is the way the modern web which we all made, works.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#50

Post by zozbot234 » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 2:00 AM UTC

wayoutthere wrote: post #7

I believe in freedom of speech. What I do not believe in is freedom of mass speech. Your responsibility to the truth should increase in line with your reach. Have 1000 followers in twitter and want to talk about starting the next holocaust? Great, say whatever. A million followers? Yeah, that’s a problem. I don’t know how this gets enforced, but we simply cannot give every lunatic a megaphone.

The First Amendment expressly provides for freedom of the press, which was the earliest form of mass speech and the one most directly comparable to publishing something to your "1000 Twitter followers". The only form of "mass speech" that's broadly government-regulated in the U.S. is communication that's broadcasted via the radio spectrum, which is inherently a scarce resource.