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

People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 152 posts

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#21

Post by Xylakant »

goalieca wrote: post #13
jgeada wrote: post #2

I think this might be a misinterpretation of the word "responsible". If a platform lies or spread malicious content, it seems people want the platform to have the liability and consequences for the malfeasance. That is what most people mean by "responsible". Government sets the rules, and if someone fail to comply, there are consequences against those responsible. Government isn't responsible, it is holding them resp…

> If a platform lies or spread malicious content, it seems people want the platform to have the liability and consequences for the malfeasance. Does the government then setup a ministry of truth? Who gets to decide that?

Are you implying that there’s no posts on social media platforms that are plain and verifiably wrong and that any such decision needs to be made by a government created ministry of truth? There’s no middle ground? Maybe such a thing like a court?

If I state here plain and as a fact that golieca eats little children for breakfast and slaughters kittens for fun, could @dang not look at both a statement from you and one from me and see if I have sufficient proof?

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#22

Post by _heimdall »

Xylakant wrote: post #9
floundy wrote: post #7

Actually, no, reasonable people do not want either platforms or governments to moderate content. Who defines what "problematic content" is?

You are posting on a platform that has a moderation policy and takes active measures to to moderate away problematic content. The guidelines are here https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and they clearly state what content is off limits.

We're posting on a platform that has a moderation policy defined by the private entity hosting the service, not the government.

YC is free to censor on their own platform, the only issue is when the government is involved in censoring speech.

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#23

Post by floundy »

Xylakant wrote: post #9
floundy wrote: post #7

Actually, no, reasonable people do not want either platforms or governments to moderate content. Who defines what "problematic content" is?

You are posting on a platform that has a moderation policy and takes active measures to to moderate away problematic content. The guidelines are here https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and they clearly state what content is off limits.

How is this a "gotcha" when I'm on the internet I'm being forced to use? I pick the most agreeable platforms. I like that HN filters out politics, sports, and celebrities, it's more like a themed forum than an open board. HN doesn't deem these topics as "problematic", simply as off-topic.

Anyway my point was "problematic content" is often used as a buzzword by censorship happy people, and ends up being synonymous with "something I disagree with." We have just literally seen the real life consequences of pushing for censorship — that it will eventually be used against speech that one agrees with — and nobody quite seems to care.

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#24

Post by Xylakant »

_heimdall wrote: post #22
Xylakant wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are posting on a platform that has a moderation policy and takes active measures to to moderate away problematic content. The guidelines are here https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and they clearly state what content is off limits.

We're posting on a platform that has a moderation policy defined by the private entity hosting the service, not the government. YC is free to censor on their own platform, the only issue is when the government is involved in censoring speech.

The post I’m responding to explicitly states that platforms should not moderate content.

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#25

Post by _heimdall »

Xylakant wrote: post #14
brap wrote: post #6

Unpopular opinion, but what about our own responsibility to choose better platforms?

What if someone posts slander and libelous statements on a platform that you do not frequent? What choice do you have? What recourse do you have if someone posts something along this proud OpenAI demo with your face on truth.social? https://bsky.brid.gy/r/https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:j5fb...

There are legal avenues in many jurisdictions for slander or libel. Ultimately, though, who cares what someone posts about you and how could we expect some arbiter to decide exactly what is okay to post, especially when the concern is potential libel?

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#26

Post by kode95 »

bradley13 wrote: post #18

Several European governments have jailed people for social media posts. Many Europeans support this - they don't understand how government censorship can quickly get out of hand. As for falsehoods: some people will be mistaken, some people will lie, and sometimes sarcasm will be misunderstood. Why should anyone be liable? It is on each individual to inform themselves, and to decide what to believe and what to disrega…

> Many Europeans support this - they don't understand how government censorship can quickly get out of hand.

There are only a few European countries that jail people for wrongspeak, and I can't think of a single one of those countries whose population in general is in favor of such laws.

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#27

Post by chii »

_heimdall wrote: post #19
gmuslera wrote: post #12

There is a problem of agency here. Assuming that we are talking about platform of user-generated content, should the users be punished by what they post? The kind of punishment can do the government is different from what a platform can do, and somewhat they want to feel free to express themselves. This are factors taken into account by users at making decisions. In the other hand, what the platform does (through alg…

> should the users be punished by what they post? What kind of punishment exactly? If governments punish users for content, assuming the content isn't clearly illegal, that's government censorship and may be a free speech violation depending on jurisdiction. Platforms censoring or prioritizing content is a private entity enforcing rules for what they're willing to host and distribute on the platform. I'm not sure tha…

> a private entity enforcing rules for what they're willing to host and distribute on the platform

what becomes of the public square under this doctrine tho? There cannot be more than one public square, as it's a natural monopoly, so a platform that turned itself into a public square (and extracting rents from doing so) means they get to control a narrative displayed in public (presumably suitable to their agenda). And there's no secondary public square due to the network effect.

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#29

Post by ecshafer »

This survey is too vague to be worthwhile. Sure some of these are scary how many people say "yes", but people say yes all of the time to vague sounding pleasantries. When they say "responsible" say specific actions. Should people be arrested for what they post on social media when its an opinion? Should platforms automatically analyze all messages and automatically remove messages that it deems not truthful? Should the platform be liable in court for falsehoods? People will answer very differently to specifics than vagueness.

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#30

Post by jonathanstrange »

goalieca wrote: post #13
jgeada wrote: post #2

I think this might be a misinterpretation of the word "responsible". If a platform lies or spread malicious content, it seems people want the platform to have the liability and consequences for the malfeasance. That is what most people mean by "responsible". Government sets the rules, and if someone fail to comply, there are consequences against those responsible. Government isn't responsible, it is holding them resp…

> If a platform lies or spread malicious content, it seems people want the platform to have the liability and consequences for the malfeasance. Does the government then setup a ministry of truth? Who gets to decide that?

Judges. The question is mainly whether there should be some rules independent of those of the companies that the content must follow, and people who feel treated badly need to get their rights against those rules in a civil lawsuit, or whether more should be allowed first until there is a civil or penal lawsuit that might stop it. (It is already a mixture of both so it's a matter of degree.)

I personally prefer an emphasis on the first solution because it's better to combat the widespread lack of civility in social media, which I believe to harm society substantially, but I also understand the people who prefer the second model.

Post reply on HN