Live data from Hacker News

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

reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk

121–130 of 152 posts

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

#121
Ideally, individuals are the ones responsible for moderating content. All filters should be implemented client-side. A person can have all the freedom to decide what they see, but not what anyone else sees.

The problem with group moderation is that it will form disparate, isolated groups that get larger over time. This gradually reduces the effectiveness of democracy and destroys social cohesion. The people in the same group see other groups as more and more evil as the groups get larger, so they don't talk to eachother as much. The effort required to talk to people in a different group becomes larger as the groups get larger, so fewer and fewer individuals are capable of dialogue, until eventually, there are just two echo chambers that absolutely hate eachother. And what follows is either violence or oppression, or both, because the conflict has reached the government level.

There used to be a cap on practical group size before the Internet (except in rare cases, those become authoritarian states), so this went unnoticed in democratic societies. But now there isn't. We ought to consciously realize that the base unit of a democratic society is an individual, and create policies that enable decisions at the individual level.

We ought to talk to people that we think are evil. And let them talk, too.

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

#122
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?

This is exactaly right. To silence even offensive ideas is to appoint someone as the final arbiter of truth — something history shows to be dangerous. Truth doesn’t need protection — it needs criticism. Censoring ‘offensive’ or ‘sacred’ ideas kills the very process (open debate) that lets society correct errors & find truth, even if it's uncomfortable. Everthing else is dogma.

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

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A regime attempting to kill a large group of people is also oppressive and much worse. If the regime is able to do this because of speech then people are choosing the least worst option.

> A regime attempting to kill a large group of people is also oppressive and much worse. Indeed. But one should realize that thorny words are precisely what replaces physical violence. Human nature doesn't change in a democratic society that allows free dialogue, what changed is the way it is expressed. If you erase the horrible parts of ourselves we worked hard to banish onto paper, they will eventually remanifest t…

Most people in the western world are more frequently harmed by words than by physical violence. Way more frequently.

You're fired is just words, your health insurance is denied is just words, we don't accept your type here is words, you're being sued by someone with effectively infinite means is just words. But those words that will drastically change the course of your life.

While I abhor physical violence, I do also realize some words are also a type of violence in and of themselves.

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

#124
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A regime attempting to kill a large group of people is also oppressive and much worse. Indeed. But one should realize that thorny words are precisely what replaces physical violence. Human nature doesn't change in a democratic society that allows free dialogue, what changed is the way it is expressed. If you erase the horrible parts of ourselves we worked hard to banish onto paper, they will eventually remanifest t…

Most people in the western world are more frequently harmed by words than by physical violence. Way more frequently. You're fired is just words, your health insurance is denied is just words, we don't accept your type here is words, you're being sued by someone with effectively infinite means is just words. But those words that will drastically change the course of your life. While I abhor physical violence, I do als…

The examples you're listing aren't just words. They're actions.

I could say I'm going to deny your health insurance, or deny entry of your type to my group, or sue you for something. But notice how me saying any of these things don't actually have any immediate effect on you, because I don't control your health insurance or moderate a group you want to be in, or know who you are to sue you.

I can use words to convince people who do control those things to do things to you, but you can convince them not to, and convince others to do the same thing to me. The value of free speech is in replacing these conflicts that would otherwise be physical violence with words. Human nature didn't change. We still fight all the time, but with words.

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

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A regime attempting to kill a large group of people is also oppressive and much worse. If the regime is able to do this because of speech then people are choosing the least worst option.

> A regime attempting to kill a large group of people is also oppressive and much worse. Indeed. But one should realize that thorny words are precisely what replaces physical violence. Human nature doesn't change in a democratic society that allows free dialogue, what changed is the way it is expressed. If you erase the horrible parts of ourselves we worked hard to banish onto paper, they will eventually remanifest t…

> But one should realize that thorny words are precisely what replaces physical violence.

No this is bullshit. The Nazis didn't kill the jews because they couldn't say mean things about them. The Nazis didn't purposely target trans people and gay people and mentally challenged people and political opponents because they couldn't slag them publicly.

Germany did not become Nazis because of any lack of free speech. People were talking about how horrifying the Nazis were right up until they were put in camps.

Christ.

The Civil War didn't happen because people weren't able to say black people are lesser (which they were always able to say and still are)

This take is detached from history.

How much violence did Native Americans avoid by getting to say how awful they were being treated? They were never muzzled, so why did they still end up basically ethnically cleansed?

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

#126
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?

The US already has that. What do you think the courts do?

People complaining about building a "ministry of truth" in countries with anything resembling a functioning legal system are just as clueless as people who cry about "government death panels" while private insurance already denies people lifesaving medicine right freaking now

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

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. I think quite a few Europeans have lasting and direct experience with totalitarian, oppressive regimes. Which might also explain why they have stricter (or simply more precise) laws governing expression – not as an oppressive tool, but as a…

> not as an oppressive tool, but as a safety valve for the society. This strikes me as just incorrect. What example from history shows totalitarianism being successfully avoided because of controls on speech? The first item in the totalitarian playbook is controlling speech, and there are historical examples of that in every single totalitarian regime that I'm aware of.

Well I can tell you from day-to-day experience in Germany that the fact it’s illegal to say „Heil Hitler“ and similar nazi slogans draws a very clear line between ordinary citizens and right extremists. It’s a good thing nobody can walk around and loudly proclaim their veneration for the darkest period in our history, for doing so makes them an enemy of our democracy and everything it stands for. A society has to have limits to the tolerable, and defend them.

This has worked well for more than half a century here, and I assure you that Germany hasn’t succumbed to a totalitarian regime yet. Quite the opposite to some, erm, land of the free that seems to struggle a lot with freedom lately.

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

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A regime attempting to kill a large group of people is also oppressive and much worse. Indeed. But one should realize that thorny words are precisely what replaces physical violence. Human nature doesn't change in a democratic society that allows free dialogue, what changed is the way it is expressed. If you erase the horrible parts of ourselves we worked hard to banish onto paper, they will eventually remanifest t…

> But one should realize that thorny words are precisely what replaces physical violence. No this is bullshit. The Nazis didn't kill the jews because they couldn't say mean things about them. The Nazis didn't purposely target trans people and gay people and mentally challenged people and political opponents because they couldn't slag them publicly. Germany did not become Nazis because of any lack of free speech. Peop…

These are examples of minorities being oppressed through physical violence. Minorities are still oppressed in democratic societies today because a democratic society by definition prioritizes the majority's interests.

The difference is oppression used to be physical and involved a lot of killing, now it is done through non-violent means through words. That's what I meant by words replacing violence.

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

#129
post #75
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’d say if you can be jailed for a particular opinion Can you give an example of someone in a modern democracy jailed for their "opinion"? To wit, are the examples you're thinking of "statement of opinion", "statement of fact", "pejorative insult", or "incitement"? Saying "I think is an idiot" is an opinion. "The earth is flat" or "The holocaust never happened" are not opinions; neither is, "Kick out all the ." And…

> "The holocaust never happened" are not opinions But would you dare state out loud in Germany that, in your opinion, the official number of Holocaust victims is actually much less than what's been widely reported? Even if you had what you believed was solid evidence supporting your argument? I bet you wouldn't. > neither is, "Kick out all the ." How about voicing your opinion that should be barred from emigrating to…

Solid evidence that generations of historians have somehow overlooked? Great, let’s hear it! I can assure you that Germany would welcome anything that lifts some guilt from our collective shoulders here, so if you as opposed to a lot of smart people know the truth, we will invite you on a beer for sure.

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

#130
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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). A…

Except the "public square" thing isn't real.

You do not get to say whatever you want in the local pub, the local library, the local mall, the local grocery store (even if it is the only one!) or the local town hall! You can be trespassed explicitly for your speech in any of them, or even for no reason. The only grocery store in town can say "You aren't allowed here anymore because fuck you", and as long as you cannot prove in court that they actually banned you for being a protected class, no more groceries for you!

The closest we have is "common carrier" concepts. The electric company has to serve even the nazis. So did the telephone company. I think the railroads were required to serve all comers?

Each of those were done for the purpose of encouraging a functioning market, actions taken against organizations that you cannot build competitors to, since the rights of way they use are basically gone and would cost absurd prices to replace the infrastructure for even a single customer.

None of this is true for Facebook or Twitter. Anyone can spin up a replacement in a day for dirt cheap, and can self host. The internet was originally built from people self hosting, and it's only gotten easier and cheaper, so the "But you can't replace it" argument has never held water.

If you are upset that a lot of internet companies are megacorps and don't have competition and that self hosting would leave you kind of lonely, I agree! Let's break up these absurdly stupid companies.

Don't claim to be advocating for "freedom of speech" if what you are actually advocating for is "I want to compel speech that I agree with from everyone else"

There is STILL no day to day requirement to be on facebook or youtube or whatever. There are a glut of youtube replacements springing up, because the "serving video on the internet is hard and expensive" narrative is mostly wrong, and because Youtube sucks for anyone who isn't Mr Beast, and the style of content they want that drives maximum profit.

Post reply on HN