Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship? • Hacker News Board

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#11

Post by Covzire » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 6:34 PM UTC

Facebook's censoring of #Revolution via their claims of moral superiority should frighten the shit out of every free person on earth. While we still have it reasonably good in America, their willingness to suppress speech in good times doesn't bode well for people who will be oppressed during bad times.

The first amendment made it clear that not even the government had the authority to use their vast moral authority, as they exercise through the legal system, to prevent people from speaking and organizing.

But #BigTech has a nuclear option on the speech on the web's most visible ecosystem, social media, through purely market forces and are doing the bidding of a single political party, exclusively. It's not just horrifying that they amassed so much unchecked power, but since 2016 they're actively using and abusing it to suppress legitimate political speech in every nook and cranny they control.

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#12

Post by leereeves » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 6:35 PM UTC

zugi wrote: post #9

It absolutely can be, and it's absolutely something to watch out for, but I'm not sure that it is government censorship in this case. YouTube is choosing who to ask ostensibly due to their expertise, not because of government threats or enforcement. That said, a few years ago one of things that kicked off the change from being relatively hands-off to more active content censorship by all of these platforms was being…

> YouTube is choosing who to ask ostensibly due to their expertise, not because of government threats or enforcement.

It sounds like you've accepted the article's claim that YouTube is consulting government employees.

If that's the case, aren't any gov employees who collaborate with YouTube here engaging in censorship?

Imagine an analogous situation: a PI goes to the police and offers to break into a suspect's home and collect evidence, if the police will tell the PI what to look for. Accepting that offer and advising the PI on what to collect would be a violation of the suspect's rights, even if the police are merely consulting on the PIs voluntary actions.

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#13

Post by amanaplanacanal » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 6:41 PM UTC

Covzire wrote: post #11

Facebook's censoring of #Revolution via their claims of moral superiority should frighten the shit out of every free person on earth. While we still have it reasonably good in America, their willingness to suppress speech in good times doesn't bode well for people who will be oppressed during bad times. The first amendment made it clear that not even the government had the authority to use their vast moral authority,…

Media owners have always used their ownership to push their own version of reality. I guess the difference now is that we have allowed so much concentration of media ownership in so few hands. Antitrust is pretty much dead from what I can tell.

Or is this just the current story? Maybe media has always been as concentrated as it is now, we just didn’t notice.

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#14

Post by plerpin » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 6:43 PM UTC

The thing that really bothers me about Weinstein's approach is that, while he and his wife are scientists, they're exceedingly quick to assert their hunches as scientific fact. They wear their scientist labels on their sleeves but their thinking is far more ideological. In a recent podcast about fluoridation in tap water, they were talking about how they avoid iodized salt, because iodine is a reactive chemical and you don't want to OD on it. Ludicrous. You'd sooner die from the sheer quantity of salt you'd have to ingest before the iodine even starts to become a problem.

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#15

Post by 2Gkashmiri » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 6:44 PM UTC

Yes. I have been a victim of this when in 5 August 2019 they snapped all internet and even telephone and almost 8 months long curfew /shutdown to prevent me from voicing my anger.

The often used term was "misuse" in "misuse of social media" which meant they were watching every Facebook post and tweet and people were arrested for it.

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#16

Post by dang » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 6:45 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #4

klyrs wrote: post #2

Is there a law? Or are the platforms in question voluntarily using guidelines as guidance? Are platforms punished in the courts for failing to follow guidelines or implement moderation? As far as I know, the answers to the above are a resounding "no," and it follows that this isn't state censorship. It's the freedom of association, and freedom of speech, exercised by corporation-persons.

Corporation-persons. Is there a more dystopian concept in existence? Corporations are NOT PEOPLE. They're made up of people, but the entity itself is NOT A PERSON.

Please don't repeat ideological boilerplate on HN and please don't use allcaps for empahsis - this is also in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#17

Post by api » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 6:47 PM UTC

plerpin wrote: post #14

The thing that really bothers me about Weinstein's approach is that, while he and his wife are scientists, they're exceedingly quick to assert their hunches as scientific fact. They wear their scientist labels on their sleeves but their thinking is far more ideological. In a recent podcast about fluoridation in tap water, they were talking about how they avoid iodized salt, because iodine is a reactive chemical and y…

It’s no different from religious fundamentalists who put their own whims and ideologies into God’s mouth. They’re just replacing God with science, but it’s the same schtick.

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#18

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 6:48 PM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #2

Is there a law? Or are the platforms in question voluntarily using guidelines as guidance? Are platforms punished in the courts for failing to follow guidelines or implement moderation? As far as I know, the answers to the above are a resounding "no," and it follows that this isn't state censorship. It's the freedom of association, and freedom of speech, exercised by corporation-persons.

[deleted]

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#19

Post by chroem- » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 6:50 PM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #2

Is there a law? Or are the platforms in question voluntarily using guidelines as guidance? Are platforms punished in the courts for failing to follow guidelines or implement moderation? As far as I know, the answers to the above are a resounding "no," and it follows that this isn't state censorship. It's the freedom of association, and freedom of speech, exercised by corporation-persons.

Corporations don't have freedom of speech and it is misleading to suggest that they do. In fact, there is an enormous amount of legal precedent for mandated corporate speech. If you don't believe me, look at your nearest "nutrition facts" label.

Re: Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

#20

Post by drivingmenuts » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 6:51 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #12

zugi wrote: post #9

It absolutely can be, and it's absolutely something to watch out for, but I'm not sure that it is government censorship in this case. YouTube is choosing who to ask ostensibly due to their expertise, not because of government threats or enforcement. That said, a few years ago one of things that kicked off the change from being relatively hands-off to more active content censorship by all of these platforms was being…

> YouTube is choosing who to ask ostensibly due to their expertise, not because of government threats or enforcement. It sounds like you've accepted the article's claim that YouTube is consulting government employees. If that's the case, aren't any gov employees who collaborate with YouTube here engaging in censorship? Imagine an analogous situation: a PI goes to the police and offers to break into a suspect's home a…

That comes down to nearly-unprovable hairsplitting. If government employees are demanding action, backed by force of law, then Yes. But if YT is merely free to follow or reject advice as it chooses, then No.

I can hear advice all day long from experts, but whether I choose to follow or ignore, the consequence is on me.