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

101–110 of 152 posts

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

#101

Post by whycome »

gwd wrote: post #57
xienze wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Opinions cannot be right or wrong. I’d say if you can be jailed for a particular opinion, someone has certainly made a judgement call that your opinion is wrong!

> 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…

How is "the earth is flat" not an opinion? People form opinions based on the information they have (or are willing to accept). For their worldview, their opinion is valid. If they don't accept certain voices of reason, they have that right. We saw people not allowed to ask about the origins of the covid19 virus because it went against a public narrative. At the beginning of the pandemic, people who expressed that masks should be worn were rejected by even government officials.

People might not have gone to jail, but they did have voices and access to society limited or removed because of their opinions.

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

#102

Post by Braxton1980 »

buzer wrote: post #90
gwd wrote: 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" Not really an opinion but it can be a belief. I'm not sure why we are okay with people believing that Earth is ~6000 years old, but not with someone believing that we are in a simulation and everything before e.g. year 1999 is just a collective memory fabrication.

>Not really an opinion but it can be a belief.

Yes. You can believe this fact to be false but you might also be lying. How do you show this? By showing why you believe it to be false

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

#103

Post by ambicapter »

psunavy03 wrote: post #89
jszymborski wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most societies have decided that some speech should be illegal. The classic example is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre in the absence of a fire. I think it is good and healthy to have conversations as to what should and should not be protected speech, but I think that there is this rote reaction that kinda boils down to free speech absolutism. But of course, all the free speech absolutists find at some point or a…

> The classic example is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre in the absence of a fire. This is from an overturned US Supreme Court opinion, has no basis in anyone's jurisprudence, yet keeps coming up as an example of speech that's permissible to suppress for some reason. Oliver Wendell Holmes created that example to support jailing a socialist for speaking out against the World War I draft.

Maybe people keep using it because it makes a lot of sense to them, whether or not it's accepted (US) case law or not.

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

#104

Post by oscaracso »

philipallstar wrote: post #40
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. That is what most people mean by "responsible". The platform isn't lying, any more than if I write "1 equals 2" on a letter and send it via the mail system to someone else is the mail system lying.

Social media platforms do not operate like the mail or telecommunication infrastructure. Suppose that a clique of high-follower verified users on X formed a private discord channel in which they coördinate false but plausible moral panic news events in order to foment spontaneous violent acts against minorities (for added effect, perhaps by pooling their resources into generative AI tools), and that both platforms refused to address this by shutting down the channel, banning the users, or even reducing their reach on the timeline. While there remain reasonable arguments against governing this bad behavior through legislation, it is plain that the social media platforms would be implicated in the negative outcomes of the behavior to a greater degree than a mail carrier.

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

#105

Post by Braxton1980 »

aydyn wrote: post #80
pickledoyster wrote: post #58

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…

Silencing speech IS the oppressive regime.

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.

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

#106

Post by em-bee »

the conundrum is that both sides have a bad track record in moderating content. governments in the past have used their power to silence political opponents, and businesses are silencing critical voices and undesirable content because it hurts their bottom line.

neither is acceptable.

the US made a good start by disallowing government censorship completely. europe could do the same, perhaps with a carve out for outright hate speech, and obvious falsehoods like holocaust denial. but these exceptions need to be very clearly defined, which currently is not the case.

what is missing is a restriction on private businesses, to only allow them to moderate content that is obviously illegal or age restricted, or, for topical forums, off topic, for the latter they must make clear which content is on topic.

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

#107

Post by jszymborski »

psunavy03 wrote: post #89
jszymborski wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most societies have decided that some speech should be illegal. The classic example is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre in the absence of a fire. I think it is good and healthy to have conversations as to what should and should not be protected speech, but I think that there is this rote reaction that kinda boils down to free speech absolutism. But of course, all the free speech absolutists find at some point or a…

> The classic example is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre in the absence of a fire. This is from an overturned US Supreme Court opinion, has no basis in anyone's jurisprudence, yet keeps coming up as an example of speech that's permissible to suppress for some reason. Oliver Wendell Holmes created that example to support jailing a socialist for speaking out against the World War I draft.

Thank you, I wasn't aware of that.

Regardless, incitement remains an exception to free speech the world over to some degree. Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights holds that incitement to discrimination is prohibited, for example [0].

My point stands, people of most societies globally believe certain speech should not be protected.

[0] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/...

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

#108

Post by necrobrit »

tsss wrote: post #100
necrobrit wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many Europeans support this - they don't understand how government censorship can quickly get out of hand. This argument can be made for government in general, although granted technology does make it easier for a smaller group to overreach. I'm a European and do hear your concern, but I feel comfortable supporting restrictions on speech _as long as_ there is also a functioning and just legal system that those rest…

There has never been a functioning and just legal system in the history of mankind. Not to mention that what is "just" is very much up to debate.

Well, sure, it's all relative and no system is perfect. Not every mother is perfect, doesn't mean I escort mine around the house at gunpoint whenever she visits.

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

#109

Post by Braxton1980 »

whycome wrote: post #96
jszymborski wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most societies have decided that some speech should be illegal. The classic example is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre in the absence of a fire. I think it is good and healthy to have conversations as to what should and should not be protected speech, but I think that there is this rote reaction that kinda boils down to free speech absolutism. But of course, all the free speech absolutists find at some point or a…

Imagine a situation where a person reasonably believes there was a fire (they saw smoke, but it turned out to be a vape or some sort of smoke machine part of the show). They're arrested for the false claim. Others know that it's too risky. Now, when there's a fire, people are reluctant to speak up just in case. It's the chilling effect that can affect speech. We have whistleblowers who are afraid to speak up. And whe…

>They're arrested for the false claim.

This person would be able to provide evidence as to why they thought there was a fire, show why their belief is genuine and not a lie.

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

#110

Post by Braxton1980 »

potato3732842 wrote: post #97
psunavy03 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The classic example is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre in the absence of a fire. This is from an overturned US Supreme Court opinion, has no basis in anyone's jurisprudence, yet keeps coming up as an example of speech that's permissible to suppress for some reason. Oliver Wendell Holmes created that example to support jailing a socialist for speaking out against the World War I draft.

> yet keeps coming up as an example of speech that's permissible to suppress for some reason Because they don't actually have an example of not imminently violence causing non-fraudulent speech that SCOTUS has upheld a ban of. And then when you call them out they'll say "but wait, it's metaphorical". If they had a better example they'd be using it.

Child pornography
Post reply on HN