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

Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”

scribd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 304 posts

Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”

#131

Post by nl »

evilturnip wrote: post #93
fzeroracer wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you consider American culture to be one of the more free ones? If so, then why do these conspiracies exist? Why have flat-earth conspiracies and anti-scientific dogma thrived? Why do we have a president that outright denies scientific fact? If combating false ideas with truth worked, then surely these problems shouldn't exist in America, the land of the free. In the arena of free speech, only the values with the m…

If by 'harmful' speech you mean conspiracies, I would argue they've always been around. It's not a new problem. People have always filled the gaps in their knowledge with unjustified beliefs. However, your answer would be to deplatform those who would post such ideas. Do you honestly think that would make it better? Did deplatforming Alex Jones help people? It just galvanized those who believed there was a conspiracy…

Deplatforming Alex Jones has helped enormously.

One of the Sandy Hook parents wrote how she is able to check her mail now without getting multiple threats in the mail every single day.

Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”

#132

Post by fapjacks »

pm90 wrote: post #125
fapjacks wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So "think of the children" when it comes to censorship. Got it.

I realize its an often misused excuse for passing various bogus regulations. But your dismissive one liner is disparaging the comment while completely ignoring the massive context and reasoning provided; this is not the kind of conversation we expect of here.

"Think of the children" as a justification for censorship is still "think of the children" as a justification for censorship, regardless of the context. Dressing it up in an attempt to make it more palatable and reasonable-sounding doesn't change what is at its core. And that's a nice touch, painting me as an outsider by pointing at the sign with the rules.

Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”

#133

Post by etchalon »

I can understand why Google, as an engine, should err towards neutrality of information, without arbitrating even hideous content.

But I've never really understand why social networks can't, or shouldn't, say "This is the type of community we are, and what content we find acceptable."

Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”

#134

Post by webkike »

mc32 wrote: post #117
mherdeg wrote: post #109

This presentation briefly mentions but then seems to mostly forget about "Elsagate" which they call the "Peppa Pig scandal". James Bridle argues convincingly that the genre of bizarre YouTube videos which appeals to the toddler reptilian brain ( https://medium.com/@jamesbridle/something-is-wrong-on-the-in... ) is not created by hostile or evil actors but instead has evolved orgnically based on what stuff toddlers wan…

Kids' videos on YouTube Kids and Censoring the internet are very different things. It's like saying, we don't wanna sell alcohol, because if we did, we would have to sell alcohol to kids.

On a platform that caters to everyone and does not have age restrictions, you would have to sell alcohol to everyone and a subset of everyone is indeed children

Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”

#135

Post by gnarbarian »

atotic wrote: post #96
gnarbarian wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds all fine and well but half the time I utter a conservative opinion I'm accused of being a "russian bot".

Not on HN, looking at your comments/submission stream.

It's mostly on twitter or reddit. As a side-note another thing that bugs the shit out of me is when someone looks at my history to find a reason to disregard my comment. (Not accusing you of this by the way)

"Oh I thought I was going to have to respond to you until I discovered you've posted somewhere I don't like."

followed up by a flood of down-votes accusations of being a bot and sometimes a ban when I was posting legit content and previously with a very positive score.

Happened to me twice last month. Once for bringing up the Code of Conduct on /r/linux.

edit: here's a perfect example that made it into print and halfway around the world while the flawed reasoning and debunking has yet to gain traction.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/2/17927696/star-wars-the-la...

followed up by:

https://www.cnet.com/news/actually-half-of-the-last-jedi-hat...

http://monsterhunternation.com/2018/10/02/my-russian-bot-rev...

Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”

#136

Post by est »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #67

Slide 66 is particularly interesting, and articulates an observation that I've made: > Tech firms are performing a balancing act between two incompatible positions > 100% commit to the American tradition that prioritises free speech for democracy, not civility > 100% commit to the European tradition that favors dignity over liberty, and civility over freedom It is a very American view that unrestricted freedom of spe…

Is "against freedom of speech" a freedom of speech?

Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”

#137

Post by [deleted] »

sneak wrote: post #121
noobermin wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can say that, but from the beginning, governments have put limits to speech based on "harm" from speech. Slander, libel, threats are all illegal due to the contention they cause harm. Taking no side is also similar to this, taking no side in a conflict as long as they are civil requires one to decide what is "civil" in the first place. Are comments about race considered "threats" if one person is of the race targ…

Slander and libel are not illegal, as far as I am aware.

[deleted]

Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”

#138

Post by mc32 »

webkike wrote: post #134
mc32 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kids' videos on YouTube Kids and Censoring the internet are very different things. It's like saying, we don't wanna sell alcohol, because if we did, we would have to sell alcohol to kids.

On a platform that caters to everyone and does not have age restrictions, you would have to sell alcohol to everyone and a subset of everyone is indeed children

But they Obviously have segregated it I mean the product is "YouTube Kids". So they don't have to. So there is no issue.

Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”

#139

Post by fzeroracer »

mc32 wrote: post #113
noobermin wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can say that, but from the beginning, governments have put limits to speech based on "harm" from speech. Slander, libel, threats are all illegal due to the contention they cause harm. Taking no side is also similar to this, taking no side in a conflict as long as they are civil requires one to decide what is "civil" in the first place. Are comments about race considered "threats" if one person is of the race targ…

>How about coarse comments like telling someone to "kill themselves. I think a few conservatives were directly told to do just that due to the SCOTUS appointment furore --have there been significant calls to censor those opinions? It's like everyone is for Censorship unless they are the targets of Censorship. And in this case they are not calling out their own lot very vehemently.

I don't know, you might want to talk with the woman who was arrested for laughing at Jeff Sessions a short while ago.

Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”

#140

Post by AnthonyMouse »

webkike wrote: post #134
mc32 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kids' videos on YouTube Kids and Censoring the internet are very different things. It's like saying, we don't wanna sell alcohol, because if we did, we would have to sell alcohol to kids.

On a platform that caters to everyone and does not have age restrictions, you would have to sell alcohol to everyone and a subset of everyone is indeed children

That is the case for parents monitoring the internet usage of their young children, not the case for censoring the internet.
Post reply on HN