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

‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

news.umich.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 645 posts

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#191

Post by nickthemagicman »

CJefferson wrote: post #121
DrJones1098 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't have both censorship of things you don't like (anti-vaxx things) and no censorship of things you do like. Religion could be classified as mis-information but that helps a lot of people. Who is the final arbitrator of what is determined as misinformation? If one religion took control that one religion could classify another religion as mis-information and censor them. If one political actor took control they…

That sounds like saying we cant have laws which forbid things I don't like, and no laws against things I do like. We have final arbitrators of truth, they are laws, judges and juries. It isn't a perfect system, and it might not scale, but I see no need to abandon the idea some things are fundamentally incorrect, and get rid of those things.

Do you know how many laws are on the books? No one else does either. https://www.quora.com/How-many-federal-laws-are-there-in-the...

Then there's all the law enforcement agencies, the FBI, CIA, TSA, DoD, NSA, and more.

Then there's the side effect of laws, how many problems are we dealing with presently from supposedly good gov't laws from years or decades ago? A whole lot.

Social engineering via laws and judges is a simple minded solution and should never be considered the best or final solution.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#192

Post by siltpotato »

Cerealkiller050 wrote: post #25
bendbro wrote: post #7

It is extremely dangerous to our democracy to have unlimited free speech. 1. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences. 2. Corporations aren't the government, so the first amendment doesn't apply. 3. Haven't your heard of "fire in a movie theater"? 4. Hate speech IS violence. 5. Reading disinformation from un-check-marked, non-fact-checked sources is anti scientific. Since all scientists have check marks, we…

This post is gonna be a good litmus test to see how many people read this comment to the end before they start attacking their keyboards

Remember what it said?

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#193

Post by ericsoderstrom »

lettergram wrote: post #188

Of my past 10 posts on HN 6 have been flagged and removed by users. Of those, many made it to the front page with 10+ votes. I contacted Dang and he was clear it was users censoring it, further that some users were also "vouching" for my posts. It's to the point, people don't want to know. I feel I'm fairly even handed in my discussion. Here's a couple of my posts (who knows if I'll get flagged): - Public Safety Anno…

From the HN guidelines:

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.

I think these examples you cited are pretty clearly off topic

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#195

Post by busterarm »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #126
varispeed wrote: post #40

The problem is that we didn't teach people about manipulation techniques because that was governments' favourite tool to control the masses. Now that anybody can reach anyone with any information, bad actors use these techniques to control people to their advantage. Governments' are now in an awkward position - ramp up education in these areas and forever give up a tool that worked for ages, or censor the information…

>The problem is that we didn't teach people about manipulation techniques I don't know where you're from, but it's part of the Victorian (possibly Australian) curriculum for all year 12 students. And we still ended up with Rupert Murdoch.

And Daniel Andrews. My condolences.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#196

Post by l33tbro »

cogman10 wrote: post #145
DrJones1098 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't have both censorship of things you don't like (anti-vaxx things) and no censorship of things you do like. Religion could be classified as mis-information but that helps a lot of people. Who is the final arbitrator of what is determined as misinformation? If one religion took control that one religion could classify another religion as mis-information and censor them. If one political actor took control they…

The problem is that the scales are completely unbalanced when it comes to information vs misinformation. There is political and financial incentives at play to spread misinformation. It isn't as simple as "the best ideas win" as most social media platforms make it REALLY easy to manipulate the narrative. For example, if some politician will negatively impact my business, I can hire a BUNCH of people to go out and wri…

Population size and distrust of authority have a fairly linear relationship. The bigger we get, the further from power and decision-making we feel we are. This makes a great case for no censorship.

Of course, the gremlins created by the above scenario makes a great case for some censorship.

Until authority can be coaxed into becoming more transparent and, thereby, creating trust, we will keep having this conversation.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#197

Post by twotimeonly »

If the rest of the content in this article is as misleading as the part about Norway it is useless. The allegations about Norwegian ISPs blocking human rights websites and match.com are demonstrably false.

As part of a wider European effort there is an DNS-based block (The Child Sexual Abuse Anti-Distribution Filter (CSAADF) is part of the COSPOL Internet Related Child Abusive Material Project (CIRCAMP))run by the ISPs to censor access to child pornography.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#198

Post by [deleted] »

busterarm wrote: post #144
n0nc3 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely, it has never been easier to inject true claims that are inconvenient for gatekeepers. What tilts the balance of equities in favor of censorship for you?

It's coming from people that don't share his politics. You won't find anyone on this board more quick to defend censorship along political lines.

[deleted]

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#199

Post by snazz »

lettergram wrote: post #188

Of my past 10 posts on HN 6 have been flagged and removed by users. Of those, many made it to the front page with 10+ votes. I contacted Dang and he was clear it was users censoring it, further that some users were also "vouching" for my posts. It's to the point, people don't want to know. I feel I'm fairly even handed in my discussion. Here's a couple of my posts (who knows if I'll get flagged): - Public Safety Anno…

Politics is generally off-topic here other than in a few specific posts that are explicitly allowed because they're so newsworthy, like the death of RBG and the media calling the election.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#200

Post by amznthrwaway »

war1025 wrote: post #51
paxys wrote: post #24

Fits well with the current wave of authoritarianism/nationalism that has taken root all over the world. A free and open internet represents everything that a government that wishes complete control over its people would be afraid of.

The interesting thing about this is that nationalism is in general associated with right-leaning politics, and the censorship is far and away being applied more aggressively to those very same right-leaning nationalist groups. You would be hard pressed to find liberal / progressive content being censored online.

[dead]
Post reply on HN