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

Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies

necpluribusimpar.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 261 posts

Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies

#21

Post by nova22033 »

jcriddle4 wrote: post #12
lonelappde wrote: post #3

This is such an own-goal. Before worrying about censoring unwanted content, companies should spend their time on stopping promoting it (and building client side filtering controls) which is just as huge a problem and not anti-American to fix. The problem is that companies want the flamebait and toxic content to drive enragement engagement ad impressions, but don't want to be accountable for the stuff that's just too…

"Companies want the flamebait...." The moderation system on reddit seems to heavily promote group think. Actually promoting controversial comments as a default would be interesting.

* Actually promoting controversial comments as a default would be interesting.*

Controversial is subjective. Would you like FB/reddit to promote holocaust denial?

Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies

#23

Post by OscarCunningham »

d--b wrote: post #4

See but that's a libertarian issue here. If you value freedom above all else, Google being an independent entity, should have the freedom to ban / veto whomever they want. You can't have it both ways: let people be free to say whatever they want AND force the owners of communication channels to spread all information.

Isn't it the essence of Libertarianism that something can be wrong without making it illegal?

So there's no contradiction between "Google is wrong to censor" and "Google should be free to censor".

Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies

#24

Post by buboard »

degski wrote: post #11
d--b wrote: post #4

See but that's a libertarian issue here. If you value freedom above all else, Google being an independent entity, should have the freedom to ban / veto whomever they want. You can't have it both ways: let people be free to say whatever they want AND force the owners of communication channels to spread all information.

I agree with you that Google or Facebook should be allowed to do what they want. The problem we face is that these companies run major (the dominant) communication channels, that's (IMHO) where the problem lies [it shouldn't be like that, but heck, we cannot trust our governments better than G or FB].

Perversely, the popular press is also communicating to people that G & FB should censor more, instead of calling them out for their manipulation shenanigans.

Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies

#25

Post by buboard »

jcriddle4 wrote: post #12
lonelappde wrote: post #3

This is such an own-goal. Before worrying about censoring unwanted content, companies should spend their time on stopping promoting it (and building client side filtering controls) which is just as huge a problem and not anti-American to fix. The problem is that companies want the flamebait and toxic content to drive enragement engagement ad impressions, but don't want to be accountable for the stuff that's just too…

"Companies want the flamebait...." The moderation system on reddit seems to heavily promote group think. Actually promoting controversial comments as a default would be interesting.

I use reddit precisely because it has topical communities. Moderating away people and posts that distract from the topic is a good thing. It promotes group think exactly because you can belong to any number of groups.

Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies

#26

Post by Nasrudith »

ChaosDegenerate wrote: post #13
d--b wrote: post #4

See but that's a libertarian issue here. If you value freedom above all else, Google being an independent entity, should have the freedom to ban / veto whomever they want. You can't have it both ways: let people be free to say whatever they want AND force the owners of communication channels to spread all information.

Freedom comes with responsibility. The idea that they are not responsible for the content (i.e. you can't hold Youtube/Google legally responsible for the content they have on their platforms) while at the same time they make profit on the very same content and can censor it as they see fit -- this is idiocy in its purest form. We hold newspapers or TV station legally liable for the content they serve. This is fair. S…

That definition of responsibility negates freedom in itself. I have literally seen it used by dictators who set libel laws to crush any negative stories.

The stance is absurd - tt is akin to saying that Kinkos should be liable for anything printed beyond "they knowingly used ink laced with weaponized anthrax" - and should be charged with terrorism because a customer who quietly printed a bomb threat formatted to look like a resume - just because they kick you out for openly printing Goatse.ck and every other old shock site which scares away the other customers.

Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies

#27

Post by sample2448 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18
Miner49er wrote: post #7

So the author wants to protect "the marketplace of ideas" from monopolies caused by a different market. However, they don't want the government to do it. They also don't seem to think it's possible for smaller companies to challenge these monopolies. What then is the author's solution? One is never given.

> One is never given Here’s an obvious one: break up Facebook. Easily splits into Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.

What are the guarantees it won't make it worse? Decisions like these are never "obvious" or easy

Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies

#29

Post by intended »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18
Miner49er wrote: post #7

So the author wants to protect "the marketplace of ideas" from monopolies caused by a different market. However, they don't want the government to do it. They also don't seem to think it's possible for smaller companies to challenge these monopolies. What then is the author's solution? One is never given.

> One is never given Here’s an obvious one: break up Facebook. Easily splits into Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.

And that does what?

This is a conversation where people are not acting in detail but on generality.

What does moderation entail.

What are the rules needed

What rules for what type of conversations?

What does moderation mean.

What is an acceptable level of service ?

What is “service” in a web forum?

What’s actually wrong?

Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies

#30

Post by tomp »

woopwoop wrote: post #28

Replace "censoring conservative viewpoints" with "censoring the nice people who tell me about how I can make $13,000 a week working from home". Which part of this argument changes? I can't find any part that does.

The difference is that there's a Spam folder in your GMail where you can see all those "unwelcome" emails... and also, filters adapt to your preferences, not the other way around.
Post reply on HN