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

The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

thefire.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 428 posts

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#211

Post by belorn »

jimbob45 wrote: post #167
snowwrestler wrote: post #149

If you are reading a piece about free speech and content moderation on platforms like Twitter, look to see if it meaningfully engages with the concepts of spam and porn, which are both fully legal speech, and both heavily moderated with little controversy. (This piece does not.) Why does this matter? Because free speech, free expression in general, is a means to express values and beliefs. Our values and beliefs are…

Porn’s sometimes less than legal if children are able/likely to view it, no? Your spam argument is spot-on though. Someone might argue that posting cooldowns paired with URL filters and a well-tuned voting system fairly and effectively combat spam though. Might have a better argument with gore instead of porn.

The content of spam is usually illegal since they often promote scams, frauds, and often goes against local advertisement laws.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#212

Post by njharman »

ceejayoz wrote: post #27
autoexec wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Private parties are (with some number of government constraints) free to pick who to work with, who to play with, and who to talk with, and who they don't want to do anything with. This is so true. The problem we have now is that online platforms are preventing us from making those choices for ourselves. We're being told we're not allowed to talk to certain types of people, often for ideological reasons. Online pla…

Why doesn’t Twitter, one of your “private parties”, also get to pick “who they don't want to do anything with”?

Because they want to keep the protection, I think called sec 240, from being liable for what others say using their service.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#213

Post by impossiblefork »

autoexec wrote: post #16
ceejayoz wrote: post #6

> The popular radio program “On the Media” feared Musk’s support for free speech would lead to a free-for-all environment rife with child pornography. But that’s a strawman: child pornography is illegal. This is itself a strawman. No one thinks Musk will permit it on Twitter. The gutting of the moderation teams who tackle it is the concern. An underenforced rule is often not a very effective one.

All online platforms need to have moderators to prevent things like spam and illegal content. That doesn't mean that they can't also uphold the idea of free speech principles though. Musk really went crazy with cutting staff, but I'm not sure if it was because he wrongly thought he needed to cut the moderation teams in order to support free speech or if he just did it because moderation is expensive.

All centralized platforms that want to control the content, but this is not actually a requirement of an online platform.

Spam in e-mail is a problem because spam consists of private messages sent to individuals, but public messages can be quickly categorized by a community, and ones own characterization of a message for the purpose of sorting messages for display can be based on a how whether it's chosen for retransission by people who who one oneself has a high trust in.

Imagine having a feed which is initially a horrible spam-filled mess, and then as you encounter things it you like, you upvote that, until your feed is resorted to include mostly quite interesting things. When you again find spam or uninteresting content you reduce the weight of the people who retransmit it.

Moderation always risks being political manipulation, and it's probably too dangerous to democracy to allow it. It's certainly too dangerous to accept foreign moderation (I'm from Europe).

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#214

Post by kube-system »

someNameIG wrote: post #100
Gigachad wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech is a spectrum. Speech can be more or less free but when used on its own it usually refers to the freeness level allowed in the US.

But why should US legal allowances/restrictions be the baseline for the global cultural definition of free speech? And seeing the current discussion of this is focused on Twitter, ~75% of it's users aren't in the US.

The US is used as a benchmark because its ideas about legal rights are culturally influential and it’s where the headquarters of Twitter is.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#215

Post by dragonwriter »

njharman wrote: post #212
ceejayoz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why doesn’t Twitter, one of your “private parties”, also get to pick “who they don't want to do anything with”?

Because they want to keep the protection, I think called sec 240, from being liable for what others say using their service.

§ 230 allows platforms (and individual users with moderation tools provided by platforns) to exercise active moderation based on their own view of standards; in fact, allowing that without it invoking liability as a publisher for the platform or moderating users in order to encourage and protect active private moderation is the whole purpose for which § 230 was included in one of the most sweeping internet censorship laws the US ever passed (most of which, other than § 230, related to government censorship and was struck down for violating the First Amendment.)

§ 230 does not require neutrality, and such a requirement would defeat its purpose.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#216

Post by rhaksw »

californical wrote: post #204
rhaksw wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greg Lukianoff also suggested drawing the content moderation line at legal speech [1]. > Why does this matter? Because free speech, free expression in general, is a means to express values and beliefs. Saying this does not convince people who are concerned about hate speech. Such individuals imagine that the government or the platform will, or can be coerced, to simply remove whatever they do not like. These folks, w…

Thank you for the links! #6 was thought-provoking

Yeah Jonathan Rauch is great, he talks a lot about free speech. See also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0T9XSG73kY&t=1774s

I wish del.icio.us still existed. I just want to put links in folders and share them.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#217

Post by nonethewiser »

ceejayoz wrote: post #6

> The popular radio program “On the Media” feared Musk’s support for free speech would lead to a free-for-all environment rife with child pornography. But that’s a strawman: child pornography is illegal. This is itself a strawman. No one thinks Musk will permit it on Twitter. The gutting of the moderation teams who tackle it is the concern. An underenforced rule is often not a very effective one.

> No one thinks Musk will permit it on Twitter. The gutting of the moderation teams who tackle it is the concern. An underenforced rule is often not a very effective one.

This isnt cause for concern because they've already caught some longstanding CPU. They are doing a better job now.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#218

Post by nonethewiser »

autoexec wrote: post #16
ceejayoz wrote: post #6

> The popular radio program “On the Media” feared Musk’s support for free speech would lead to a free-for-all environment rife with child pornography. But that’s a strawman: child pornography is illegal. This is itself a strawman. No one thinks Musk will permit it on Twitter. The gutting of the moderation teams who tackle it is the concern. An underenforced rule is often not a very effective one.

All online platforms need to have moderators to prevent things like spam and illegal content. That doesn't mean that they can't also uphold the idea of free speech principles though. Musk really went crazy with cutting staff, but I'm not sure if it was because he wrongly thought he needed to cut the moderation teams in order to support free speech or if he just did it because moderation is expensive.

To really drive home the point, simply consider that pre-Musk Twitter did not cite free speech as a core value.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#219

Post by nonethewiser »

cm2187 wrote: post #206
autoexec wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All online platforms need to have moderators to prevent things like spam and illegal content. That doesn't mean that they can't also uphold the idea of free speech principles though. Musk really went crazy with cutting staff, but I'm not sure if it was because he wrongly thought he needed to cut the moderation teams in order to support free speech or if he just did it because moderation is expensive.

If I had to guess what is in Musk mind, I would bet that he thought he wouldn't go anywhere with an organisation full of employees who actively hate and resist him, so this was a way to shake the tree hard, to have a chance of a fresh start. Doesn't mean a lot of those teams won't be restaffed, just not restaffed with the same political activists.

Yeah I'm not sure how anyone could be surprised. Its completely consistent with his explicitly stated plan and goals.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#220

Post by nonethewiser »

SpelingBeeChamp wrote: post #145
upsidesinclude wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fair to assume he cut moderation teams because they were intimately involved with suppression of speech at the behest of the government and political interests. Determining those moderators which have been witting participants in the chilling of free speech is more difficult than axing a great many of them that underperformed and keeping the few with real tangible contribution.

Why do you think that is “fair to assume?” To me, it sounds like wild conjecture.

You dont need to assume. Twitter has openly stated their political and ideological values that drive moderation.
Post reply on HN