Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship” • Hacker News Board

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

#301

Post by ordinaryradical » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 10:07 PM UTC

gnarbarian wrote: post #62

mellow-lake-day wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm speaking for myself here but I think the Russian bots as well as astroturfing bots need to be censored. And not censored by government regulation but by the terms of service. There are many "active measure" Russian bots active on twitter. Twitter doesn't seem concerned at all mostly because those Russian bots are padding their numbers same goes for FB and reddit.

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

Which is why we need to remove their noise from the system. A real debate of ideas is impossible with you have bad-faith actors masquerading as participants.

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

#302

Post by zmix » Fri, Oct 12, 2018, 10:09 AM UTC

tomp wrote: post #257

zmix wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, it feels bad, to get physically hurt. To imply, the only damage, that can exist, would be of material nature (here: the meat of your body) gives me the shivers.

Yeah I agree. But the crucial difference is, physical/meat damage is objective, whereas emotional pain is only subjective (you can't prove it to anyone else, and you can also make it up). Basing policy on subjective whims is bad.

> Basing policy on subjective whims is bad.

True, but not enough for me. Though, I do not have the solution.

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

#303

Post by iamnothere » Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 12:21 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #300

iamnothere wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if you say it and someone is seriously harmed or dies as a result? Frankly, that's the price of freedom, and it's the reason that fighting to maintain our freedoms is a never-ending battle. Allowing the public to own and operate cars likely results in more deaths from crashes, but it also allows people to travel to and from arbitrary places on their own schedule. Allowing people to own general purpose computin…

It serves as a safety valve that helps potentially dangerous ideas rise into the sphere of public debate, where they can be taken apart (or even just "rounded off") before they result in something like genocide. How's that working out lately? I think ought to look at the way social media has already become a vector for genocide as in Myanmar. Here in the US we're currently allowing some kinds in immigration detention…

> How's that working out lately? I think ought to look at the way social media has already become a vector for genocide as in Myanmar.

One of the only ways the public (in the west) was able to find out about this was through the use of social tech. It just wasn't on anyone's radar before that. Once they are aware, people can bring pressure to bear to stop the genocide, which has been happening.

I also believe that the role of social media as a "cause" of genocide was overstated. That said, I do think that modern social media is flawed and won't last too much longer in its present form.

> Here in the US we're currently allowing some kinds in immigration detention who have been separated from their parents to be permanently adopted by American families, which (by the very international standards we helped to establish) is a massive human rights violation.

How is this related to the discussion?

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

#304

Post by shard972 » Sun, Oct 14, 2018, 11:50 PM UTC

jayd16 wrote: post #276

shard972 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you suggesting that Libya should be remembered along the same lines as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? At least on some level if your concerned about the results of regime change by western powers. > But the real reason Libya isn't in the public's forethought is simple fact we didn't invade and rebuild the country. Its not hard to figure out why its not treated the same as Bush's wars. No, we just let them build…

This is all irrelevant to your original point about why certain wars are remembered over others. Cost, length, and American death toll are the obvious reasons you seem to completely ignore.

Happens when you are not just purely thinking about the USA.