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

A Framework for Moderation

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 78 posts

Re: A Framework for Moderation

#41

Post by chasing »

snikeris wrote: post #2

> Stand on the street corner all you like, at least your terrible ideas will be limited by the physical world. The Internet, though, with its inherent ability to broadcast and congregate globally, is a fundamentally more dangerous medium. The notion behind this seems to be: "We must protect the idiots of the world from terrible ideas." Why does this rub me the wrong way so much? I guess it's such a depressing view of…

It's not the idiots that matter in this case, it's the innocents that the idiots harm because they've been stoked by especially heinous (and factually inaccurate) ideas.

Re: A Framework for Moderation

#42

Post by freen »

LordHumungous wrote: post #38

I lean towards free-speech absolutism, I was against banning Alex Jones for example. However, encouraging violence, as 8-chan does, is not included under even the most expansive definitions of free speech. Nuke it from orbit.

Are you a free speech absolutist at your own house party?

Really?

You'd allow a Nazi to spout propaganda at your family and guests?

Why should anyone else have to host them on their private platforms?

Re: A Framework for Moderation

#43

Post by freen »

snikeris wrote: post #2

> Stand on the street corner all you like, at least your terrible ideas will be limited by the physical world. The Internet, though, with its inherent ability to broadcast and congregate globally, is a fundamentally more dangerous medium. The notion behind this seems to be: "We must protect the idiots of the world from terrible ideas." Why does this rub me the wrong way so much? I guess it's such a depressing view of…

Because you are incorrectly interpreting it: it's not we must protect the world from bad ideas, it's that no one has a responsibility to host ideas that they disagree with.

I don't have to host Nazi speech and you are free to do so if you choose.

Re: A Framework for Moderation

#45

Post by laughinghan »

commandlinefan wrote: post #27
snikeris wrote: post #2

> Stand on the street corner all you like, at least your terrible ideas will be limited by the physical world. The Internet, though, with its inherent ability to broadcast and congregate globally, is a fundamentally more dangerous medium. The notion behind this seems to be: "We must protect the idiots of the world from terrible ideas." Why does this rub me the wrong way so much? I guess it's such a depressing view of…

> Why does this rub me the wrong way I’m old enough to remember when Judas Priest (the 80’s rock band) was accused of hiding subliminal messages in their songs convincing their listeners to commit suicide, after a kid did so while happening to be listening to Judas Priest. It seems absolutely ridiculous in hindsight, but people believed it, and it was taken completely seriously at the time: https://www.rollingstone.c…

I'm confused by your stance. Is it your position that ISIS recruitment videos don't work? They spend a huge amount of effort on online recruitment, but 100% of the people that go join them would all have voluntarily done so anyway?

Re: A Framework for Moderation

#46

Post by thedz »

LordHumungous wrote: post #38

I lean towards free-speech absolutism, I was against banning Alex Jones for example. However, encouraging violence, as 8-chan does, is not included under even the most expansive definitions of free speech. Nuke it from orbit.

> I was against banning Alex Jones

> However, encouraging violence

hmmm

Re: A Framework for Moderation

#47

Post by mrkstu »

stcredzero wrote: post #34
mrkstu wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where and how exactly is traditional printing regulated? I can buy a high end typesetting laser printer and print anything I want on it- if it isn't child porn/top secret/libelous I can print anything I want that I've originated. Can I steal other's content and sell it, no, but I would call existing regulations almost non-existent for original content.

Where and how exactly is traditional printing regulated? Publishers. There are documented cases of writers and genres being blacklisted and suppressed. (Though in fairness, you might find more than a few of them unsavory.) I can buy a high end typesetting laser printer and print anything I want on it- if it isn't child porn/top secret/libelous I can print anything I want that I've originated. Sure, but good luck with…

Neither of which are regulation/moderated- just expensive or needing domain expertise and manpower.

It may be 'moderated' in the sense of an optical cable vs a copper one- by its nature there is impedance in the copper one limiting its potential carrying capacity. In that sense the internet vs traditional publishing have a different ability to scale. But Hitler's rise didn't need the internet- Mein Kampf found fertile soil due to economic depression and already extant racist attitudes latent in the populace.

China finds ideas contained in books by Locke/Milton/Paine or the Magna Carta to be extremely dangerous- and that they are and I'm sure they're be ingested wholesale in Hong Kong right now, where the Great Firewall isn't in full effect.

We need to counter evil thought with the only available agent that will actually work- better argued thought that seizes on vigorous ideas that instill a deep abiding respect for their fellow men/women and the potential of civil society to overcome the divisions we've placed among ourselves.

Re: A Framework for Moderation

#48

Post by laughinghan »

mrkstu wrote: post #30
islon wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The printing press is heavily moderated.

Where and how exactly is traditional printing regulated? I can buy a high end typesetting laser printer and print anything I want on it- if it isn't child porn/top secret/libelous I can print anything I want that I've originated. Can I steal other's content and sell it, no, but I would call existing regulations almost non-existent for original content.

Moderated. Not regulated.

You could spread your message further by printing lots of posters and putting them up in your city, but it would obviously not be comparable in reach to the Internet. Newspapers that do have reach comparable to the Internet all choose to exercise their legal right to decide for themselves what is too hateful to spread. Cloudflare has now chosen to exercise that same right, to a tiny extent.

Re: A Framework for Moderation

#49

Post by danem »

LordHumungous wrote: post #38

I lean towards free-speech absolutism, I was against banning Alex Jones for example. However, encouraging violence, as 8-chan does, is not included under even the most expansive definitions of free speech. Nuke it from orbit.

As a free speech absolutist you should support Youtube or Twitter's right to ban who they wish from their platform. What about their right to free speech?

Re: A Framework for Moderation

#50

Post by umvi »

freen wrote: post #42
LordHumungous wrote: post #38

I lean towards free-speech absolutism, I was against banning Alex Jones for example. However, encouraging violence, as 8-chan does, is not included under even the most expansive definitions of free speech. Nuke it from orbit.

Are you a free speech absolutist at your own house party? Really? You'd allow a Nazi to spout propaganda at your family and guests? Why should anyone else have to host them on their private platforms?

> Why should anyone else have to host them on their private platforms?

Because private platforms are the public now.

It's like saying: "You are a Nazi I don't like your beliefs, you are not allowed to express them on my house"

So the Nazi leaves and starts preaching on the sidewalk, but the HOA comes by and says "You are a Nazi, and we don't like your beliefs. We own and maintain these sidewalks, and we are kicking you off"

So the Nazi stands in the middle of the road to preach, but the government had long since let private corporations build and maintain the roads in this neighborhood and Streets LLC comes by and says "Sorry, we own these roads and we don't like your beliefs, get out"

Thus, there is no public space for the Nazi to express his beliefs in, because all public space is now owned by private corporations.

Tying the analogy back to computers:

Even if the Nazi tries to host their own blog on their own computer in their own house, Comcast can say: "Sorry, we don't like transmitting your ideas from your house over our wires to the internet, get out"

Post reply on HN