Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims • Hacker News Board

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#481

Post by cambalache » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 9:56 PM UTC

Cookingboy wrote: post #254

prudhvis wrote: post #223

I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.

> Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on At this rate it will be the hill that the civilization dies on. The whole "absolute free speech is a sacrosanct human rights for everyone" is an ideal that simply would not scale with the 21st century civilization. Most users around here grew up firmly believing that value, and it is further reinforced by American/Western exceptionalism, so I can see how thi…

And yet,here you are, freely spouting non-sense, misinterpreting the second law of "thermal dynamics" and arguing for a very strict and highly-self-convenient notion of freedom of speech.

I still wish you can express your views all over the internet without the risk of being cancelled.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#482

Post by colordrops » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 9:56 PM UTC

ffggvv wrote: post #105

so many stories about trump are later proven to be fake or unsubstantiated such as the russian bounties, that he owes money to russia, the steele dossier etc... and his tax returns were also stolen or hacked yet ofc they aren’t censored

I hate trump and can't wait for him to disappear but I can still admit that he was unfairly smeared and severely attacked by the media. It just backfires and leads to people not trusting both sides

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#483

Post by rllearneratwork » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 9:57 PM UTC

prudhvis wrote: post #223

I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.

Misinformation and hate speech are clearly important issues. But loosing free speech would be a colossal mistake. I used to live in a country with no free speech, trust me the USA in its current state is hundred million times better and more just. Free speech is just super fundamental. So, in my opinion, nothing restricting free speech is acceptable - the downsides of that are just too enormous. We need to learn to live in a society where information is easily available and free speech has absolute protection. And yes, this involves learning to be able to detect misinformation, manipulation, etc. without outright banning it.

Voltaire put it well: ""I disagree with what you have to say, sir, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it."

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#484

Post by nemo44x » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 9:57 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #426

nemo44x wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speech is considered violence by some people. It has been this way since the late 80's but it was confined to certain subcultures that weren't taken too seriously. But they have taken over certain institutions, like the university (and increasingly big-tech), and own that platform and teach this as esteemed fact rather than an opinion. And it's dangerous because when you equate speech with violence then how far are w…

> But they have taken over certain institutions, like the university (and increasingly big-tech) And the media, which is increasingly opposed to free speech. Today we're seeing journalists talk about how other journalists should be banned from the public square by powerful corporations. They seemingly aren't bright enough to pause and wonder if this will ever be used against them. And this is being done under the ban…

> And this is being done under the banner of progressivism

I think it's a very confusing time. A lot of people want to be "good people". They don't understand how the definitions of words have changed and what they're really signing up for. "Anti-racisim" sounds great - what reasonable, moral person wants to be racist? But you begin to read the text and you start to see it isn't what you think it is. That it isn't anything like what we've been working towards in terms of civil rights and equality.

I don't think "Progressivism" is the right word. There's not a good name for this philosophy yet other than derogative terms like "woke". Social Justice maybe but I find it unjust. I've seen "therapeutic totalitarianism" as one candidate.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#485

Post by geofft » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 9:58 PM UTC

hartator wrote: post #326

sailingparrot wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New technologies brought new challenges. There was no social network in the 2000s and before. No retweet button, no "curated" timeline that showed you what you "like". YouTube did not try to push more videos like the ones you watched previously until the mid 2010s. Free speech does not have the same meaning as before. Before it just meant that you could say whatever you wanted. Now people use it implicitly to mean th…

> I believe free amplification is terrible It's exactly what they were saying at the invention of the printing press. Amplification becoming too cheap. Maybe being on the side of censorship is always being on the wrong side of history no matter the issue. Can you remember one time in history where we now like "thanks god they censor these thoughts!"?

I think a better argument is that being on the side of forcing people to do things is being on the wrong side of history no matter the issue. People should be free to decide, of their own volition, that they want to choose to not amplify something. That's different from being compelled to not amplify it, which is generally bad.

But I can think of a number of examples of censorship that history has not judged poorly:

- Libel and slander. If I say "I used to work with 'hartator and they brought in KKK flags every morning and broke the build every evening, you don't want to hire them," it's generally considered reasonable for you to get the government to force me to stop and also force other people not to repeat what I said.

- Planning crimes. If I say "Hey, let's get together tomorrow evening and murder some strangers for fun," and we start talking about how to do it, it's generally considered reasonable for the government to consider that a crime.

- Trademark infringement and other fair competition laws. If I say "These headphones are recommended by Apple" and they're not, or I say "These apples are organic" and they're not, or I say "This is an all-beef sausage" and it contains pork, it's generally considered reasonable for the government to say that I can't keep saying that if I want to keep selling the things I'm saying them about.

- Employment agreements. If I say "Hey, new employer, here's a list of my old employer's customers and here's some of their source code," it's generally considered reasonable for the old employer to object.

(There are a number of cases of compelled action that are currently not considered unreasonable - prison labor, military drafts, etc. - but I think those stand a much higher chance of being on the wrong side of history, in the long term, than any of the above.)

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#486

Post by hintymad » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 10:00 PM UTC

magicalist wrote: post #456

hintymad wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. I guess banning content on a private platform by its private owner is totally okay, at least legally. Banning content with double standards, though, makes the platform editorial, which means people should be able to sue the company left and right. And hacked in what way? Didn't the repair shop owner take ownership of the computer after repeatedly asking for payment but not getting it? Didn't the owner give t…

> Banning content with double standards, though, makes the platform editorial, which means people should be able to sue the company left and right. Unless Section 230 gets repealed, it's the exact opposite, actually.

Yeah, Section 230 protects them, and I think Twitter shouldn't be protected by 230 for their actions.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#487

Post by generj » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 10:02 PM UTC

Gerardo1 wrote: post #227

centimeter wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter adopted this policy because they know that progressives are more likely to be compromised by leaked information

...are you suggesting that progressives have more "dirty laundry" than conservatives in general? Or that conservatives are more likely to dox people?

The alternate assumption is that both sides are being hacked by a third party, but the third party only releases hacked info from one side...

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#488

Post by unethical_ban » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 10:03 PM UTC

notadev wrote: post #339

snowwrestler wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 100% inline with free speech to let a given website decide what they want to publish. Even if it is a very popular website. If they make bad decisions, then people can go to competitors; it's as easy as typing in a different URL. That's how the Internet--and open societies in general--are supposed to work. What it looks like to me--someone who has been on the Internet since before the turn of the century--is tha…

Where does one go when Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube seem to take these steps in tandem? The joke of "go make your own social network" has been tried with places like Parler and Gab, but they get banned from app stores, ironically blocked from technically, but not ideologically, decentralized services like Mastodon, or even dropped from web hosts. The open Internet is dead.

Uh, yeah. Make your own website. Why does it have to be social?

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#489

Post by meroes » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 10:03 PM UTC

christoph wrote: post #365

meroes wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So HN can't remove posts either because that violates free speech? I grew up on the internet too and forum bans were always a thing. You haven't convinced me this is different.

I've been here over 10 years and I don't really recall seeing anything other than blatant spam or crap removed in that time. Maybe I've just not seen it happen. But, the way things seem to have worked here (very well I might add) is that when enough of the community disagrees, things get downvoted to death and if you don't have "Show dead" enabled, you don't see them. Your choice. I've had show dead enabled as long a…

You must have missed the DOJ filing against Yale last week. Removed in <30 minutes due to comments.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#490

Post by belorn » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 10:03 PM UTC

sailingparrot wrote: post #264

prudhvis wrote: post #223

I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.

New technologies brought new challenges. There was no social network in the 2000s and before. No retweet button, no "curated" timeline that showed you what you "like". YouTube did not try to push more videos like the ones you watched previously until the mid 2010s. Free speech does not have the same meaning as before. Before it just meant that you could say whatever you wanted. Now people use it implicitly to mean th…

When radio came the first few decades were great, but soon more and more people started to broadcast and corrupting music started to harm society. People demanded that government and only government could artfully decide whom aught to be allowed to speak to the masses and censors cracked down on unlicensed radio. Several decades later however and the enthusiasm for radio censoring lost it appeal.

When television came we also had a few early decades where everything were great. There existed one or two stations, and that was it. Then suddenly a flood of people and companies started to use this new technology and harmful video nasty with violent and nude content started to hit society and people cried out once again for government to start censoring and determining whom aught to be allowed to speak to the masses. Several decades again and the enthusiasm for TV and movie censoring lost it charm.

Then Internet came and everything was fine the first few decades with only a few major websites like yahoo and myspace. Then 4chan and 8chan was created and quickly people want censoring again, but this time its not the government who should determine who aught to be allowed to speak to the masses but rather a handful of companies in charge of social networks and cloud services. This is where we are now. In a few decades, I predict the enthusiasm for Internet censorship will drop a bit as it done for all previous technologies that enables unregulated amplification of speech.