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

Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”

scribd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 304 posts

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

#61

Post by mc32 »

fzeroracer wrote: post #53
evilturnip wrote: post #13

I'm actually glad to see the conclusion. Everybody wants to censor what they don't like. There are people who believe free speech is not the ultimate value, but rather to protect people from 'harm'. In this case 'harm' being ideas they don't agree with. The best stance is not to take a side, but to make sure both sides are civil in the expression of their beliefs.

Just because a belief is civilly expressed does not make it less harmful. For example: people casually believing that the Sandy Hook shooting was a conspiracy drummed up by the government is actively harmful to the families affected by that tragedy. What do you say to those people? How do you solve that problem? And how do you define 'civil'? Because different platforms have different ranges of civility as well.

This is a valid criticism. Let's say something truly unsavory was said about a valued relative, etc. It's hurtful. But, I think it's less hurtful then not being able to have dissident ideas expressed. For examples, we have Russia and China. They will censor topics using "civility" and whatever else in their arsenal to crush dissent. Personally I think that is worse.

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

#62

Post by gnarbarian »

mellow-lake-day wrote: post #44
evilturnip wrote: post #13

I'm actually glad to see the conclusion. Everybody wants to censor what they don't like. There are people who believe free speech is not the ultimate value, but rather to protect people from 'harm'. In this case 'harm' being ideas they don't agree with. The best stance is not to take a side, but to make sure both sides are civil in the expression of their beliefs.

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".

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

#64

Post by Karunamon »

chrisco255 wrote: post #52

Here in 2018, I'm not that worried about Google's position as world's information arbiter and how it chooses to censor content. But I do worry a bit, as the path to hell is paved with good intentions. How will this evolve over the decades to come? Where does the line between "hate speech" and legitimate criticism get drawn? Criticism is often crude. Humor is often crude. Sometimes humor, even crude humor, cuts to the…

>Here in 2018, I'm not that worried about Google's position as world's information arbiter and how it chooses to censor content.

Why, if I might ask?

"Google" has entered the common lexicon as a generic term for "search the internet for something". The amount of power they wield, ignoring all other power aside from the ability to rank the search results of most internet users, is massive and I think this cannot be overstated or minimized.

This is a non-fallacious version of the slippery slope. Just because you're okay with the "do the right thing" nee "don't be evil" Google of today does not mean you'll be okay with the Google of tomorrow having that power. Consider very carefully whether you want any one particular company to have that power, and what the remedies are if Google ever does go full evil.

On a side note, it absolutely reeks of double standards on many of the commenters here to castigate Google for their Chinese censorship while giving them a pass for what is described herein. Censorship is only bad when done at the behest of a state? I don't understand this sentiment.

I want no third party deciding for me what is "hate speech" and deciding I shouldn't be able to see it as a result. With a special emphasis on the second part of that phrase.

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

#65

Post by chrisco255 »

fzeroracer wrote: post #53
evilturnip wrote: post #13

I'm actually glad to see the conclusion. Everybody wants to censor what they don't like. There are people who believe free speech is not the ultimate value, but rather to protect people from 'harm'. In this case 'harm' being ideas they don't agree with. The best stance is not to take a side, but to make sure both sides are civil in the expression of their beliefs.

Just because a belief is civilly expressed does not make it less harmful. For example: people casually believing that the Sandy Hook shooting was a conspiracy drummed up by the government is actively harmful to the families affected by that tragedy. What do you say to those people? How do you solve that problem? And how do you define 'civil'? Because different platforms have different ranges of civility as well.

It's not the belief that is harmful per se. It would be the harassment of those affected that is harmful. To give an alternative conspiracy that was given a lot of oxygen, many believed that Bush caused 9/11. Conspiracies themselves are often wrong, but occasionally correct. I don't believe that one was correct, but for example, Edward Snowden's NSA revelations were initially derided as conspiracy. It's important that even those types of ideas be allowed to compete in the marketplace of ideas.

The problem I see isn't so much that people harbor conspiracies, but that they do so without interacting with the world at large. They do so in a bubble, and in a bubble, a conspiracy can be amplified. This is how extremism develops.

The core problem is that people aren't interacting with enough different types of people in order to moderate their own behavior.

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

#66

Post by devoply »

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".

Now the cat is out of the bag, freedom of speech is just a lofty ideal that only worked when all media was controlled by corporations that chose what people listened to most of the time. Now they are trying to put the cat back in the bag. Good for reiterating corporate control over thought and speech.

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

#67

Post by toomanybeersies »

Slide 66 is particularly interesting, and articulates an observation that I've made:

> Tech firms are performing a balancing act between two incompatible positions

> 100% commit to the American tradition that prioritises free speech for democracy, not civility

> 100% commit to the European tradition that favors dignity over liberty, and civility over freedom

It is a very American view that unrestricted freedom of speech is a requirement for a well-functioning democracy, and that any restriction of this beyond censoring direct calls to violence is evil.

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

#68

Post by fzeroracer »

evilturnip wrote: post #60
fzeroracer wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because a belief is civilly expressed does not make it less harmful. For example: people casually believing that the Sandy Hook shooting was a conspiracy drummed up by the government is actively harmful to the families affected by that tragedy. What do you say to those people? How do you solve that problem? And how do you define 'civil'? Because different platforms have different ranges of civility as well.

There are thousands of conspiracies floating around. Should we consider them all harmful and ban them? Who decides when a conspiracy becomes harmful? Should we ban flat-earthers from posting their views? After all, if everyone believed it, we would set science back countless centuries. The way to combat false ideas is with truth; a culture that is always searching for the truth. That can only be facilitated by unhind…

Do you consider American culture to be one of the more free ones? If so, then why do these conspiracies exist? Why have flat-earth conspiracies and anti-scientific dogma thrived? Why do we have a president that outright denies scientific fact?

If combating false ideas with truth worked, then surely these problems shouldn't exist in America, the land of the free. In the arena of free speech, only the values with the most truth should thrive. Yet that's clearly not the case.

This is the paradox of tolerance. We can say that unhindered speech is the way of countering harmful speech, but then I ask you: What led to the rise of such harmful speech today?

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

#69

Post by gnarbarian »

devoply wrote: post #66
gnarbarian wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Now the cat is out of the bag, freedom of speech is just a lofty ideal that only worked when all media was controlled by corporations that chose what people listened to most of the time. Now they are trying to put the cat back in the bag. Good for reiterating corporate control over thought and speech.

Corporate and state control but I agree completely.

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

#70

Post by dmichulke »

mellow-lake-day wrote: post #44
evilturnip wrote: post #13

I'm actually glad to see the conclusion. Everybody wants to censor what they don't like. There are people who believe free speech is not the ultimate value, but rather to protect people from 'harm'. In this case 'harm' being ideas they don't agree with. The best stance is not to take a side, but to make sure both sides are civil in the expression of their beliefs.

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.

Are those bots not "behaving civil in the expression of their (masters') beliefs"?

Or do you think they should be censored because they are Russian?

Or because they are bots?

Post reply on HN