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

61–70 of 78 posts

Re: A Framework for Moderation

#61

Post by nailer »

laughinghan wrote: post #56
nailer wrote: post #17

Just a heads up: according to the founder of 8chan, the gunman did not post the manifesto on 8chan. Someone else did afterwards.

In the same breath that the owner of 8chan made that claim (literally the same breath, he made the claim in a video), he also claimed that the gunman uploaded the manifesto to Instagram first. Instagram says that's false, the gunman's Instagram account hasn't been active for a year. I'm inclined to take Instagram's word over the owner of 8chan: https://www.cnet.com/news/8chan-owner-says-el-paso-shooter-d... Also, tha…

Thanks for posting the article. Acknowledging that the owner, not founder, made the claims. As you say, one should take 8chan with a grain of salt. However it's still worthwhile to note the claim is disputed.

Re: A Framework for Moderation

#62

Post by opwieurposiu »

I have seen so many articles trying to pin this blame on trump, 8chan, video games, cloudflare, epik.

I have yet to see an article placing the blame on the guy that pulled the trigger. Why is everyone else but him responsible for his actions?

Re: A Framework for Moderation

#63

Post by atoav »

commandlinefan wrote: post #59
fredley wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike the supposed subliminal messages, the egging on is literally on display, in plain English text.

Not really, though. If somebody says "immigration is a danger to our country", that could just as easily mean "vote republican" as it could mean "shoot some random people".

This is based on the assumption that message boards are a one-to-many media like books, radio, movies, computer games, when in fact they are a many-to-many media, which under all empirical observation displays inherently different dynamics than traditional passive consumer media.

There is a reason we dedicate academic branches to these phenomena — they are not nearly as straight forward as argued in this thread.

Re: A Framework for Moderation

#64

Post by kiliantics »

opwieurposiu wrote: post #62

I have seen so many articles trying to pin this blame on trump, 8chan, video games, cloudflare, epik. I have yet to see an article placing the blame on the guy that pulled the trigger. Why is everyone else but him responsible for his actions?

Blaming him does not change the likelihood of this continuing to happen, or at least the rate at which it happens

Re: A Framework for Moderation

#65

Post by freen »

umvi wrote: post #50
freen wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

The cloud is just someone else's computer.

Why do you insist on treating internet companies as if they were nation states?

Re: A Framework for Moderation

#66

Post by jrochkind1 »

nailer wrote: post #60
jrochkind1 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IS the implication that this makes 8chan look better somehow? Or less like a place people egg each other on to commit mass murder? Not following it.

Just exactly what it says: that the assertion in the article is disputed by 8chan.

But why does it matter if it was posted by the mass murderer, or by someone else after? Why is this worth disputing, what difference does 8chan think it makes?

Re: A Framework for Moderation

#67

Post by tenebrisalietum »

opwieurposiu wrote: post #62

I have seen so many articles trying to pin this blame on trump, 8chan, video games, cloudflare, epik. I have yet to see an article placing the blame on the guy that pulled the trigger. Why is everyone else but him responsible for his actions?

Because everyone is looking for a way to prevent more people than just him doing this.

The virtue of individual responsibility is awesome until you deal with things done by more than one individual because of a common cause.

Re: A Framework for Moderation

#68

Post by m-p-3 »

danem wrote: post #49
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?

An individual is a person, a corporation/platform isn't. Especially when we're talking about YouTube, which (for now) has no alternative equal in size or reach.

Free speech is being stiffled by corporations that offers shared spaces, that even a government is unable to provide.

The government is bound to the Constitution, while some companies bigger than some countries in terms of capital, are not bound to these checks and balance.

Re: A Framework for Moderation

#69

Post by antepodius »

abrahamepton wrote: post #33
commandlinefan wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if I agreed with your premise that humans can’t be trusted to talk to one another, what makes you think that those same humans can then somehow be trusted to determine when other humans can safely talk to one another?

The premise is not, even remotely, "humans can't be trusted to talk to one another" but rather, "humans have spent our entire existence as a species talking to each other in a different way than we have begun to in the last two decades." The alternative to trusting humans is not to just leave ourselves open to the vagaries of the winds, or whatever, but to allow malicious actors to take advantage of an unregulated me…

If the alternative requires the construction of a colossal bureaucracy that empowers bad actors in a way that causes even more harm.

Re: A Framework for Moderation

#70

Post by antepodius »

freen wrote: post #65
umvi wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 y…

The cloud is just someone else's computer. Why do you insist on treating internet companies as if they were nation states?

Once a company gets big enough, the quantitative difference in scale creates a qualitative difference. We don't let electricity providers deny service based on politics; we have a whole legal class called 'public utilities' for this. Public utility laws infringe on the freedom of utility companies, anyway.

The question is when a website/service should be classed a public utility.

Post reply on HN