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

81–90 of 304 posts

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

#81

Post by lurquer »

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.

Equating hurt feelings with 'harm' is sophistry. If your speech causes harm, you can sue for damages. A person's belief that Sandy Hook is a conspiracy harms no one. A person can say or believe what they want and I for one couldn't care less whose feelings it hurts. I'm sure King George's feelings were hurt by being called a tyrant. And, I'm sure there were sniveling nimrods who wrung their hands in virtuous concern about the uncivil hate speech of the colonists.

Sticks and stones...

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

#82

Post by ncallaway »

dmichulke wrote: post #70
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.

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?

> Or because they are bots?

That one.

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

#83

Post by mellow-lake-day »

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".

If twitter/FB/reddit had done a better job with banning spam bots originating from the GRU offices then you wouldn't be getting called a Russian bot. The effect of Russian bots is multi-pronged because it dilutes the discussion into figuring out whose is a person and who is a bot.

If anybody wants a good article to read on their commute: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html

This is a 2015 investigative report digging deeper into Russian bots. Attempting to find some answers.

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

#84

Post by sanxiyn »

The presentation mentions "global inconsistency" as a problem, but I disagree. Communities have different community standards, so they should have different moderation.

As an example, it is rather unfortunate that American obscenity standard is enforced against the world at large.

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

#85

Post by bufferoverflow »

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…

Hate speech is free speech too. So there's no grey area, legally that is (remember "God hates fags" ruling?). The rest is just censorship, and most of it is political these days. Twitter is not even hiding it, they openly ban conservatives. And it's legal, since these are private companies. Just don't consider them reliable sources of unfiltered information.

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

#86

Post by dmichulke »

eksemplar wrote: post #56
evilturnip wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that then you have to decide what's 'anti-democratic'. You won't find 50 opinions that differ from your own. On top of that, it can then be used as justification to censor almost anything you don't like. Sure, right now you'll think there is a clear criteria. But in 25, 50, or 100 years from now, people could have easily twisted it to mean whatever they disagree with.

I don’t decide what’s anti-democratic though, we have guidelines for that provided by the United Nations. I mean, it’s been seen and done before throughout history, so it’s not exactly hard to spot. Attacking the free press is one criteria. Labeling everyone that disagrees with you the slightest as enemies, is another. I mean, assuming this leak is real, then googles stance on censoring is extremely centrists, lettin…

> Attacking the free press is one criteria.

> Labeling everyone that disagrees with you the slightest as enemies, is another.

You do realise that you're

- attacking the free press by asking for censorship?

- Sort of labelling other people that disagree with you (in this instance: disagree with democracy) as enemies (of democracy)?

That's of course very inconsistent.

But it also assumes that "the current form of democracy is the best we can ever have".

Democracy needs criticism, especially since what we have is a 19th century system that assumes information dispersal and real-time voting is practically is impossible.

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

#87

Post by AnthonyMouse »

fzeroracer wrote: post #68
evilturnip wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

> If so, then why do these conspiracies exist?

Because that's how the process works. Liars lie and evidence proves them wrong. It doesn't make them disappear from existence, it just makes it so you can discover the truth.

Without free speech there are no fewer lies, all you do is suppress the truth. The Party's version is the only version even when it's fiction.

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

#88

Post by chrisco255 »

fzeroracer wrote: post #68
evilturnip wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

The true reality is that the most persuasive ideas survive, not the most truthful ones. The challenge for the scientific community is to make sure to remember that persuasion matters as much as logic and facts do, if not more.

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

#89

Post by spangry »

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".

This happens to me too. I think people do this so they can dismiss ideas without having to refute them.

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

#90

Post by dibujante »

ncallaway wrote: post #82
dmichulke wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Or because they are bots? That one.

Yes! I am OK with only humans having a right to free speech.
Post reply on HN