Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Opinions cannot be right or wrong. I’d say if you can be jailed for a particular opinion, someone has certainly made a judgement call that your opinion is wrong!
> I’d say if you can be jailed for a particular opinion Can you give an example of someone in a modern democracy jailed for their "opinion"? To wit, are the examples you're thinking of "statement of opinion", "statement of fact", "pejorative insult", or "incitement"? Saying "I think is an idiot" is an opinion. "The earth is flat" or "The holocaust never happened" are not opinions; neither is, "Kick out all the ." And…
People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
81–90 of 152 posts
Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I’d say if you can be jailed for a particular opinion Can you give an example of someone in a modern democracy jailed for their "opinion"? To wit, are the examples you're thinking of "statement of opinion", "statement of fact", "pejorative insult", or "incitement"? Saying "I think is an idiot" is an opinion. "The earth is flat" or "The holocaust never happened" are not opinions; neither is, "Kick out all the ." And…
> "The holocaust never happened" are not opinions But would you dare state out loud in Germany that, in your opinion, the official number of Holocaust victims is actually much less than what's been widely reported? Even if you had what you believed was solid evidence supporting your argument? I bet you wouldn't. > neither is, "Kick out all the ." How about voicing your opinion that should be barred from emigrating to…
>Even if you had what you believed was solid evidence supporting your argument? I bet you wouldn't.
Ugh, what?
Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Several European governments have jailed people for social media posts. Many Europeans support this - they don't understand how government censorship can quickly get out of hand. I think quite a few Europeans have lasting and direct experience with totalitarian, oppressive regimes. Which might also explain why they have stricter (or simply more precise) laws governing expression – not as an oppressive tool, but as a…
Silencing speech IS the oppressive regime.
A regime is an organization.
Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Several European governments have jailed people for social media posts. Many Europeans support this - they don't understand how government censorship can quickly get out of hand. I think quite a few Europeans have lasting and direct experience with totalitarian, oppressive regimes. Which might also explain why they have stricter (or simply more precise) laws governing expression – not as an oppressive tool, but as a…
Silencing speech IS the oppressive regime.
Most societies have decided that some speech should be illegal. The classic example is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre in the absence of a fire.
I think it is good and healthy to have conversations as to what should and should not be protected speech, but I think that there is this rote reaction that kinda boils down to free speech absolutism. But of course, all the free speech absolutists find at some point or another there is some speech they want made illegal.
A great example of this is in the US where Republicans often outwardly took such as stand when they weren't in power, but recently tried to use the FCC to take a comedian who made light criticism of the regime off the air.
So, silencing speech might not always be the oppressive regime, but it sometimes is.
EDIT: OK, I get the fire/theatre example is a bad one. Instead, consider incitement more broadly. For example incitement to discrimination, as prohibited by Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Several European governments have jailed people for social media posts. Many Europeans support this - they don't understand how government censorship can quickly get out of hand. I think quite a few Europeans have lasting and direct experience with totalitarian, oppressive regimes. Which might also explain why they have stricter (or simply more precise) laws governing expression – not as an oppressive tool, but as a…
Silencing speech IS the oppressive regime.
[flagged]
Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this a "gotcha" when I'm on the internet I'm being forced to use? I pick the most agreeable platforms. I like that HN filters out politics, sports, and celebrities, it's more like a themed forum than an open board. HN doesn't deem these topics as "problematic", simply as off-topic. Anyway my point was "problematic content" is often used as a buzzword by censorship happy people, and ends up being synonymous wit…
If you read the guidelines, there’s quite a bit about being polite and not inciting flame wars, not only off topic items. It regularly happens that posts or even users get removed for that reason. There are platforms that have much less strict standards with regards to that - yet you consider this the more agreeable platform. Maybe the reason is that it’s actually nicer to have a conversation in a place where you don…
You're speaking of some idealized moderation system where tone and politeness is enforced, and human corruptibility does not entice moderators into censoring speech they disagree with? Yeah sure, I'd love to be there. It's just a rare thing to find on the modern web, and it's not guaranteed to last for any length of time.
The modern web example of your bar scenario is more like this: the bartender doesn't want to hear [opposing political/societal issue opinion] at the bar and starts kicking out everyone he disagrees with. The kicked out people go start their own bar. Now there's two neighboring bars, MAGABar and LibBar; customers are automatically filtered into attending either bar by an algorithm. If you say anything that the bartender disagrees with, you're permanently banned. The fun part is that you can be permanently banned from BOTH bars if your viewpoints don't fall in line 100% with what the bartender wants to hear.
Oh and you can't go to TechBar anymore either, the bartender heard you said something critical of furries at another bar, so now you're banned and not allowed to talk about computers.
Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#87Moderation is a strength of the fediverse, because it is decentralized, with many moderators making possibly conflicting rules about relatively smaller amounts of content. Moderators can block individual posts, accounts, or entire instances if they have objectionable alternate rules. Don't like the moderation on some instance? Move to another.
Exactly. And moderators need to be responsible and liable for the content they allow through on their instances.
Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#88This is a false dichotomy presented to people. By framing this as 'Giant government, or giant business?" you are going to get crap answers.
None of these are one size fits all solutions, and there should be a mix. We have a working patch-work of laws in physical space, for a reason. It allow flexibility, and adjustments as we go, as the world changes. We should extended that to virtual space as well.
Age / Content Labeling and opt-in/ opt-out for some content. Outright ban on other kinds of content. A similar "I sue when you abuse my content" for copyright, impersonation, etc.
One size does not fit all, and is not how the real world works. Online shouldn't work much differently.
Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Silencing speech IS the oppressive regime.
Most societies have decided that some speech should be illegal. The classic example is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre in the absence of a fire. I think it is good and healthy to have conversations as to what should and should not be protected speech, but I think that there is this rote reaction that kinda boils down to free speech absolutism. But of course, all the free speech absolutists find at some point or a…
> The classic example is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre in the absence of a fire.
This is from an overturned US Supreme Court opinion, has no basis in anyone's jurisprudence, yet keeps coming up as an example of speech that's permissible to suppress for some reason.
Oliver Wendell Holmes created that example to support jailing a socialist for speaking out against the World War I draft.
Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Opinions cannot be right or wrong. I’d say if you can be jailed for a particular opinion, someone has certainly made a judgement call that your opinion is wrong!
> I’d say if you can be jailed for a particular opinion Can you give an example of someone in a modern democracy jailed for their "opinion"? To wit, are the examples you're thinking of "statement of opinion", "statement of fact", "pejorative insult", or "incitement"? Saying "I think is an idiot" is an opinion. "The earth is flat" or "The holocaust never happened" are not opinions; neither is, "Kick out all the ." And…
> "The holocaust never happened"
Not really an opinion but it can be a belief. I'm not sure why we are okay with people believing that Earth is ~6000 years old, but not with someone believing that we are in a simulation and everything before e.g. year 1999 is just a collective memory fabrication.