4 ms·

You are contradicting yourself, and did not even answer the question. What you should have said was "as the site owner and moderator, whenever I damn well pleas

by hackney 10y ago

You are contradicting yourself, and did not even answer the question. What you should have said was "as the site owner and moderator, whenever I damn well please". But instead you said it never happens. I have almost zero sites I login to for a reason. I would think that as soon as a website becomes embroiled in taking a political viewpoint to the extreme of not allowing the opposite side to speak is when censorship comes into play. If we are talking individual attacks obviously that would and should fall into the moderation category.

exolymph 10y ago
I think what trowawee meant is that they never equate deleting comments (or whatever) with censorship. It sounds like you do. This is a semantic conflict re: what "censorship" means, precisely. Personally, I think that deleting someone's comments is censorship, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Censorship gets a bad rap, but purging certain viewpoints from a certain venue is not inherently evil or negative. For example, Hacker News does it with the shadowbanning system. I don't mind because dang is a thoughtful moderator.
- trowawee 10y ago
  Also censorship has a specific denotation, i.e. that is is performed by an agent of the state, and specific connotations, i.e. that the censored is unable to express themselves in other ways (among other connotations). A private citizen deleting your comment on a webpage they own and administrate matches neither the denotation nor connotations of "censorship", except in the broadest theoretical reading. And that reading that would appear to prohibit any maintenance of comment sections whatsoever.
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    > Also censorship has a specific denotation, i.e. that is is performed by an agent of the state This is not correct; TV networks have censors that operate internally. The government doesn't operate television censors; it is limited to punishing the networks after the fact. > A private citizen deleting your comment on a webpage they own and administrate matches neither the denotation nor connotations of "censorship", except in the broadest theoretical reading. And that reading that would appear to prohibit any maintenance of comment sections whatsoever. This is a confused argument; you seem to be proceeding from the premise that censorship is bad, and therefore a phenomenon which is not bad can't be censorship. And then that if it was censorship it somehow wouldn't be allowed. (Observe that the definition of "censorship" cannot in itself prohibit or mandate anything.) It's much more productive to agree on a definition of a term, and then argue over whether any particular example is good, bad, or a mixture of both, than to agree that a term must be good, and then argue over whether certain things are metaphysically able to fit under that term.
    - meric 10y ago
      Thanks, I see this kind of (il)logic on HN a lot and it's infuriating. "I think X is bad, this is not bad, therefore not X" or "I think Y is good, since this is not good, this is not Y".
      - thaumasiotes 10y ago
        To be totally fair, the article endorses this premise, insofar as the only difference between "moderation" (in the sense of the piece) and "censorship" is that one is good and the other is bad.
    - trowawee 10y ago
      1. When a television employee is censoring according to the rules of the state, they are operating as an agent of the state. 2. No, I'm not. I'm preceding from a definition of censorship as "the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts." Getting into "the dictionary say..." arguments is mostly boring, but most of the definitions do include some element of official imprimatur. Someone removing comments from their personal site fails to meet that official element.
      - thaumasiotes 10y ago
        Media censors take the rules of the state into account, but they are primarily concerned with pressure groups, not the state. They are most definitely not state agents; that would violate the constitution. The publisher of a website removing comments from it meets the same soft officialness standard as a newspaper declining to run articles on a particular topic, or a television network refusing to air episodes in which someone disagrees with the group but doesn't end up suffering for it (not an invented example, by the way -- that was a real element of a code governing children's cartoons).
        trowawee 10y ago
        The majority of censors are working to prevent state censure; they are primarily concerned with the state. The primary work they do is removing profanities and indecent images at the behest of the state.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    >>Also censorship has a specific denotation, i.e. that is is performed by an agent of the state Uh, no. Censorship means the suppression of speech or information. Said suppression does not require involvement from an agent of the state to qualify as censorship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
    - trowawee 10y ago
      Suppressing speech requires the power to make you stop. Deleting a comment on my site isn't suppressing your speech, because you can still speak where you want to except for on my site.
      - enraged_camel 10y ago
        It suppresses speech on your site. That's what matters. Same with government-enforced censorship: North Korea can censor speech, but only within its borders. Just because North Koreans living in the US can speak out against Kim Jong-un doesn't mean that what North Korea is doing doesn't count as censorship.
  - gherkin0 10y ago
    I think that's incorrectly narrowing the concept of "censorship" to mean only "government censorship," when other kinds exist (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship).
    - trowawee 10y ago
      Mostly because, in an era where you can stand up a website on a worldwide communication network for less than $50, I kinda think that the definitions of censorship have narrowed.
trowawee 10y ago
No, I'm not. If you're commenting on my site, I can delete your comment for literally any reason, and it isn't censorship. It's my space, and I can make whatever I want of it. You always have the freedom to go spin up a site and do or say whatever you want within the bounds of the law.
- gherkin0 10y ago
  I think you have a point if you're talking about a personal website, but I think things get a whole lot blurrier when you're dealing with places that are communities, have an ethos of free expression, or have taken on the characteristics of public forums. I think it's an oversimplification to view those solely through the private property lens.
  - trowawee 10y ago
    It's still private property, tho. I get that the internet has twisted up our perceptions so it seems like, say, HN is a public space. But it isn't. Somebody is paying to host this, and ultimately they get the final say about what shows up here because of that. I frequently disagree with Graham and dang. and frankly a ton of the YC folks, and if they decide, hey, the hell with this guy, he can't say we're a bunch of stuck-up overly-wealthy nincompoops on our site, that's 100% their right, and it's not censorship, because this is their website. Even if it has the characteristic of a public forum, it is not a public forum, and that distinction is meaningful.
    - gherkin0 10y ago
      It's still censorship, even if it's within their legal rights as owners to do it.

by hackney 10y ago

exolymph 10y ago

I think what trowawee meant is that they never equate deleting comments (or whatever) with censorship. It sounds like you do. This is a semantic conflict re: what "censorship" means, precisely. Personally, I think that deleting someone's comments is censorship, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Censorship gets a bad rap, but purging certain viewpoints from a certain venue is not inherently evil or negative. For example, Hacker News does it with the shadowbanning system. I don't mind because dang is a thoughtful moderator.

trowawee 10y ago
Also censorship has a specific denotation, i.e. that is is performed by an agent of the state, and specific connotations, i.e. that the censored is unable to express themselves in other ways (among other connotations). A private citizen deleting your comment on a webpage they own and administrate matches neither the denotation nor connotations of "censorship", except in the broadest theoretical reading. And that reading that would appear to prohibit any maintenance of comment sections whatsoever.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  > Also censorship has a specific denotation, i.e. that is is performed by an agent of the state This is not correct; TV networks have censors that operate internally. The government doesn't operate television censors; it is limited to punishing the networks after the fact. > A private citizen deleting your comment on a webpage they own and administrate matches neither the denotation nor connotations of "censorship", except in the broadest theoretical reading. And that reading that would appear to prohibit any maintenance of comment sections whatsoever. This is a confused argument; you seem to be proceeding from the premise that censorship is bad, and therefore a phenomenon which is not bad can't be censorship. And then that if it was censorship it somehow wouldn't be allowed. (Observe that the definition of "censorship" cannot in itself prohibit or mandate anything.) It's much more productive to agree on a definition of a term, and then argue over whether any particular example is good, bad, or a mixture of both, than to agree that a term must be good, and then argue over whether certain things are metaphysically able to fit under that term.
  - meric 10y ago
    Thanks, I see this kind of (il)logic on HN a lot and it's infuriating. "I think X is bad, this is not bad, therefore not X" or "I think Y is good, since this is not good, this is not Y".
    - thaumasiotes 10y ago
      To be totally fair, the article endorses this premise, insofar as the only difference between "moderation" (in the sense of the piece) and "censorship" is that one is good and the other is bad.
  - trowawee 10y ago
    1. When a television employee is censoring according to the rules of the state, they are operating as an agent of the state. 2. No, I'm not. I'm preceding from a definition of censorship as "the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts." Getting into "the dictionary say..." arguments is mostly boring, but most of the definitions do include some element of official imprimatur. Someone removing comments from their personal site fails to meet that official element.
    - thaumasiotes 10y ago
      Media censors take the rules of the state into account, but they are primarily concerned with pressure groups, not the state. They are most definitely not state agents; that would violate the constitution. The publisher of a website removing comments from it meets the same soft officialness standard as a newspaper declining to run articles on a particular topic, or a television network refusing to air episodes in which someone disagrees with the group but doesn't end up suffering for it (not an invented example, by the way -- that was a real element of a code governing children's cartoons).
      - trowawee 10y ago
        The majority of censors are working to prevent state censure; they are primarily concerned with the state. The primary work they do is removing profanities and indecent images at the behest of the state.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  >>Also censorship has a specific denotation, i.e. that is is performed by an agent of the state Uh, no. Censorship means the suppression of speech or information. Said suppression does not require involvement from an agent of the state to qualify as censorship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
  - trowawee 10y ago
    Suppressing speech requires the power to make you stop. Deleting a comment on my site isn't suppressing your speech, because you can still speak where you want to except for on my site.
    - enraged_camel 10y ago
      It suppresses speech on your site. That's what matters. Same with government-enforced censorship: North Korea can censor speech, but only within its borders. Just because North Koreans living in the US can speak out against Kim Jong-un doesn't mean that what North Korea is doing doesn't count as censorship.
- gherkin0 10y ago
  I think that's incorrectly narrowing the concept of "censorship" to mean only "government censorship," when other kinds exist (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship).
  - trowawee 10y ago
    Mostly because, in an era where you can stand up a website on a worldwide communication network for less than $50, I kinda think that the definitions of censorship have narrowed.

trowawee 10y ago

No, I'm not. If you're commenting on my site, I can delete your comment for literally any reason, and it isn't censorship. It's my space, and I can make whatever I want of it. You always have the freedom to go spin up a site and do or say whatever you want within the bounds of the law.

gherkin0 10y ago
I think you have a point if you're talking about a personal website, but I think things get a whole lot blurrier when you're dealing with places that are communities, have an ethos of free expression, or have taken on the characteristics of public forums. I think it's an oversimplification to view those solely through the private property lens.
- trowawee 10y ago
  It's still private property, tho. I get that the internet has twisted up our perceptions so it seems like, say, HN is a public space. But it isn't. Somebody is paying to host this, and ultimately they get the final say about what shows up here because of that. I frequently disagree with Graham and dang. and frankly a ton of the YC folks, and if they decide, hey, the hell with this guy, he can't say we're a bunch of stuck-up overly-wealthy nincompoops on our site, that's 100% their right, and it's not censorship, because this is their website. Even if it has the characteristic of a public forum, it is not a public forum, and that distinction is meaningful.
  - gherkin0 10y ago
    It's still censorship, even if it's within their legal rights as owners to do it.