4 ms·

I know that the fake news narrative is popular right now, and maybe it's just me, but do you think maybe you might be a little biased here? How is it not censo

I know that the fake news narrative is popular right now, and maybe it's just me, but do you think maybe you might be a little biased here? How is it not censorship when somebody actively monitors what is posted on Twitter and makes a judgement on whether or not that post is appropriate? What is appropriate and how does free speech equate to that in your mind?

amyjess 10y ago
Because censorship isn't a bad thing and absolute free speech isn't a good thing. The owners of a platform have a social responsibility to curate it.
__derek__ 10y ago
Technology does weird things to conversations about the First Amendment. Twitter benefits from freedom of speech/the press/assembly in the sense that it can operate a platform that broadcasts individuals' writings. By the same principle, it has the right to only broadcast what it wants. Twitter isn't the government or a public entity. It's the publisher printing a paper. So, no, that's not really censorship, whereas requiring Twitter to broadcast speech against its will seems like it would be. NB: I am not a constitutional lawyer.
gdulli 10y ago
You can't really be conflating free speech as a freedom within the legal system with the ability to say anything without being subject to policy set by a nongovernmental organization like Twitter. That's so basic a fallacy that I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're being obtuse and didn't really make that mistake.
linkregister 10y ago
kafkaesq is biased. I am biased. It should be okay to be biased against white nationalist/supremacy viewpoints, especially those advocating violence against people because of their race. It is censorship. It is also censorship to prevent me from claiming a jar of pickle juice is a cure for cancer in a television advertisement. The account cancellations by Twitter were a direct response to incitement of harassment and promotion of hate speech. It's likely that some violent leftists are ignored by the Twitter ban hammer, but they aren't nearly as effective at stirring up harassment, death threats, swatting, threatening family members, etc. It may be unfair that only successful trolls are being picked on, but it's the way the world works.
kafkaesq 10y ago
Do you think maybe you might be a little bit biased here? Everyone is biased, to one degree or another. Subjective judgement can be quite a useful tool, actually (but that's a much broader topic). How is it not censorship when somebody actively monitors what is posted on Twitter and makes a judgement on whether or not that post is appropriate? My own definition of censorship is any any kind of restrictions that are government-enforced (or enforced via proxies such as public universities). Editorial and/or community guidelines imposed by private media companies aren't "censorship", by this definition -- they're just that: editorial or community guidelines (which have always been in place, ever since people started investing the effort in creating mass copies of readable works via clay tablets, strands of knots, notches on wood, etc). What is appropriate and how does free speech equate to that in your mind? In my mind it all comes down to "not being an asshole." HN has a few additional guidelines, which I find eminently sensible and am happy to comply with. As do FB or this new Gab platform (both of which I'm less in favor of, and choose not to participate in). To each their own watering hole, as it were -- and that's about as fair as one can expect things to ever be (and about as close to the the libertarian paradise a lot of these alt-right folks are dreaming for, as we'll ever get).
fdgdasfadsf 10y ago
Free speech means that you can say whatever you want without government persecution. You do not however have the right to dictate what individual people think or how they respond to what you say. So if the people doing the monitoring are government employees who's job is to monitor then yes this is censorship. If they are private citizens then it is in no way censorship <edit>unless they are being compelled to do so by government</edit>.
sedachv 10y ago
> How is it not censorship when somebody actively monitors what is posted on Twitter and makes a judgement on whether or not that post is appropriate? What is appropriate and how does free speech equate to that in your mind? Do you ever downvote comments or flag stories here on Hacker News? Do you think that is censorship? Do you think it is appropriate?

amyjess 10y ago

Because censorship isn't a bad thing and absolute free speech isn't a good thing. The owners of a platform have a social responsibility to curate it.

__derek__ 10y ago

Technology does weird things to conversations about the First Amendment. Twitter benefits from freedom of speech/the press/assembly in the sense that it can operate a platform that broadcasts individuals' writings. By the same principle, it has the right to only broadcast what it wants. Twitter isn't the government or a public entity. It's the publisher printing a paper. So, no, that's not really censorship, whereas requiring Twitter to broadcast speech against its will seems like it would be. NB: I am not a constitutional lawyer.

gdulli 10y ago

You can't really be conflating free speech as a freedom within the legal system with the ability to say anything without being subject to policy set by a nongovernmental organization like Twitter. That's so basic a fallacy that I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're being obtuse and didn't really make that mistake.

linkregister 10y ago

kafkaesq is biased. I am biased. It should be okay to be biased against white nationalist/supremacy viewpoints, especially those advocating violence against people because of their race. It is censorship. It is also censorship to prevent me from claiming a jar of pickle juice is a cure for cancer in a television advertisement. The account cancellations by Twitter were a direct response to incitement of harassment and promotion of hate speech. It's likely that some violent leftists are ignored by the Twitter ban hammer, but they aren't nearly as effective at stirring up harassment, death threats, swatting, threatening family members, etc. It may be unfair that only successful trolls are being picked on, but it's the way the world works.

kafkaesq 10y ago

Do you think maybe you might be a little bit biased here? Everyone is biased, to one degree or another. Subjective judgement can be quite a useful tool, actually (but that's a much broader topic). How is it not censorship when somebody actively monitors what is posted on Twitter and makes a judgement on whether or not that post is appropriate? My own definition of censorship is any any kind of restrictions that are government-enforced (or enforced via proxies such as public universities). Editorial and/or community guidelines imposed by private media companies aren't "censorship", by this definition -- they're just that: editorial or community guidelines (which have always been in place, ever since people started investing the effort in creating mass copies of readable works via clay tablets, strands of knots, notches on wood, etc). What is appropriate and how does free speech equate to that in your mind? In my mind it all comes down to "not being an asshole." HN has a few additional guidelines, which I find eminently sensible and am happy to comply with. As do FB or this new Gab platform (both of which I'm less in favor of, and choose not to participate in). To each their own watering hole, as it were -- and that's about as fair as one can expect things to ever be (and about as close to the the libertarian paradise a lot of these alt-right folks are dreaming for, as we'll ever get).

fdgdasfadsf 10y ago

Free speech means that you can say whatever you want without government persecution. You do not however have the right to dictate what individual people think or how they respond to what you say. So if the people doing the monitoring are government employees who's job is to monitor then yes this is censorship. If they are private citizens then it is in no way censorship <edit>unless they are being compelled to do so by government</edit>.

sedachv 10y ago

> How is it not censorship when somebody actively monitors what is posted on Twitter and makes a judgement on whether or not that post is appropriate? What is appropriate and how does free speech equate to that in your mind? Do you ever downvote comments or flag stories here on Hacker News? Do you think that is censorship? Do you think it is appropriate?