10 ms·

I'm kind of split on our current gray area about free speech on the web. It seems like the only way to do good moderation is if it's powered by actual people si

I'm kind of split on our current gray area about free speech on the web. It seems like the only way to do good moderation is if it's powered by actual people sitting behind computers and following a well-written policy. But tech companies have proven themselves totally unwilling to pay for that. I'd rather FB just said "we'll never pony up the wages necessary to moderate well so we're just going to make facebook a complete free speech zone."

NeutronBoy 9y ago
> I'd rather FB just said "we'll never pony up the wages necessary to moderate well so we're just going to make facebook a complete free speech zone." They were literally doing this! Then they got slammed for 'censorship', so they got rid of the moderators. Now they're in the position they are now.
slamdance 9y ago
why are you "split" on having a "complete free speech zone"?
- jackmott 9y ago
  because so many people are horrible
  - otakucode 9y ago
    That would be a problem if it wasn't trivially easy to block them. Otherwise, people being horrible really isn't your problem unless you train yourself to be very conscious of their opinions and to care deeply about them. That's the only way their opinion can get to you. Of course, that training doesn't have to be conscious and a great many people have inadvertently trained themselves to be sensitive to the opinions of horrible people... but no one in the universe can do anything about that except the people themselves. (And no this doesn't remove blame from those hurling insults. I'm talking about how to deal with it yourself. If you're worried about how it reflects on them, and wanting to assign blame, you're still in the wrong mindset. You can control only yourself. Even if you were able to control others, it would make you a horrendously bad person to do so.)
    - wmf 9y ago
      If you get hit by thousands of trolls at once it's not trivial to block them. Also, in some cases other people see the trolling about you even after you block it.
      - Karunamon 9y ago
        I find that "thousands of trolls" generally amounts to "thousands of members of the public who responded to the statement I shouted out into public". The character of those responses doesn't even enter into it. Don't get me wrong, I see why it's a pain in the ass to wind up with a popular comment even if the comments are mostly positive (and especially if they're not not), but I think this is better handled by UI and rate limiting on notifications rather than the alternatives. >in some cases other people see the trolling about you even after you block it. Pardon my arrogance, but I don't believe it's your place to determine how other people are allowed to talk about you even if you've excused yourself from the conversation. Down that path lay dragons. For a quick example why, sub out "you" and "your" in the previous sentence for the name of any unpopular politician.
        pjc50 9y ago
        > It's not your place to determine how other people are allowed to talk about you even if you've excused yourself from the conversation Even if they're discussing whether you should be murdered?
        Karunamon 9y ago
        Was the reduction to the extreme really necessary? But okay, in that particular case, we have the ToS and laws regarding threatening behavior to fall back on. (And if I've unsubscribed from the conversation, I can't even see it anymore to be threatened by it) This problem does not require the extreme step of giving the subject of a conversation an unconditional veto on the conversation.
        pjc50 9y ago
  - slamdance 9y ago
    while horrible people do exist, is that a reason to strip them of their ability to express their ideas? Take for example some of the worst - Vegan Cross-fitters. Now, while i see them as 'horrible' people, I also see them as misinformed. This does not stop me from eating bacon in front of them. There are a myriad of ways to avoid them and their ilk. Here's the rub - THEY probably think the same thing as me (ikr, man-bun cray-cray). So while you and others here are correct in that there are ignorant and horrible people out there that post goatse and blue waffles, racism, etc... and yes, it may interrupt your viewing/reading/research, that doesn't mean they should be stripped of their expression any more than you are for looking up amino acids or small engine repair. In my (admittedly low-tech experience) Generally, if you're looking for an answer or doing research or have a specific point to be online, you know what sites are legit, and which are not - and which ones allow anything-goes. That list ebbs and flows as you visit more or less often, just like you know what bars are too rowdy at night. you know because you went there, once. ONCE. <insert Johnny Dangerously line here>.
    - Pulcinella 9y ago
      “and yes, it may interrupt your viewing/reading/research,...” My eyeballs are not a “free speech zone.” No one has any right to show me whatever they want. Also, while I am not vegan, I would not describe vegans as horrible people on the level of bigots and nazis.
      - nnfy 9y ago
        >No one has any right to show me whatever they want. Sure, but you have no right to look my way and then complain that I'm forcing you to view something you consider offensive, in case that's what you're insinuating.
      - xtreme 9y ago
        You can close your eyes. Or cover your ears. Or close your browser tab.
    - pjc50 9y ago
      >you know what sites are legit Yes, the ones with moderators.
  - 3131s 9y ago
    Censoring them doesn't make them go away. It only removes any hope of turning them into not-horrible people, and in the process many controversial but worthwhile ideas are filtered out. I think individuals should have the tools to disengage from trolls, harassment, spam, etc. (even if it's a catch-all "block everyone that my extended network has blocked" checkbox, or something similar) but I personally want the option to see the dregs of humanity and actively engage with those people.
    - FooHentai 9y ago
      The pollution analogy might be useful. Specifically: "The solution to pollution is dilution". Now, that mantra has been mostly rejected for environmental pollution because there's a far better option: Gather the pollutants, process/eliminate them, and work to eliminate the sources. Back in our context, hopefully the elimination of people with unsavoury viewpoints is not on the table. We must fundamentally agree that humans being what they are, free thought being what it is, these ideas will never be 'gone'. So accepting that, perhaps "the solution to pollution is dilution" applies. Apply it and we quickly see how censorship will be counter-productive - Those people, viewpoints and opinions don't go away and instead they concentrate in localized 'hot spots' (or cesspools), where they actually do far more intense and immediate damage. Obvious example: 4chan/8ch. Less obvious example: People's minds. By avoiding chasing these things into the shadows they remain open to challenge. While the mind of the person you're challenging might not be changed, when its out in the open all others that come past and read that interaction get to judge it on it's merits and make their own judgement call. Without that, folks end up in echo chambers. When newcomers get to those places, they are not exposed to a balance of viewpoints and the opinions they themselves form will tend to conform to the leanings of the echo chamber where they spend their time.
      - yongjik 9y ago
        > Apply it and we quickly see how censorship will be counter-productive - Those people, viewpoints and opinions don't go away and instead they concentrate in localized 'hot spots' (or cesspools), where they actually do far more intense and immediate damage. This is an often-repeated theory, but I'm not sure it actually works that way. For example, consider the recent discussion about Reddit's "censorship" of hate subs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15220305 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15220305 When you openly engage some people, they decide that their idea is now "normal" and then demand the rest of the society to accommodate them. There's a reason why most scientists refrain from debating creationists.
  - eighthnate 9y ago
    There are so many horrible people, so you want these horrible people to be moderators? If there are so many horrible people, wouldn't you be against censorship and moderation?
- jonathankoren 9y ago
  Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.[0] This experiment has been repeatedly played out over decades. Without moderation, it always degenerates into shitposting trolls. [0] https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Because I find I prefer the places on the web which pay for good moderation to the places on the web which are complete free speech zones (or as close as they can legally be.)
NTDF9 9y ago
Censorship is one of those really hard social problems. A completely open web will be inundated with spam, pornography and propaganda. A completely gated web will only serve the gatekeepers. What really solves the problem is a 3rd party gatekeeper composed of "Council of Wise People".(henceforth referred to as gatekeepers). Movie rating board is an example. This leads to the age old question, "Who will monitor the gatekeepers?" This leads to democracy, where the gatekeepers only have a 4 year period and new gatekeepers are elected again. The government should have been the gatekeepers. But turns out, these gatekeepers care more about their own pockets (filled by the same corps they are gatekeeping). Humans suck :P
- otakucode 9y ago
  Why is it you are alive? I mean, it would be trivially easy for anyone to kill you. You have to work to keep yourself alive. Some random person walking up to you on the street and pushing a little blade into your neck is all it would take to end you. Or start your house on fire while you're asleep. Or a million other things. But... you're alive. Laws don't stop crime, they can only punish it afterwards. Deterrence doesn't work, there are still plenty of crimes under even the most capricious regimes that hand out death penalties for the slightest infractions. So why are you alive? Because no one is willing to kill you. They're able. They're ALL able. Every single person, young or old, you have ever met or walked past could have killed you. Every last one of them was able. But not one has been willing. Humans aren't as bad as you might be tempted to think.
  - NTDF9 9y ago
    Killing other humans. It's not necessary in an abundant society. In a mismanaged/unequal/resource crunched society, like Somalia, it happens routinely. You give far too much credit to humans following the rule of law. There's a fine balance between humans using their abilities for their own desires.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    The force multiplier arithmetic of the internet changes this. Almost all people are fine, but some are not. It was only last week that we had some idiots put another bomb on a tube train, for example. On the internet, if you can attack once you can attack everywhere. If you could put a bomb on every train at once with ctrl-c ctrl-v, we'd probably all be dead. America has a mass shooting every week. If the real world was as reprisal-free as the internet, and people could just keep shooting, how many casualties would there be?
tdb7893 9y ago
This seems like a classic catch 22. If they go completely free speech people will complain about all the propaganda on Facebook and some countries will just block it. On the other hand if they do moderation people complain about censorship. There is no actual way for them to win here
- shallot_router 9y ago
  Yep. People complain about the "adpocalypse" and censorship from YouTube and Facebook, but they're really stuck between a rock and a hard place. That said, I think they should always err on the side of free speech wherever possible.
- pjc50 9y ago
  If they go completely free speech then nobody will be able to read anything over all the spam, and the servers will be confiscated for possession of child porn in a few days.
  - watty 9y ago
    I think it's safe to assume that they mean free "legal" speech.
    - pjc50 9y ago
      I'm not sure, a lot of people seem to want speech free beyond even American norms. And "legal where?" is an important question.
- rhizome 9y ago
  They're already doing moderation, though: Rohingya media gets blocked, white-supremacy media is allowed.
  - propogandabot 9y ago
    >Rohingya media gets blocked, white-supremacy media is allowed. This is a joke right? Try making the following groups on Facebook and see which is removed: White Power - Remove All Blacks Black Power - Remove All Whites There's a reason it's this way, mostly a valid one depending on how libertarian you lean re: freedom of speech, but your representation is just ridiculous. White people aren't evil, get over it.

NeutronBoy 9y ago

> I'd rather FB just said "we'll never pony up the wages necessary to moderate well so we're just going to make facebook a complete free speech zone." They were literally doing this! Then they got slammed for 'censorship', so they got rid of the moderators. Now they're in the position they are now.

slamdance 9y ago

why are you "split" on having a "complete free speech zone"?

jackmott 9y ago
because so many people are horrible
- otakucode 9y ago
  That would be a problem if it wasn't trivially easy to block them. Otherwise, people being horrible really isn't your problem unless you train yourself to be very conscious of their opinions and to care deeply about them. That's the only way their opinion can get to you. Of course, that training doesn't have to be conscious and a great many people have inadvertently trained themselves to be sensitive to the opinions of horrible people... but no one in the universe can do anything about that except the people themselves. (And no this doesn't remove blame from those hurling insults. I'm talking about how to deal with it yourself. If you're worried about how it reflects on them, and wanting to assign blame, you're still in the wrong mindset. You can control only yourself. Even if you were able to control others, it would make you a horrendously bad person to do so.)
  - wmf 9y ago
    If you get hit by thousands of trolls at once it's not trivial to block them. Also, in some cases other people see the trolling about you even after you block it.
    - Karunamon 9y ago
      I find that "thousands of trolls" generally amounts to "thousands of members of the public who responded to the statement I shouted out into public". The character of those responses doesn't even enter into it. Don't get me wrong, I see why it's a pain in the ass to wind up with a popular comment even if the comments are mostly positive (and especially if they're not not), but I think this is better handled by UI and rate limiting on notifications rather than the alternatives. >in some cases other people see the trolling about you even after you block it. Pardon my arrogance, but I don't believe it's your place to determine how other people are allowed to talk about you even if you've excused yourself from the conversation. Down that path lay dragons. For a quick example why, sub out "you" and "your" in the previous sentence for the name of any unpopular politician.
      - pjc50 9y ago
        > It's not your place to determine how other people are allowed to talk about you even if you've excused yourself from the conversation Even if they're discussing whether you should be murdered?
        Karunamon 9y ago
        Was the reduction to the extreme really necessary? But okay, in that particular case, we have the ToS and laws regarding threatening behavior to fall back on. (And if I've unsubscribed from the conversation, I can't even see it anymore to be threatened by it) This problem does not require the extreme step of giving the subject of a conversation an unconditional veto on the conversation.
        pjc50 9y ago
- slamdance 9y ago
  while horrible people do exist, is that a reason to strip them of their ability to express their ideas? Take for example some of the worst - Vegan Cross-fitters. Now, while i see them as 'horrible' people, I also see them as misinformed. This does not stop me from eating bacon in front of them. There are a myriad of ways to avoid them and their ilk. Here's the rub - THEY probably think the same thing as me (ikr, man-bun cray-cray). So while you and others here are correct in that there are ignorant and horrible people out there that post goatse and blue waffles, racism, etc... and yes, it may interrupt your viewing/reading/research, that doesn't mean they should be stripped of their expression any more than you are for looking up amino acids or small engine repair. In my (admittedly low-tech experience) Generally, if you're looking for an answer or doing research or have a specific point to be online, you know what sites are legit, and which are not - and which ones allow anything-goes. That list ebbs and flows as you visit more or less often, just like you know what bars are too rowdy at night. you know because you went there, once. ONCE. <insert Johnny Dangerously line here>.
  - Pulcinella 9y ago
    “and yes, it may interrupt your viewing/reading/research,...” My eyeballs are not a “free speech zone.” No one has any right to show me whatever they want. Also, while I am not vegan, I would not describe vegans as horrible people on the level of bigots and nazis.
    - nnfy 9y ago
      >No one has any right to show me whatever they want. Sure, but you have no right to look my way and then complain that I'm forcing you to view something you consider offensive, in case that's what you're insinuating.
    - xtreme 9y ago
      You can close your eyes. Or cover your ears. Or close your browser tab.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    >you know what sites are legit Yes, the ones with moderators.
- 3131s 9y ago
  Censoring them doesn't make them go away. It only removes any hope of turning them into not-horrible people, and in the process many controversial but worthwhile ideas are filtered out. I think individuals should have the tools to disengage from trolls, harassment, spam, etc. (even if it's a catch-all "block everyone that my extended network has blocked" checkbox, or something similar) but I personally want the option to see the dregs of humanity and actively engage with those people.
  - FooHentai 9y ago
    The pollution analogy might be useful. Specifically: "The solution to pollution is dilution". Now, that mantra has been mostly rejected for environmental pollution because there's a far better option: Gather the pollutants, process/eliminate them, and work to eliminate the sources. Back in our context, hopefully the elimination of people with unsavoury viewpoints is not on the table. We must fundamentally agree that humans being what they are, free thought being what it is, these ideas will never be 'gone'. So accepting that, perhaps "the solution to pollution is dilution" applies. Apply it and we quickly see how censorship will be counter-productive - Those people, viewpoints and opinions don't go away and instead they concentrate in localized 'hot spots' (or cesspools), where they actually do far more intense and immediate damage. Obvious example: 4chan/8ch. Less obvious example: People's minds. By avoiding chasing these things into the shadows they remain open to challenge. While the mind of the person you're challenging might not be changed, when its out in the open all others that come past and read that interaction get to judge it on it's merits and make their own judgement call. Without that, folks end up in echo chambers. When newcomers get to those places, they are not exposed to a balance of viewpoints and the opinions they themselves form will tend to conform to the leanings of the echo chamber where they spend their time.
    - yongjik 9y ago
      > Apply it and we quickly see how censorship will be counter-productive - Those people, viewpoints and opinions don't go away and instead they concentrate in localized 'hot spots' (or cesspools), where they actually do far more intense and immediate damage. This is an often-repeated theory, but I'm not sure it actually works that way. For example, consider the recent discussion about Reddit's "censorship" of hate subs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15220305 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15220305 When you openly engage some people, they decide that their idea is now "normal" and then demand the rest of the society to accommodate them. There's a reason why most scientists refrain from debating creationists.
- eighthnate 9y ago
  There are so many horrible people, so you want these horrible people to be moderators? If there are so many horrible people, wouldn't you be against censorship and moderation?
jonathankoren 9y ago
Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.[0] This experiment has been repeatedly played out over decades. Without moderation, it always degenerates into shitposting trolls. [0] https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Because I find I prefer the places on the web which pay for good moderation to the places on the web which are complete free speech zones (or as close as they can legally be.)

NTDF9 9y ago

Censorship is one of those really hard social problems. A completely open web will be inundated with spam, pornography and propaganda. A completely gated web will only serve the gatekeepers. What really solves the problem is a 3rd party gatekeeper composed of "Council of Wise People".(henceforth referred to as gatekeepers). Movie rating board is an example. This leads to the age old question, "Who will monitor the gatekeepers?" This leads to democracy, where the gatekeepers only have a 4 year period and new gatekeepers are elected again. The government should have been the gatekeepers. But turns out, these gatekeepers care more about their own pockets (filled by the same corps they are gatekeeping). Humans suck :P

otakucode 9y ago
Why is it you are alive? I mean, it would be trivially easy for anyone to kill you. You have to work to keep yourself alive. Some random person walking up to you on the street and pushing a little blade into your neck is all it would take to end you. Or start your house on fire while you're asleep. Or a million other things. But... you're alive. Laws don't stop crime, they can only punish it afterwards. Deterrence doesn't work, there are still plenty of crimes under even the most capricious regimes that hand out death penalties for the slightest infractions. So why are you alive? Because no one is willing to kill you. They're able. They're ALL able. Every single person, young or old, you have ever met or walked past could have killed you. Every last one of them was able. But not one has been willing. Humans aren't as bad as you might be tempted to think.
- NTDF9 9y ago
  Killing other humans. It's not necessary in an abundant society. In a mismanaged/unequal/resource crunched society, like Somalia, it happens routinely. You give far too much credit to humans following the rule of law. There's a fine balance between humans using their abilities for their own desires.
- pjc50 9y ago
  The force multiplier arithmetic of the internet changes this. Almost all people are fine, but some are not. It was only last week that we had some idiots put another bomb on a tube train, for example. On the internet, if you can attack once you can attack everywhere. If you could put a bomb on every train at once with ctrl-c ctrl-v, we'd probably all be dead. America has a mass shooting every week. If the real world was as reprisal-free as the internet, and people could just keep shooting, how many casualties would there be?

tdb7893 9y ago

This seems like a classic catch 22. If they go completely free speech people will complain about all the propaganda on Facebook and some countries will just block it. On the other hand if they do moderation people complain about censorship. There is no actual way for them to win here

shallot_router 9y ago
Yep. People complain about the "adpocalypse" and censorship from YouTube and Facebook, but they're really stuck between a rock and a hard place. That said, I think they should always err on the side of free speech wherever possible.
pjc50 9y ago
If they go completely free speech then nobody will be able to read anything over all the spam, and the servers will be confiscated for possession of child porn in a few days.
- watty 9y ago
  I think it's safe to assume that they mean free "legal" speech.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    I'm not sure, a lot of people seem to want speech free beyond even American norms. And "legal where?" is an important question.
rhizome 9y ago
They're already doing moderation, though: Rohingya media gets blocked, white-supremacy media is allowed.
- propogandabot 9y ago
  >Rohingya media gets blocked, white-supremacy media is allowed. This is a joke right? Try making the following groups on Facebook and see which is removed: White Power - Remove All Blacks Black Power - Remove All Whites There's a reason it's this way, mostly a valid one depending on how libertarian you lean re: freedom of speech, but your representation is just ridiculous. White people aren't evil, get over it.