3 ms·

>If trolls show up on message boards, the solution is curation, moderation And those editorial mechanisms mean you no longer have "freedom of speech" -- which

by jasode 9y ago

>If trolls show up on message boards, the solution is curation, moderation And those editorial mechanisms mean you no longer have "freedom of speech" -- which breaks the very law you're proposing. That's what I meant by "contradictions" in my previous message. A new law that extends "freedom of speech to private entities" is not possible for society to implement in a consistent manner. >Right now, people are worried about totalitarian government and corporate police punishing them for thought crime. Well, maybe we're having 2 different conversations. I'm not talking about situations like China and their Great Firewall suppressing Tiananmen Square, Taiwan independence, and other topics of dissent. That's the _government_ doing the censorship and not _private_ website like HN censoring by deleting posts. That's a different topic from "extending freedom of speech to private entities" that you were talking about. Instead, I'm talking about websites with unpopular topics like Unz.com which spawned this thread and neo-Nazi website like Dailystormer.ws. If DailyStormer can reject articles about "programming in Lisp", HackerNews should likewise be able to reject posts about "eliminating the Jewish population". Trying to craft the wording on a new law such that both sides like HN and DailyStormer can post off-topic content on each others' website without censorship is a futile goal for lawmakers. Right now, in the USA, American citizens can go point their browser url to Dailystormer.ws and read all the articles. There is no Great American Firewall nor ISP blocking access.

humanrebar 9y ago
I understand that, but companies are trying to have it two ways. They're either curators and editors and somehow responsible for the speech on their sites, it their carriers and just providing a forum. If Reddit isn't responsible when people post libel or legally actionable threats, then they shouldn't be taking responsibility for policing their content for ideological alignment, much less politeness and courtesy. I'm saying it's time to explore whether we need common carriers of speech like we have for raw data.
kazinator 9y ago
Moderation where A dictates what B does/n't read is against freedom of speech. Self moderation whereby every B mods down unwanted material is compatible with freedom of speech, as is a mechanism whereby B indicates "I agree with C and want not to see what C doesn't want to see." B and C are simply exercising their freedom from speech, which is as important as freedom of. Of course, this has its own problems: like online fora devolving into cliques of people who think the same way. People should be exposed to trolls and critically evaluate and re-evaluate their beliefs.

by jasode 9y ago

humanrebar 9y ago

I understand that, but companies are trying to have it two ways. They're either curators and editors and somehow responsible for the speech on their sites, it their carriers and just providing a forum. If Reddit isn't responsible when people post libel or legally actionable threats, then they shouldn't be taking responsibility for policing their content for ideological alignment, much less politeness and courtesy. I'm saying it's time to explore whether we need common carriers of speech like we have for raw data.

kazinator 9y ago

Moderation where A dictates what B does/n't read is against freedom of speech. Self moderation whereby every B mods down unwanted material is compatible with freedom of speech, as is a mechanism whereby B indicates "I agree with C and want not to see what C doesn't want to see." B and C are simply exercising their freedom from speech, which is as important as freedom of. Of course, this has its own problems: like online fora devolving into cliques of people who think the same way. People should be exposed to trolls and critically evaluate and re-evaluate their beliefs.