8 ms·

Excellent point. Sadly this will likely not happen. Google and Facebook are gradually imposing a highly censored world view. We can’t effectively reason about

Excellent point. Sadly this will likely not happen. Google and Facebook are gradually imposing a highly censored world view. We can’t effectively reason about social media censorship by analogizing it to meatspace. Just as virality mechanisms amplify “good” content, they also change the equilibrium state of whose ideas can spread. Censorship programs work like a squirt of insecticide into a beehive, they kill off some functional parts of the hive organism and eventually lead to the destruction of all of the bees inside. Similarly, censoring “fake news” or “abusive content” poisons the environment for ideas in a similar way. Ideas are not evaluated objectively. We each react to them emotionally and experience them via the social meaning we associate with them. Prejudices are not rational and are countered by ample evidence, yet there is much prejudice and much religious faith... such beliefs carry a meaning payload enjoyed by their host. The fear suffered by social media firms (like reddit) is that someone will screenshot a piece of offensive speech alongside an ad paid for by an advertiser, and the advertiser will worry that his/her brand is being associated with that speech. This is why Colin Kaepernick doesn’t have a job. Social media firms are thus following in the path of other media firms and are (like The NY Times) putting ad revenue ahead of the first amendment. This isn’t unexpected, these firms are the “tories” of our day.

fhood 9y ago
First off, the first amendment is specifically with respect to congress, and I don't understand why I have to say this so often. Second, society has always been self censoring, but the internet has thrown a wrench into that by allowing people to escape into pockets of like minded individuals. And you might have noticed that hacker news is fairly heavily censored, and as a result has managed to avoid turning into a cesspool like much of reddit. I think that reddit is worried about advertising, yes, but I also think they are concerned about a decline in engaged usership.
- hiram112 9y ago
  It's strange, but I've never considered Reddit a cesspoll. The fact of the matter - and this is why Reddit is successful - is that it has lots of unique subs and a pretty decent voting system which pushes trolls to the bottom, often collapsed. But if I want to really see what these people are writing, I am free to browse any sub, sort by controversial, and expand the collapsed threads. Win - Win. Hacker News, OTOH, just seems to 'disappear' wrong-think. There's a big difference.
  - fhood 9y ago
    Sure, but you used to be able to just browse the front page. Try looking at the reddit frontpage from five years ago and comparing it to right now. And yeah, there are good subreddits but not very many of them are highly active.
    - hiram112 9y ago
      Can you clarify? I tend to use mobile and I have a /r/all (which I never use) and which is the Reddit's defaulted top subs, but I can browse my own 'front page' which seems to be a nice mix of my subscribed subs and popular posts. It's a decent compromise.
- grandalf 9y ago
  > First off, the first amendment is specifically with respect to congress, and I don't understand why I have to say this so often. Obviously. I'm referring to the general values that led to the US having protections on free speech. > society has always been self censoring You are seemingly idealizing the process by which social shaming encourages conformity. > the internet has thrown a wrench into that by allowing people to escape into pockets of like minded individuals. So you either have an idealistic view of an ideologically homogeneous society, or you think that the internet making economies of scale possible for non-mainstream beliefs is broadly a bad thing, regardless of what those beliefs are. > And you might have noticed that hacker news is fairly heavily censored I have, and in most cases (other than explicit griefing or bullying) I think this is quite harmful to HN. The content discussed on HN is simply not interesting to most people, which is why HN has survived. It's easy to suffer from hindsight bias and determine that since HN has aggressive moderation HN is better that it would otherwise be. Someone recently did a study of title edits and found that articles typically drop precipitously after the editors meddle with the title. This is typically because the author's title fails to communicate why the article is interesting to HN readers, while the user-submitted title often does (when they differ). Worse, the study showed that mods actively bury specific discussions from the site. We really don't know what we're missing due to this, but chances are it's political. This very discussion (critical of social media companies) is of high risk for being censored simply because the main reason for HN article burying is that the article triggers comments that are viewed as overly political in nature. This view (that political discussion is harmful) is dangerous and naive (and dangerously naive) because it assumes that HN readers are incapable of acting both as techies and as citizens simultaneously, and that with political beliefs nobody will ever change his/her mind based on the merits of someone else's argument. I enjoy HN discussions precisely because I learn a lot. What I learn is not linked to the topic, or to the political nature (or lack of it) of the discussion. > has managed to avoid turning into a cesspool like much of reddit. I think the biggest cespool in reddit is /r/gifs and similar fluff that is used by spam marketers to get their content viral. Yes there are things about donald and other obscure and idiotic groups that I've found at random now and then when clicking on the random subreddit button, those are easily ignored. In fact, the only reason a normal reddit user encounters the morons is because /r/gifs (or similar) are among the default subreddits subscribed to automatically for new accounts, casting a wide net but drastically lowering the bar of discussion. Gifs are not posted to HN because the community has no interest in that rubbish or any of the similar rubbish it attracts. Reddit would not have a problem if it were not so focused on creating a mass market for ad sales rather than just letting people associate with people they wish to associate with and easily block the bad apples or griefers.
- aeorgnoieang 9y ago
  > First off, the first amendment is specifically with respect to congress, and I don't understand why I have to say this so often. It's also been 'incorporated' against the states (and their sub-governments like municipalities). But free speech, as a political value, isn't restricted to the U.S. Congress. That may be why you keep repeating something that's mostly irrelevant. Wanting to "escape into pockets of like minded individuals" is pretty much what Reddit is. I can sympathize with the idea that Reddit, or similar sites, should host anything, as long as it's restricted to 'pockets' that accept it. A lot of the worst behavior is basically people from one pocket invading other pockets and posting unacceptable content. I think it'd be great if Reddit provided (more) effective tools for the mods to police that.
  - fhood 9y ago
    About the free speech thing, people should say free speech when they mean free speech and not the first amendment. The first amendment is a specific thing with a specific meaning, and invoking it implies the weight of law. Facebook can censor speech without breaking the law. They might be violating the principle of free speech, but not the first amendment. I agree with you about reddit.
    - aeorgnoieang 9y ago
      > About the free speech thing, people should say free speech when they mean free speech and not the first amendment. My bad – I didn't even notice the comment to which you were replying had done this! We might be disappointed tho in so far as "first amendment" comes to mean 'free speech' to too many people. I mourn the loss of precision, and I'm a little afraid of people conflating the two ideas too.
      - grandalf 9y ago
        OK so I was on my phone trying to hastily type out a comment and I got sloppy. I think the intent was still abundantly clear, even though the loss of precision in my choice of words is unfortunate.
- stale2002 9y ago
  I don't see the words "first amendment" anywhere in his post, so I have no idea why you are bringing up a completely irrelevant topic. He was talking about censorship done by powerful organizations. Literally nothing to do with the constitution of the USA.
  - fhood 9y ago
    > Social media firms are thus following in the path of other media firms and are (like The NY Times) putting ad revenue ahead of the first amendment. This isn’t unexpected, these firms are the “tories” of our day.
justaman 9y ago
Kaepernick doesnt have a job because he won like one game in his last season added to the fact that people want to watch sports for the same reason people do anything in leisure, to escape the troubles of the world(politics). He was a slower R Wilson, a smaller C Newton, and a less accurate D Brees. Marshawn Lynch has never stood for the national anthem. Not once; even before Kaepernick. He still has a job because he is a great player.
- creaghpatr 9y ago
  And Lynch is still relatively well-liked despite this particular action because his public appearances are funny and self-aware (see his commercials), in addition to owning a super bowl ring. Kaepernick is a whiner.

fhood 9y ago

First off, the first amendment is specifically with respect to congress, and I don't understand why I have to say this so often. Second, society has always been self censoring, but the internet has thrown a wrench into that by allowing people to escape into pockets of like minded individuals. And you might have noticed that hacker news is fairly heavily censored, and as a result has managed to avoid turning into a cesspool like much of reddit. I think that reddit is worried about advertising, yes, but I also think they are concerned about a decline in engaged usership.

hiram112 9y ago
It's strange, but I've never considered Reddit a cesspoll. The fact of the matter - and this is why Reddit is successful - is that it has lots of unique subs and a pretty decent voting system which pushes trolls to the bottom, often collapsed. But if I want to really see what these people are writing, I am free to browse any sub, sort by controversial, and expand the collapsed threads. Win - Win. Hacker News, OTOH, just seems to 'disappear' wrong-think. There's a big difference.
- fhood 9y ago
  Sure, but you used to be able to just browse the front page. Try looking at the reddit frontpage from five years ago and comparing it to right now. And yeah, there are good subreddits but not very many of them are highly active.
  - hiram112 9y ago
    Can you clarify? I tend to use mobile and I have a /r/all (which I never use) and which is the Reddit's defaulted top subs, but I can browse my own 'front page' which seems to be a nice mix of my subscribed subs and popular posts. It's a decent compromise.
grandalf 9y ago
> First off, the first amendment is specifically with respect to congress, and I don't understand why I have to say this so often. Obviously. I'm referring to the general values that led to the US having protections on free speech. > society has always been self censoring You are seemingly idealizing the process by which social shaming encourages conformity. > the internet has thrown a wrench into that by allowing people to escape into pockets of like minded individuals. So you either have an idealistic view of an ideologically homogeneous society, or you think that the internet making economies of scale possible for non-mainstream beliefs is broadly a bad thing, regardless of what those beliefs are. > And you might have noticed that hacker news is fairly heavily censored I have, and in most cases (other than explicit griefing or bullying) I think this is quite harmful to HN. The content discussed on HN is simply not interesting to most people, which is why HN has survived. It's easy to suffer from hindsight bias and determine that since HN has aggressive moderation HN is better that it would otherwise be. Someone recently did a study of title edits and found that articles typically drop precipitously after the editors meddle with the title. This is typically because the author's title fails to communicate why the article is interesting to HN readers, while the user-submitted title often does (when they differ). Worse, the study showed that mods actively bury specific discussions from the site. We really don't know what we're missing due to this, but chances are it's political. This very discussion (critical of social media companies) is of high risk for being censored simply because the main reason for HN article burying is that the article triggers comments that are viewed as overly political in nature. This view (that political discussion is harmful) is dangerous and naive (and dangerously naive) because it assumes that HN readers are incapable of acting both as techies and as citizens simultaneously, and that with political beliefs nobody will ever change his/her mind based on the merits of someone else's argument. I enjoy HN discussions precisely because I learn a lot. What I learn is not linked to the topic, or to the political nature (or lack of it) of the discussion. > has managed to avoid turning into a cesspool like much of reddit. I think the biggest cespool in reddit is /r/gifs and similar fluff that is used by spam marketers to get their content viral. Yes there are things about donald and other obscure and idiotic groups that I've found at random now and then when clicking on the random subreddit button, those are easily ignored. In fact, the only reason a normal reddit user encounters the morons is because /r/gifs (or similar) are among the default subreddits subscribed to automatically for new accounts, casting a wide net but drastically lowering the bar of discussion. Gifs are not posted to HN because the community has no interest in that rubbish or any of the similar rubbish it attracts. Reddit would not have a problem if it were not so focused on creating a mass market for ad sales rather than just letting people associate with people they wish to associate with and easily block the bad apples or griefers.
aeorgnoieang 9y ago
> First off, the first amendment is specifically with respect to congress, and I don't understand why I have to say this so often. It's also been 'incorporated' against the states (and their sub-governments like municipalities). But free speech, as a political value, isn't restricted to the U.S. Congress. That may be why you keep repeating something that's mostly irrelevant. Wanting to "escape into pockets of like minded individuals" is pretty much what Reddit is. I can sympathize with the idea that Reddit, or similar sites, should host anything, as long as it's restricted to 'pockets' that accept it. A lot of the worst behavior is basically people from one pocket invading other pockets and posting unacceptable content. I think it'd be great if Reddit provided (more) effective tools for the mods to police that.
- fhood 9y ago
  About the free speech thing, people should say free speech when they mean free speech and not the first amendment. The first amendment is a specific thing with a specific meaning, and invoking it implies the weight of law. Facebook can censor speech without breaking the law. They might be violating the principle of free speech, but not the first amendment. I agree with you about reddit.
  - aeorgnoieang 9y ago
    > About the free speech thing, people should say free speech when they mean free speech and not the first amendment. My bad – I didn't even notice the comment to which you were replying had done this! We might be disappointed tho in so far as "first amendment" comes to mean 'free speech' to too many people. I mourn the loss of precision, and I'm a little afraid of people conflating the two ideas too.
    - grandalf 9y ago
      OK so I was on my phone trying to hastily type out a comment and I got sloppy. I think the intent was still abundantly clear, even though the loss of precision in my choice of words is unfortunate.
stale2002 9y ago
I don't see the words "first amendment" anywhere in his post, so I have no idea why you are bringing up a completely irrelevant topic. He was talking about censorship done by powerful organizations. Literally nothing to do with the constitution of the USA.
- fhood 9y ago
  > Social media firms are thus following in the path of other media firms and are (like The NY Times) putting ad revenue ahead of the first amendment. This isn’t unexpected, these firms are the “tories” of our day.

justaman 9y ago

Kaepernick doesnt have a job because he won like one game in his last season added to the fact that people want to watch sports for the same reason people do anything in leisure, to escape the troubles of the world(politics). He was a slower R Wilson, a smaller C Newton, and a less accurate D Brees. Marshawn Lynch has never stood for the national anthem. Not once; even before Kaepernick. He still has a job because he is a great player.

creaghpatr 9y ago
And Lynch is still relatively well-liked despite this particular action because his public appearances are funny and self-aware (see his commercials), in addition to owning a super bowl ring. Kaepernick is a whiner.