3 ms·

Oh, you're right. I forgot that they moderate things that are illegal in nature. But it's still the bare minimum.

jstanley 9y ago
You sound like you want them to do more moderation? It amazes me that we've reached the point where there are commenters on Hacker News arguing in favour of online censorship.
- QAPereo 9y ago
  We can’t all be ideologically motivated to the point of societal suicide.
  - jstanley 9y ago
    Censoring content you disagree with is societal suicide.
    - aphextron 9y ago
      >Censoring content you disagree with is societal suicide. There's a big difference between censoring truths you don't agree with, and just moderating verifiable outright lies. The problem is that most people are decent human beings, and find it impossible to believe that someone would write something on the internet that is just a completely fabricated lie. Fake news hucksters take advantage of this psychological "hack" and exploit it, which should not be allowed to happen.
      - jpalomaki 9y ago
        One trouble is that it's much faster to create fake news than to shoot them down with evidence. And as we have seen (for example with conspiracy theories), some people refuse to believe no matter how much facts you try to throw at them. With centralized platforms we might be able to still block the fake stuff and discredit people who post junk, but in decentralized world this will be impossible. People choose who they follow and to which fact checking service (if any) they subscribe.
- alsetmusic 9y ago
  > You sound like you want them to do more moderation? > It amazes me that we've reached the point where there are commenters on Hacker News arguing in favour of online censorship. Moderation includes improving links (such as changing the primary link from a PR note to an actual research paper), improving titles (to reflect what is actually said in an article without unrelated hyperbole from a submitter), or even just adding the year of publishing for older articles in parentheses. I’m just providing examples that few would debate as censorship. There are certainly others. I absolutely support constructive moderation.
- fragsworth 9y ago
  But many people on Hacker News don't use Facebook. Don't you wonder why that is? I'm not really sure that removing blatantly false nonsense would be considered "censorship". It's more about improving the quality of the site, and filtering things that are obviously wrong.
- pavel_lishin 9y ago
  > It amazes me that we've reached the point where there are commenters on Hacker News arguing in favour of online censorship. Why? Do you think that HN is a moderation-free bastion of unfiltered speech?
  - jstanley 9y ago
    Sorry, I emphasised HN because I perceive it to be a place where "enlightened people" (in a non-sarcastic sense) tend to hang out. And therefore, of all the discussion forums I can think of, HN is the one that is most likely to have a view on censorship that prefers freedom of speech rather than suppression of wrong-thinking.
    - BugsJustFindMe 9y ago
      > And therefore, of all the discussion forums I can think of, HN is the one that is most likely to have a view on censorship that prefers freedom of speech rather than suppression of wrong-thinking. You appear to be suffering from the misapprehension that "freedom of speech" means "the HN community should tolerate bullshit" rather than "you can't be put in jail for bullshit". The difference is extremely important to many of us.
      - jstanley 9y ago
        I wasn't talking about moderation on HN at all. I was talking about moderation on Facebook.
        BugsJustFindMe 9y ago
        > I wasn't talking about moderation on HN at all. I was talking about moderation on Facebook. So was I. But you're talking about the people here. I don't see why you think it matters where scam blocking happens. So far in these comments you seem to be saying that scamming needs to be defended as a practice. That's a hugely psychopathic position, so I hope the interpretation is wrong. But when you use the phrase "freedom of speech" against moderation of fake news, which are scams perpetrated on the vulnerable public, not a synonym for "news you don't want to hear", it becomes hard to interpret otherwise. I think that most people here would probably say that Facebook isn't a place where social responsibility should vanish, and part of responsibility, part of having a conscience, is protecting people, both individually and collectively, from scammers. Because Facebook is not a copper wire. Facebook is an interconnected network of its participant members, just like HN.
- grzm 9y ago
  Would you clarify what you mean by online censorship? Do you believe that there should be no changing or altering content at all? That people should be able to post whatever they want wherever they want? Are there any limits that are reasonable in your opinion?
  - jstanley 9y ago
    Facebook is trying to be the only place people communicate. It's just as unacceptable for Facebook to be removing or hiding information as it is for the email protocols to be removing or hiding information. If people don't want to look at something, they can unfriend the person posting it. So, yes, I believe there should be no changing or altering content at all. I believe Facebook should act like a dumb utility instead of trying to impose themselves as a moderator over people's private lives.
    - grzm 9y ago
      Only on Facebook? Or anywhere? No limits on posting illegal material?
      - jstanley 9y ago
        There should be no limits on anywhere that is trying to be a general-purpose communications utility. I'm fine with people, for example, deleting trolling from the comments on their personal blog or whatever. FTP doesn't care if you're transferring "illegal material". Neither does TCP, neither does HTTP, neither does email. Why should Facebook be different just because it's implemented as a corporation instead of a protocol?
        grzm 9y ago
        While a protocol may not care, jurisdictions do have a say as to what is transmitted over them. A mailbox doesn't care what's put into it, but it's illegal to send a bomb throw the mail. I think your argument with respect to Facebook attempting to be a utility is interesting, but I'm not sure how true it is, and whether that actually implies no restrictions. Utilities are generally subject to regulation. Edit to add: One can discuss what form that regulation should take and what it's limits should be, but that's different from saying there should be no limits.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

You sound like you want them to do more moderation? It amazes me that we've reached the point where there are commenters on Hacker News arguing in favour of online censorship.

QAPereo 9y ago
We can’t all be ideologically motivated to the point of societal suicide.
- jstanley 9y ago
  Censoring content you disagree with is societal suicide.
  - aphextron 9y ago
    >Censoring content you disagree with is societal suicide. There's a big difference between censoring truths you don't agree with, and just moderating verifiable outright lies. The problem is that most people are decent human beings, and find it impossible to believe that someone would write something on the internet that is just a completely fabricated lie. Fake news hucksters take advantage of this psychological "hack" and exploit it, which should not be allowed to happen.
    - jpalomaki 9y ago
      One trouble is that it's much faster to create fake news than to shoot them down with evidence. And as we have seen (for example with conspiracy theories), some people refuse to believe no matter how much facts you try to throw at them. With centralized platforms we might be able to still block the fake stuff and discredit people who post junk, but in decentralized world this will be impossible. People choose who they follow and to which fact checking service (if any) they subscribe.
alsetmusic 9y ago
> You sound like you want them to do more moderation? > It amazes me that we've reached the point where there are commenters on Hacker News arguing in favour of online censorship. Moderation includes improving links (such as changing the primary link from a PR note to an actual research paper), improving titles (to reflect what is actually said in an article without unrelated hyperbole from a submitter), or even just adding the year of publishing for older articles in parentheses. I’m just providing examples that few would debate as censorship. There are certainly others. I absolutely support constructive moderation.
fragsworth 9y ago
But many people on Hacker News don't use Facebook. Don't you wonder why that is? I'm not really sure that removing blatantly false nonsense would be considered "censorship". It's more about improving the quality of the site, and filtering things that are obviously wrong.
pavel_lishin 9y ago
> It amazes me that we've reached the point where there are commenters on Hacker News arguing in favour of online censorship. Why? Do you think that HN is a moderation-free bastion of unfiltered speech?
- jstanley 9y ago
  Sorry, I emphasised HN because I perceive it to be a place where "enlightened people" (in a non-sarcastic sense) tend to hang out. And therefore, of all the discussion forums I can think of, HN is the one that is most likely to have a view on censorship that prefers freedom of speech rather than suppression of wrong-thinking.
  - BugsJustFindMe 9y ago
    > And therefore, of all the discussion forums I can think of, HN is the one that is most likely to have a view on censorship that prefers freedom of speech rather than suppression of wrong-thinking. You appear to be suffering from the misapprehension that "freedom of speech" means "the HN community should tolerate bullshit" rather than "you can't be put in jail for bullshit". The difference is extremely important to many of us.
    - jstanley 9y ago
      I wasn't talking about moderation on HN at all. I was talking about moderation on Facebook.
      - BugsJustFindMe 9y ago
        > I wasn't talking about moderation on HN at all. I was talking about moderation on Facebook. So was I. But you're talking about the people here. I don't see why you think it matters where scam blocking happens. So far in these comments you seem to be saying that scamming needs to be defended as a practice. That's a hugely psychopathic position, so I hope the interpretation is wrong. But when you use the phrase "freedom of speech" against moderation of fake news, which are scams perpetrated on the vulnerable public, not a synonym for "news you don't want to hear", it becomes hard to interpret otherwise. I think that most people here would probably say that Facebook isn't a place where social responsibility should vanish, and part of responsibility, part of having a conscience, is protecting people, both individually and collectively, from scammers. Because Facebook is not a copper wire. Facebook is an interconnected network of its participant members, just like HN.
grzm 9y ago
Would you clarify what you mean by online censorship? Do you believe that there should be no changing or altering content at all? That people should be able to post whatever they want wherever they want? Are there any limits that are reasonable in your opinion?
- jstanley 9y ago
  Facebook is trying to be the only place people communicate. It's just as unacceptable for Facebook to be removing or hiding information as it is for the email protocols to be removing or hiding information. If people don't want to look at something, they can unfriend the person posting it. So, yes, I believe there should be no changing or altering content at all. I believe Facebook should act like a dumb utility instead of trying to impose themselves as a moderator over people's private lives.
  - grzm 9y ago
    Only on Facebook? Or anywhere? No limits on posting illegal material?
    - jstanley 9y ago
      There should be no limits on anywhere that is trying to be a general-purpose communications utility. I'm fine with people, for example, deleting trolling from the comments on their personal blog or whatever. FTP doesn't care if you're transferring "illegal material". Neither does TCP, neither does HTTP, neither does email. Why should Facebook be different just because it's implemented as a corporation instead of a protocol?
      - grzm 9y ago
        While a protocol may not care, jurisdictions do have a say as to what is transmitted over them. A mailbox doesn't care what's put into it, but it's illegal to send a bomb throw the mail. I think your argument with respect to Facebook attempting to be a utility is interesting, but I'm not sure how true it is, and whether that actually implies no restrictions. Utilities are generally subject to regulation. Edit to add: One can discuss what form that regulation should take and what it's limits should be, but that's different from saying there should be no limits.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]