5 ms·

I'll say this again: We, as a society, across multiple governments and now the UN, with ample public support, are dragging Google and Facebook into the role of

I'll say this again: We, as a society, across multiple governments and now the UN, with ample public support, are dragging Google and Facebook into the role of judge and jury of what is or isn't acceptable speech. They may well eventually settle into that role, and come to like it. I understand that the volume of information grew much faster than the traditional legal avenues for taking down illegal speech. And we're scrambling for a quick fix. But this fix may prove worse in the long run than the problem it fixes. These organizations may be relatively enlightened today, but there's no guarantee they'll continue to be 30 years from now.

thisisit 9y ago
> are dragging Google and Facebook into the role of judge and jury of what is or isn't acceptable speech. I couldn't have said any better. Later people might have an issue on why a "public" company is now moderating free speech.
- ChrisSD 9y ago
  Eh? "Public" companies have always moderated speech. I can't think of a time when they haven't. Even if you restrict that to internet companies then even Facebook already does moderation (although it seems wildly inconsistent). Heck 4chan has some moderation albeit of a very limited kind.
- ehnto 9y ago
  Any successfully productive and civil online community has in my experience been community moderated. If you want to participate then you follow some simple guidlines and contribute in a positive way, which can include differences of opinion. All of the platforms failing to provide productive and civil discourse are those that have no community moderation, or worse, are just personal soapboxes with an effortless virtue signal button. I think the platforms are broken by design, and humanity figured out a long time ago that there are limits to uncivil discourse and you need to recognise them. The great thing about the internet is if you feel passionate enough about your idea, you have probably thought hard about it and you can go make your own community. The issue with effortless virtue signalling and the no-consequences soapbox is that you don't have to think that hard about something so long as it sounds like it's up your alley, and you can be led very far astray before realising you're in a toxic conversation, potentially one with a subtext you didn't recognise.
  - thisisit 9y ago
    The no-consequences soapbox has existed for a long time even before Facebook. In South Asia there has been a history of people spreading false information via SMS and MMS too. Here's one recent malicious campaign, if not exactly a toxic one, from last year November in Sri Lanka: http://www.ceylontoday.lk/print20170401CT20170630.php?id=34536 http://www.ceylontoday.lk/print20170401CT20170630.php?id=345... A malicious and scurrilous countrywide sms (short messaging service) campaign over mobile phones, by unknown unruly elements, led to panic buying of both petrol and diesel and long queues in the Kandy District last night.
gaius 9y ago
No, we are saying that social media shouldn’t get “common carrier” status, which isn’t quite the same thing
- emiliobumachar 9y ago
  Could you please elaborate? What's the difference between "they're responsible for what they host" and "they should decide what people can or can't say on their platform"? (Or, if I misunderstood, what are you calling "not quite the same thing"?)
  - gaius 9y ago
    Facebook et al want to control what content is published on their platforms when it suits them, but also want to hide behind common carrier status to evade responsibility. Having their cake and eating it. Or privatising profits while socialising losses, is another way to look at it.
singularity2001 9y ago
they should NOT moderate discussions themselves but they should offer mechanisms for people to flag and downvote, and reflect the dissent in the visualisation of posts. (possibly even with automatic educational links about values) Actually I hate how flagged HN items completely disappear. Graying out should be enough here.
- maxwell 9y ago
  Set showdead to true? I almost forgot that was a setting, must have been ten years since I changed it. Looks like you've been here a decade too though (as of yesterday! (didn't realize they changed days to date joined on here...))
- mikepurvis 9y ago
  I dunno. I mean yes in theory, but we don't need the theory, this has been tried multiple times and there two basic ways that it ends up: - Factual correctness and overall decency loses out to popularity— making a funny, low-effort post will in many communities get you a lot more magical internet approval points than doing the work of engaging with an issue, seeking alternative sources, etc. Yes, there are counter-examples of this, but the long term trend is always toward a low quality of dialogue. - At a certain scale, posts are simply concealed from a user who is likely to disagree with them— basically pre-moderation. Being challenged on a viewpoint requires energy, and people don't like to do work.
- lostmsu 9y ago
  Flagged items disappear for a reason: to not give free rank to shitty articles.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> We, as a society, across multiple governments and now the UN, with ample public support, are dragging Google and Facebook into the role of judge and jury of what is or isn't acceptable speech Is anybody seriously advocating self regulation? When this comes up in my New York political circles, talked-about solutions have been bouncing between regulation by an independent commission and by a department under the Attorney General.
- emiliobumachar 9y ago
  When FB and Google don't moderate enough, they're publicly criticized by authority figures, wide news coverage, demanded to respond, occasionally threatened to be brought in line. On this occasion, they're implied to be complicit with genocide. When they moderate too much, we all shrug, less coverage, growing pains, cannot be expected to be perfect all the time, it's-their-platform-they-have-the-right. That incentivizes them to moderate more, always more.
notahacker 9y ago
Facebook dragged themselves into that role when they decided to filter their newsfeed to promote the material which provoked the most reaction, and made a point of policing stuff they did care about, like pseudonyms and mild nudity.
mrtksn 9y ago
It's not about volume or anything like that, the problem is that Facebook is a digital simulation of the social networks with all the stimulants being multiplied and all the safeguards dumbed down. On a real-life social network, there are safeguards that prevent blatant lies and angry-mob-like behavior to be contained. In real life, you have only one persona and when you misbehave you're risking exclusion and loneliness but on Facebook, that's not the case, a person with an agenda can do very bad things without the consequences. Another case in a real-life social network it would be very hard for a state to shape society, on Facebook that's almost the business model and it's done on scale. I'm' personally quite pessimistic about the long-term feature of these social network giants because I believe that their modus operandi will eventually create enough trouble that every country will follow the Chinese route of control.
- pjc50 9y ago
  > On a real-life social network, there are safeguards that prevent blatant lies and angry-mob-like behavior to be contained Sadly, no. It just lacks "reach". It's harder to meet up with like-minded sociopaths and get a good angry mob going when every meeting has to be in person and every lie must be repeated verbally, but it's still very possible.
  - mrtksn 9y ago
    Actually, the place to find like-minded sociopaths is probably Reddit. The place to explore the boundaries of sociopathy is probably 4chan(which is something that I respect to some degree). Facebook is more about shaping non-sociopathic people using corporate tools and money. What Cambridge Analytica did with Facebook is outstanding, they successfully managed to change Europe and America forever. Sociopaths gathering on Reddit or 4chan are benign compared to the corporate influence of Facebook. The potential destruction of businesses(like UK's financial sector), the lives and careers of expats, the fate of dictators(the Arab spring) and democracies(USA, France) were all determined by the power of giant social media corporations. The harm of occasional mobs on Reddit or 4Chan doesn't extend beyond few individuals.
- emiliobumachar 9y ago

thisisit 9y ago

> are dragging Google and Facebook into the role of judge and jury of what is or isn't acceptable speech. I couldn't have said any better. Later people might have an issue on why a "public" company is now moderating free speech.

ChrisSD 9y ago
Eh? "Public" companies have always moderated speech. I can't think of a time when they haven't. Even if you restrict that to internet companies then even Facebook already does moderation (although it seems wildly inconsistent). Heck 4chan has some moderation albeit of a very limited kind.
ehnto 9y ago
Any successfully productive and civil online community has in my experience been community moderated. If you want to participate then you follow some simple guidlines and contribute in a positive way, which can include differences of opinion. All of the platforms failing to provide productive and civil discourse are those that have no community moderation, or worse, are just personal soapboxes with an effortless virtue signal button. I think the platforms are broken by design, and humanity figured out a long time ago that there are limits to uncivil discourse and you need to recognise them. The great thing about the internet is if you feel passionate enough about your idea, you have probably thought hard about it and you can go make your own community. The issue with effortless virtue signalling and the no-consequences soapbox is that you don't have to think that hard about something so long as it sounds like it's up your alley, and you can be led very far astray before realising you're in a toxic conversation, potentially one with a subtext you didn't recognise.
- thisisit 9y ago
  The no-consequences soapbox has existed for a long time even before Facebook. In South Asia there has been a history of people spreading false information via SMS and MMS too. Here's one recent malicious campaign, if not exactly a toxic one, from last year November in Sri Lanka: http://www.ceylontoday.lk/print20170401CT20170630.php?id=34536 http://www.ceylontoday.lk/print20170401CT20170630.php?id=345... A malicious and scurrilous countrywide sms (short messaging service) campaign over mobile phones, by unknown unruly elements, led to panic buying of both petrol and diesel and long queues in the Kandy District last night.

gaius 9y ago

No, we are saying that social media shouldn’t get “common carrier” status, which isn’t quite the same thing

emiliobumachar 9y ago
Could you please elaborate? What's the difference between "they're responsible for what they host" and "they should decide what people can or can't say on their platform"? (Or, if I misunderstood, what are you calling "not quite the same thing"?)
- gaius 9y ago
  Facebook et al want to control what content is published on their platforms when it suits them, but also want to hide behind common carrier status to evade responsibility. Having their cake and eating it. Or privatising profits while socialising losses, is another way to look at it.

singularity2001 9y ago

they should NOT moderate discussions themselves but they should offer mechanisms for people to flag and downvote, and reflect the dissent in the visualisation of posts. (possibly even with automatic educational links about values) Actually I hate how flagged HN items completely disappear. Graying out should be enough here.

maxwell 9y ago
Set showdead to true? I almost forgot that was a setting, must have been ten years since I changed it. Looks like you've been here a decade too though (as of yesterday! (didn't realize they changed days to date joined on here...))
mikepurvis 9y ago
I dunno. I mean yes in theory, but we don't need the theory, this has been tried multiple times and there two basic ways that it ends up: - Factual correctness and overall decency loses out to popularity— making a funny, low-effort post will in many communities get you a lot more magical internet approval points than doing the work of engaging with an issue, seeking alternative sources, etc. Yes, there are counter-examples of this, but the long term trend is always toward a low quality of dialogue. - At a certain scale, posts are simply concealed from a user who is likely to disagree with them— basically pre-moderation. Being challenged on a viewpoint requires energy, and people don't like to do work.
lostmsu 9y ago
Flagged items disappear for a reason: to not give free rank to shitty articles.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> We, as a society, across multiple governments and now the UN, with ample public support, are dragging Google and Facebook into the role of judge and jury of what is or isn't acceptable speech Is anybody seriously advocating self regulation? When this comes up in my New York political circles, talked-about solutions have been bouncing between regulation by an independent commission and by a department under the Attorney General.

emiliobumachar 9y ago
When FB and Google don't moderate enough, they're publicly criticized by authority figures, wide news coverage, demanded to respond, occasionally threatened to be brought in line. On this occasion, they're implied to be complicit with genocide. When they moderate too much, we all shrug, less coverage, growing pains, cannot be expected to be perfect all the time, it's-their-platform-they-have-the-right. That incentivizes them to moderate more, always more.

notahacker 9y ago

Facebook dragged themselves into that role when they decided to filter their newsfeed to promote the material which provoked the most reaction, and made a point of policing stuff they did care about, like pseudonyms and mild nudity.

mrtksn 9y ago

It's not about volume or anything like that, the problem is that Facebook is a digital simulation of the social networks with all the stimulants being multiplied and all the safeguards dumbed down. On a real-life social network, there are safeguards that prevent blatant lies and angry-mob-like behavior to be contained. In real life, you have only one persona and when you misbehave you're risking exclusion and loneliness but on Facebook, that's not the case, a person with an agenda can do very bad things without the consequences. Another case in a real-life social network it would be very hard for a state to shape society, on Facebook that's almost the business model and it's done on scale. I'm' personally quite pessimistic about the long-term feature of these social network giants because I believe that their modus operandi will eventually create enough trouble that every country will follow the Chinese route of control.

pjc50 9y ago
> On a real-life social network, there are safeguards that prevent blatant lies and angry-mob-like behavior to be contained Sadly, no. It just lacks "reach". It's harder to meet up with like-minded sociopaths and get a good angry mob going when every meeting has to be in person and every lie must be repeated verbally, but it's still very possible.
- mrtksn 9y ago
  Actually, the place to find like-minded sociopaths is probably Reddit. The place to explore the boundaries of sociopathy is probably 4chan(which is something that I respect to some degree). Facebook is more about shaping non-sociopathic people using corporate tools and money. What Cambridge Analytica did with Facebook is outstanding, they successfully managed to change Europe and America forever. Sociopaths gathering on Reddit or 4chan are benign compared to the corporate influence of Facebook. The potential destruction of businesses(like UK's financial sector), the lives and careers of expats, the fate of dictators(the Arab spring) and democracies(USA, France) were all determined by the power of giant social media corporations. The harm of occasional mobs on Reddit or 4Chan doesn't extend beyond few individuals.
emiliobumachar 9y ago