9 ms·

> You are trading freedom for convenience and access to an audience. While this is certainly true, the understanding of platforms like Medium had been that the

> You are trading freedom for convenience and access to an audience. While this is certainly true, the understanding of platforms like Medium had been that they will not censor people for ideological reasons, or will do so only if the content is clearly illegal or disturbing. If they will freely censor people, there's not much point of their existence.

matte_black 9y ago
There is a point for the vast majority of people who are unlikely to be censored. Don’t be a fatalist.
- RyanZAG 9y ago
  Something can be both bad (in a moral sense) and useful. In fact, most bad things are useful.
  - matte_black 9y ago
    But certainly even a bad thing can have a point to it’s existence.
srslack 9y ago
>the understanding of platforms like Medium had been that they will not censor people for ideological reasons They threw out their integrity as a publishing platform when they updated their ToS a month ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16431403 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16431403 Indeed, there is not much of a point to their existence when they throw this away, other than being a virtue signalling magazine with unpaid authors that doesn't even follow their own vague ToS. This week has been horrible for speech and freedom on the web. But surely a much needed reminder that suppressing speech does not work. The remedy is more speech, not less: http://prospect.org/article/remedy-more-speech http://prospect.org/article/remedy-more-speech Without holding this uncompromising stance, I'm of the opinion that one cannot call themselves a liberal, in a liberal democracy. It is the cornerstone of a functioning, modern liberal democracy, and the recent trend of this self-censorship by big technology companies is worrying.
- pjc50 9y ago
  > more speech, not less When speech can be automated, this turns into a question of who has the largest promotional bot army. True speech can be drowned out with an infinite array of conflicting lies.
  - Zak 9y ago
    Suppressing an automated service disruption or preventing the spread of spam is different from policing content on topical or ideological grounds. Looking at reddit as an example, I don't like where this is headed. First they came for pedos and creepers, and I said nothing because ewww. Then they came for assholes and trolls, and I said nothing because good riddance. Now they've come for gun coupons, and I don't want to flee to Voat because it's dominated by assholes and trolls.
    - intopieces 9y ago
      >I don't want to flee to Voat because it's dominated by assholes and trolls. It’s exactly this sentiment that prompts services like Reddit to censor. They need users; it’s no use being a bastion of free speech if you are hemorrhaging ad dollars because assholes and trolls ruin your platform.
      - Zak 9y ago
        Indeed, but now they've moved beyond that. While the latest round of content restrictions seem to be motivated by FOSTA, they go significantly beyond what is necessary to avoid liability.
      - otakucode 9y ago
        That's always struck me as weird. Do you avoid using a telephone because pedophiles and terrorists use them? Of course not. It's a part of infrastructure that facilitates communication, nothing more. If you go to Reddit and hang out on r/python or something you're not going to accidentally slip, trip, and fall right into r/the_donald or something. I just think modern people have this feeling that if we can reach out and screw with other people not by talking to them but through underhanded technological means, we should do so. Which seems a basic social/philosophical problem that technology has no real capacity to address.
ebbv 9y ago
Assuming a site like Medium is going to stand for freedom of speech is foolish. Of course they aren’t. They are for profit. This silly mindset is way too common. Don’t trust for profit companies like Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, etc to be bastions of freedom of speech. They will do whatever is best for their shareholders. Protecting freedom is why we need to keep it feasible and affordable to be able to host your own site.

matte_black 9y ago

There is a point for the vast majority of people who are unlikely to be censored. Don’t be a fatalist.

RyanZAG 9y ago
Something can be both bad (in a moral sense) and useful. In fact, most bad things are useful.
- matte_black 9y ago
  But certainly even a bad thing can have a point to it’s existence.

srslack 9y ago

>the understanding of platforms like Medium had been that they will not censor people for ideological reasons They threw out their integrity as a publishing platform when they updated their ToS a month ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16431403 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16431403 Indeed, there is not much of a point to their existence when they throw this away, other than being a virtue signalling magazine with unpaid authors that doesn't even follow their own vague ToS. This week has been horrible for speech and freedom on the web. But surely a much needed reminder that suppressing speech does not work. The remedy is more speech, not less: http://prospect.org/article/remedy-more-speech http://prospect.org/article/remedy-more-speech Without holding this uncompromising stance, I'm of the opinion that one cannot call themselves a liberal, in a liberal democracy. It is the cornerstone of a functioning, modern liberal democracy, and the recent trend of this self-censorship by big technology companies is worrying.

pjc50 9y ago
> more speech, not less When speech can be automated, this turns into a question of who has the largest promotional bot army. True speech can be drowned out with an infinite array of conflicting lies.
- Zak 9y ago
  Suppressing an automated service disruption or preventing the spread of spam is different from policing content on topical or ideological grounds. Looking at reddit as an example, I don't like where this is headed. First they came for pedos and creepers, and I said nothing because ewww. Then they came for assholes and trolls, and I said nothing because good riddance. Now they've come for gun coupons, and I don't want to flee to Voat because it's dominated by assholes and trolls.
  - intopieces 9y ago
    >I don't want to flee to Voat because it's dominated by assholes and trolls. It’s exactly this sentiment that prompts services like Reddit to censor. They need users; it’s no use being a bastion of free speech if you are hemorrhaging ad dollars because assholes and trolls ruin your platform.
    - Zak 9y ago
      Indeed, but now they've moved beyond that. While the latest round of content restrictions seem to be motivated by FOSTA, they go significantly beyond what is necessary to avoid liability.
    - otakucode 9y ago
      That's always struck me as weird. Do you avoid using a telephone because pedophiles and terrorists use them? Of course not. It's a part of infrastructure that facilitates communication, nothing more. If you go to Reddit and hang out on r/python or something you're not going to accidentally slip, trip, and fall right into r/the_donald or something. I just think modern people have this feeling that if we can reach out and screw with other people not by talking to them but through underhanded technological means, we should do so. Which seems a basic social/philosophical problem that technology has no real capacity to address.

ebbv 9y ago

Assuming a site like Medium is going to stand for freedom of speech is foolish. Of course they aren’t. They are for profit. This silly mindset is way too common. Don’t trust for profit companies like Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, etc to be bastions of freedom of speech. They will do whatever is best for their shareholders. Protecting freedom is why we need to keep it feasible and affordable to be able to host your own site.