10 ms·

I'm actually glad to see the conclusion. Everybody wants to censor what they don't like. There are people who believe free speech is not the ultimate value, b

I'm actually glad to see the conclusion. Everybody wants to censor what they don't like. There are people who believe free speech is not the ultimate value, but rather to protect people from 'harm'. In this case 'harm' being ideas they don't agree with. The best stance is not to take a side, but to make sure both sides are civil in the expression of their beliefs.

mc32 8y ago
>The best stance is not to take a side, but to make sure both sides are civil in the expression of their beliefs. I agree with that. It would help if these companies stopped seeking "virality" and "eyeballs" or whatever metaphor you want to use of user engagement and "notoriety/reward". Otherwise, this is exactly the same argument China's (or Russia's) censors would make. Absolutely not different in any way.
eksemplar 8y ago
What both sides though? The alt-right isn’t in opposition to anything mainstream, they are anti-democratic and should be treated the same way antifa, farc, isis and others are. Every time democracy fails to shut down movements like the alt-right, things end badly for democracy itself. The most used throve is stuff like nazism and fascism, but history actually have a lot of better examples. Because both Napoleon and Caesar effectively ended democracy with applause, unlike Hitler. I think it’s extremely dangerous to treat anti-democratic forces as equal to democratic ones. I’m a conservative by the way, so it’s not like I’m not conserved about the liberal bias in the tech sector. But the debates we have these days, about forcing platforms to include outright anti-democratic values is crazy.
- evilturnip 8y ago
  The problem is that then you have to decide what's 'anti-democratic'. You won't find 50 opinions that differ from your own. On top of that, it can then be used as justification to censor almost anything you don't like. Sure, right now you'll think there is a clear criteria. But in 25, 50, or 100 years from now, people could have easily twisted it to mean whatever they disagree with.
  - eksemplar 8y ago
    I don’t decide what’s anti-democratic though, we have guidelines for that provided by the United Nations. I mean, it’s been seen and done before throughout history, so it’s not exactly hard to spot. Attacking the free press is one criteria. Labeling everyone that disagrees with you the slightest as enemies, is another. I mean, assuming this leak is real, then googles stance on censoring is extremely centrists, letting them appease both sides of the political spectrum. But that’s not what breitbart or the alt-right really wants, they want google to only appease their radical views. Ironically, it’s a lot easier to get banned from alt-right forums than it is from YouTube. All you have to do, is disagree with whatever dogma they spin, because they aren’t even remotely interested in a democratic discourse. Of course, looking at history, no one have ever really stopped movements like the alt-right early enough to save their democracy. So America is probably rather doomed.
    - dmichulke 8y ago
      > Attacking the free press is one criteria. > Labeling everyone that disagrees with you the slightest as enemies, is another. You do realise that you're - attacking the free press by asking for censorship? - Sort of labelling other people that disagree with you (in this instance: disagree with democracy) as enemies (of democracy)? That's of course very inconsistent. But it also assumes that "the current form of democracy is the best we can ever have". Democracy needs criticism, especially since what we have is a 19th century system that assumes information dispersal and real-time voting is practically is impossible.
      - eksemplar 8y ago
        Well, yes. But I don’t think censoring the alt-right is problematic if they can’t stay within whatever policies companies set. You’re not denied access to a supermarket either, but if you start intentionally pissing in their floor, then you’d get thrown out. Of course I come from a region of the world, where people like the alt-right won, and eventually started putting centrists in prison camps.
        8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mellow-lake-day 8y ago
I'm speaking for myself here but I think the Russian bots as well as astroturfing bots need to be censored. And not censored by government regulation but by the terms of service. There are many "active measure" Russian bots active on twitter. Twitter doesn't seem concerned at all mostly because those Russian bots are padding their numbers same goes for FB and reddit.
- gnarbarian 8y ago
  That sounds all fine and well but half the time I utter a conservative opinion I'm accused of being a "russian bot".
  - devoply 8y ago
    Now the cat is out of the bag, freedom of speech is just a lofty ideal that only worked when all media was controlled by corporations that chose what people listened to most of the time. Now they are trying to put the cat back in the bag. Good for reiterating corporate control over thought and speech.
    - gnarbarian 8y ago
      Corporate and state control but I agree completely.
    - Udik 8y ago
      I agree, but I think there is also another effect at play here, which is the end of private circles where opinions can be exchanged "present company excluded". If you watch old tv, for example, you'll be appalled at the sort of things (harsh, elitist, dismissive of the general opinion) that could be said even in a broadcasted event- the audience was self-selected, recordings were rare and generally unavailable, few were reading any sort of newspaper. People were entitled to unpopular opinions because they had a limited circulation. But today, when everything is recorded, cut and pasted, infinitely available and replayable, every statement made in public must be crafted to be acceptable to absolutely any audience in any context and at any time. Those who contravene the rule are at terrible risk of having their public, work and private life destroyed by public uproar- effectively resulting in a strict censorship of opinions.
lgleason 8y ago
This 100000% over. Otherwise they are becoming the new kingmakers, manipulating people often without them even knowing. Incidentally there is a good documentary that is now on Amazon Prime called "The Creepy Line" that is worth watching.
psergeant 8y ago
> There are people who believe free speech is not the ultimate value A right to free speech is a recent, American-centric invention, rather than a natural cornerstone of democracy, a fact that often seems lost on Americans.
- hodgesrm 8y ago
  It seems many historians do not support your view. Notions of free speech date back to antiquity. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
- chrisco255 8y ago
  The enumeration of free speech as a natural right in a Constitution is an American invention, but the idea itself is much older than that. However, the freedom of speech and press is as important to free nations as an immune system is to a body...neither will lost long without it.
- muthdra 8y ago
  399BC Socrates speaks to jury at his trial: 'If you offered to let me off this time on condition I am not any longer to speak my mind... I should say to you, "Men of Athens, I shall obey the Gods rather than you."'
fzeroracer 8y ago
Just because a belief is civilly expressed does not make it less harmful. For example: people casually believing that the Sandy Hook shooting was a conspiracy drummed up by the government is actively harmful to the families affected by that tragedy. What do you say to those people? How do you solve that problem? And how do you define 'civil'? Because different platforms have different ranges of civility as well.
- evilturnip 8y ago
  There are thousands of conspiracies floating around. Should we consider them all harmful and ban them? Who decides when a conspiracy becomes harmful? Should we ban flat-earthers from posting their views? After all, if everyone believed it, we would set science back countless centuries. The way to combat false ideas is with truth; a culture that is always searching for the truth. That can only be facilitated by unhindered speech.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    Do you consider American culture to be one of the more free ones? If so, then why do these conspiracies exist? Why have flat-earth conspiracies and anti-scientific dogma thrived? Why do we have a president that outright denies scientific fact? If combating false ideas with truth worked, then surely these problems shouldn't exist in America, the land of the free. In the arena of free speech, only the values with the most truth should thrive. Yet that's clearly not the case. This is the paradox of tolerance. We can say that unhindered speech is the way of countering harmful speech, but then I ask you: What led to the rise of such harmful speech today?
    - Karunamon 8y ago
      This is the paradox of tolerance. We can say that unhindered speech is the way of countering harmful speech, but then I ask you: What led to the rise of such harmful speech today? You point at anti-science conspiracy theories as a failing of free speech, and you're probably right, but what would you have us do otherwise? A world in which some central authority dictates that certain opinions are never allowed to be expressed, to me, seems like an absolutely horrible place to live, even if it meant that antivaxxers couldn't spread their crap anymore. Furthermore, there is no such thing as a perfect political system. It's not enough to point at what free speech fails at, you also need to suggest what we should be doing instead, and how the failings of that system wouldn't be worse. It's a pretty good comparison to democracy, in my mind. It's the worst system ever invented, except for all of the other ones we've tried.
ryandrake 8y ago
> "Everybody wants to censor what they don't like." This should be top comment on all HN discussions involving content moderation, so people can read it before they respond and think about whether what they are advocating makes sense. People these days so effortlessly are able to make that huge leap from "I don't personally like this thing" to "This thing must be suppressed/illegal for everyone."
- Nitramp 8y ago
  It's Kant, essentially: > Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
noobermin 8y ago
You can say that, but from the beginning, governments have put limits to speech based on "harm" from speech. Slander, libel, threats are all illegal due to the contention they cause harm. Taking no side is also similar to this, taking no side in a conflict as long as they are civil requires one to decide what is "civil" in the first place. Are comments about race considered "threats" if one person is of the race targeted? How about coarse comments like telling someone to "kill themselves." It isn't so simple and even being neutral is a stance of a kind. BTW, I don't think being neutral in a conflict like censoring or not is the wrong stance, but it IS a stance with its own value judgements.
- mc32 8y ago
  >How about coarse comments like telling someone to "kill themselves. I think a few conservatives were directly told to do just that due to the SCOTUS appointment furore --have there been significant calls to censor those opinions? It's like everyone is for Censorship unless they are the targets of Censorship. And in this case they are not calling out their own lot very vehemently.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    I believe I saw a headline today or yesterday regarding someone being fired due to remarks along those lines. Perhaps not "kill yourself" per se. I think the remark was characterized as a call for assassination.
    - mc32 8y ago
      The google head of design told Repubs to all go F* themselves to Hell (not even qualified it like, "oh, the bad ones, I don't like, nope ALL). I guess that's not so bad (for an EXEC at the very company considering Censorship). But anyway, calling for assassination is different from asking someone to off themselves. [See if here]: https://yournewswire.com/senior-google-employee-wants-republicans-to-burn-in-hell-fck-you-all/ https://yournewswire.com/senior-google-employee-wants-republ...
    - tylersmith 8y ago
dev_dull 8y ago
You can and absolutely should take a side.

mc32 8y ago

>The best stance is not to take a side, but to make sure both sides are civil in the expression of their beliefs. I agree with that. It would help if these companies stopped seeking "virality" and "eyeballs" or whatever metaphor you want to use of user engagement and "notoriety/reward". Otherwise, this is exactly the same argument China's (or Russia's) censors would make. Absolutely not different in any way.

eksemplar 8y ago

What both sides though? The alt-right isn’t in opposition to anything mainstream, they are anti-democratic and should be treated the same way antifa, farc, isis and others are. Every time democracy fails to shut down movements like the alt-right, things end badly for democracy itself. The most used throve is stuff like nazism and fascism, but history actually have a lot of better examples. Because both Napoleon and Caesar effectively ended democracy with applause, unlike Hitler. I think it’s extremely dangerous to treat anti-democratic forces as equal to democratic ones. I’m a conservative by the way, so it’s not like I’m not conserved about the liberal bias in the tech sector. But the debates we have these days, about forcing platforms to include outright anti-democratic values is crazy.

evilturnip 8y ago
The problem is that then you have to decide what's 'anti-democratic'. You won't find 50 opinions that differ from your own. On top of that, it can then be used as justification to censor almost anything you don't like. Sure, right now you'll think there is a clear criteria. But in 25, 50, or 100 years from now, people could have easily twisted it to mean whatever they disagree with.
- eksemplar 8y ago
  I don’t decide what’s anti-democratic though, we have guidelines for that provided by the United Nations. I mean, it’s been seen and done before throughout history, so it’s not exactly hard to spot. Attacking the free press is one criteria. Labeling everyone that disagrees with you the slightest as enemies, is another. I mean, assuming this leak is real, then googles stance on censoring is extremely centrists, letting them appease both sides of the political spectrum. But that’s not what breitbart or the alt-right really wants, they want google to only appease their radical views. Ironically, it’s a lot easier to get banned from alt-right forums than it is from YouTube. All you have to do, is disagree with whatever dogma they spin, because they aren’t even remotely interested in a democratic discourse. Of course, looking at history, no one have ever really stopped movements like the alt-right early enough to save their democracy. So America is probably rather doomed.
  - dmichulke 8y ago
    > Attacking the free press is one criteria. > Labeling everyone that disagrees with you the slightest as enemies, is another. You do realise that you're - attacking the free press by asking for censorship? - Sort of labelling other people that disagree with you (in this instance: disagree with democracy) as enemies (of democracy)? That's of course very inconsistent. But it also assumes that "the current form of democracy is the best we can ever have". Democracy needs criticism, especially since what we have is a 19th century system that assumes information dispersal and real-time voting is practically is impossible.
    - eksemplar 8y ago
      Well, yes. But I don’t think censoring the alt-right is problematic if they can’t stay within whatever policies companies set. You’re not denied access to a supermarket either, but if you start intentionally pissing in their floor, then you’d get thrown out. Of course I come from a region of the world, where people like the alt-right won, and eventually started putting centrists in prison camps.
      - 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mellow-lake-day 8y ago

I'm speaking for myself here but I think the Russian bots as well as astroturfing bots need to be censored. And not censored by government regulation but by the terms of service. There are many "active measure" Russian bots active on twitter. Twitter doesn't seem concerned at all mostly because those Russian bots are padding their numbers same goes for FB and reddit.

gnarbarian 8y ago
That sounds all fine and well but half the time I utter a conservative opinion I'm accused of being a "russian bot".
- devoply 8y ago
  Now the cat is out of the bag, freedom of speech is just a lofty ideal that only worked when all media was controlled by corporations that chose what people listened to most of the time. Now they are trying to put the cat back in the bag. Good for reiterating corporate control over thought and speech.
  - gnarbarian 8y ago
    Corporate and state control but I agree completely.
  - Udik 8y ago
    I agree, but I think there is also another effect at play here, which is the end of private circles where opinions can be exchanged "present company excluded". If you watch old tv, for example, you'll be appalled at the sort of things (harsh, elitist, dismissive of the general opinion) that could be said even in a broadcasted event- the audience was self-selected, recordings were rare and generally unavailable, few were reading any sort of newspaper. People were entitled to unpopular opinions because they had a limited circulation. But today, when everything is recorded, cut and pasted, infinitely available and replayable, every statement made in public must be crafted to be acceptable to absolutely any audience in any context and at any time. Those who contravene the rule are at terrible risk of having their public, work and private life destroyed by public uproar- effectively resulting in a strict censorship of opinions.

lgleason 8y ago

This 100000% over. Otherwise they are becoming the new kingmakers, manipulating people often without them even knowing. Incidentally there is a good documentary that is now on Amazon Prime called "The Creepy Line" that is worth watching.

psergeant 8y ago

> There are people who believe free speech is not the ultimate value A right to free speech is a recent, American-centric invention, rather than a natural cornerstone of democracy, a fact that often seems lost on Americans.

hodgesrm 8y ago
It seems many historians do not support your view. Notions of free speech date back to antiquity. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
chrisco255 8y ago
The enumeration of free speech as a natural right in a Constitution is an American invention, but the idea itself is much older than that. However, the freedom of speech and press is as important to free nations as an immune system is to a body...neither will lost long without it.
muthdra 8y ago
399BC Socrates speaks to jury at his trial: 'If you offered to let me off this time on condition I am not any longer to speak my mind... I should say to you, "Men of Athens, I shall obey the Gods rather than you."'

fzeroracer 8y ago

Just because a belief is civilly expressed does not make it less harmful. For example: people casually believing that the Sandy Hook shooting was a conspiracy drummed up by the government is actively harmful to the families affected by that tragedy. What do you say to those people? How do you solve that problem? And how do you define 'civil'? Because different platforms have different ranges of civility as well.

evilturnip 8y ago
There are thousands of conspiracies floating around. Should we consider them all harmful and ban them? Who decides when a conspiracy becomes harmful? Should we ban flat-earthers from posting their views? After all, if everyone believed it, we would set science back countless centuries. The way to combat false ideas is with truth; a culture that is always searching for the truth. That can only be facilitated by unhindered speech.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  Do you consider American culture to be one of the more free ones? If so, then why do these conspiracies exist? Why have flat-earth conspiracies and anti-scientific dogma thrived? Why do we have a president that outright denies scientific fact? If combating false ideas with truth worked, then surely these problems shouldn't exist in America, the land of the free. In the arena of free speech, only the values with the most truth should thrive. Yet that's clearly not the case. This is the paradox of tolerance. We can say that unhindered speech is the way of countering harmful speech, but then I ask you: What led to the rise of such harmful speech today?
  - Karunamon 8y ago
    This is the paradox of tolerance. We can say that unhindered speech is the way of countering harmful speech, but then I ask you: What led to the rise of such harmful speech today? You point at anti-science conspiracy theories as a failing of free speech, and you're probably right, but what would you have us do otherwise? A world in which some central authority dictates that certain opinions are never allowed to be expressed, to me, seems like an absolutely horrible place to live, even if it meant that antivaxxers couldn't spread their crap anymore. Furthermore, there is no such thing as a perfect political system. It's not enough to point at what free speech fails at, you also need to suggest what we should be doing instead, and how the failings of that system wouldn't be worse. It's a pretty good comparison to democracy, in my mind. It's the worst system ever invented, except for all of the other ones we've tried.

ryandrake 8y ago

> "Everybody wants to censor what they don't like." This should be top comment on all HN discussions involving content moderation, so people can read it before they respond and think about whether what they are advocating makes sense. People these days so effortlessly are able to make that huge leap from "I don't personally like this thing" to "This thing must be suppressed/illegal for everyone."

Nitramp 8y ago
It's Kant, essentially: > Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

noobermin 8y ago

You can say that, but from the beginning, governments have put limits to speech based on "harm" from speech. Slander, libel, threats are all illegal due to the contention they cause harm. Taking no side is also similar to this, taking no side in a conflict as long as they are civil requires one to decide what is "civil" in the first place. Are comments about race considered "threats" if one person is of the race targeted? How about coarse comments like telling someone to "kill themselves." It isn't so simple and even being neutral is a stance of a kind. BTW, I don't think being neutral in a conflict like censoring or not is the wrong stance, but it IS a stance with its own value judgements.

mc32 8y ago
>How about coarse comments like telling someone to "kill themselves. I think a few conservatives were directly told to do just that due to the SCOTUS appointment furore --have there been significant calls to censor those opinions? It's like everyone is for Censorship unless they are the targets of Censorship. And in this case they are not calling out their own lot very vehemently.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  I believe I saw a headline today or yesterday regarding someone being fired due to remarks along those lines. Perhaps not "kill yourself" per se. I think the remark was characterized as a call for assassination.
  - mc32 8y ago
    The google head of design told Repubs to all go F* themselves to Hell (not even qualified it like, "oh, the bad ones, I don't like, nope ALL). I guess that's not so bad (for an EXEC at the very company considering Censorship). But anyway, calling for assassination is different from asking someone to off themselves. [See if here]: https://yournewswire.com/senior-google-employee-wants-republicans-to-burn-in-hell-fck-you-all/ https://yournewswire.com/senior-google-employee-wants-republ...
  - tylersmith 8y ago

dev_dull 8y ago

You can and absolutely should take a side.