4 ms·

From the Hacker News guidelines [1]: "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic." (IIRC, this particular guideline dates back to when Hacker News

From the Hacker News guidelines [1]: "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic." (IIRC, this particular guideline dates back to when Hacker News was called Startup News). The linked article, from the New York Times, elliptically discusses a topic that the New York Times itself cannot report on in its online edition, due to a gag order by an Australian judge. So it is not covered, and cannot be covered, by the modern-day equivalent of TV news. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

phs318u 8y ago
Admittedly, the guideline says "probably". In this case, I'd suggest that the global reach of online media and the fact (as you point out) that the New York Times, an American media company, is effectively banned (not really banned, but more "erring on the side of caution" I imagine) from reporting it, is of interest. As an Australian, I read an article stating that George Pell had been removed from the Pope's "council of nine (cardinals)", and then almost immediately after, read an article on the suppression order. A bit of quick searching, and I found out what the news was. Which begs the question, if the NYT (and presumably other international online media orgs) self-censored in the way described above, why would Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo, not do the same? EDIT: I'm not suggesting that the search engines should self-censor (or that they shouldn't), I'm just wondering why they'd come to a different conclusion than, say, the NYT.
- mjevans 8y ago
  They aren't publishing it, just indexing what others have published. The aggregation of information should never be censored; it is telling you where things are out there in the world. As a loosely related topic; the conveyance of truthful or believed to be truthful information should never be suppressed. However polity asking someone to be quiet for a time or for some other reason might be. This is why I believe 'state secrets' and secrets of all other types should only be for a specific limited time, and that all official records MUST receive re-classification on a regular interval (say once every 10 years, but a new review party who must also agree that it's worth keeping secret for another 10 years). Failure to review should result in publishing ~1 year after the expiration period.
  - phs318u 8y ago
    Good points. On indexing, I'd question if that's all that search engines do. They used to "only index" (in reality, "simple" index), but doesn't the complexity of current promotion/demotion algorithms go beyond that (given the biases those algorithms encode)? Might that cross the line? Do these algorithms encode a sort-of editorial policy? Also, agree in principle re: classification timeouts and mandatory review, though the sheer number of state/corporate secrets might make that impractical.
  - paranoidrobot 8y ago
    >They aren't publishing it, just indexing what others have published. Depends on how you define publishing, I guess. They definitely pushed news about both things to my phone, and I'm in Australia, moreover Google clearly knows I'm in Australia as many of the news articles relate to Australia/Australian things.
- sho 8y ago
  > the fact [..] that the New York Times, an American media company, is effectively banned [..] from reporting it This is absolutely fascinating to me too, that an Australian court order is influencing the behaviour of media in another country - the NYT no less! I can't think of any precedent to this. I'm Australian too, and I am honestly not sure how I feel about this. There are good arguments on both sides. We're really in uncharted territory.
  - paranoidrobot 8y ago
    I worked for a wholly Australian-owned company that was subject to the EU GDPR laws. This was because we had customers, offices, and partnerships in EU Countries.
  - Khaine 8y ago
    The NY Times have an Australian Bureau[1] and as such the laws of Australia apply to that Bureau. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/world/australia/news-expansion.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/world/australia/new...
my_first_acct 8y ago
(Since it is too late to edit my parent comment): Just to clarify, my parent comment was not a complaint that this article was posted to HN; rather, it was to justify my posting the article in the first place.
- mjevans 8y ago
  I agree, it is news-worthy on HN: Discussion about suppression of speech on the Internet.

phs318u 8y ago

Admittedly, the guideline says "probably". In this case, I'd suggest that the global reach of online media and the fact (as you point out) that the New York Times, an American media company, is effectively banned (not really banned, but more "erring on the side of caution" I imagine) from reporting it, is of interest. As an Australian, I read an article stating that George Pell had been removed from the Pope's "council of nine (cardinals)", and then almost immediately after, read an article on the suppression order. A bit of quick searching, and I found out what the news was. Which begs the question, if the NYT (and presumably other international online media orgs) self-censored in the way described above, why would Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo, not do the same? EDIT: I'm not suggesting that the search engines should self-censor (or that they shouldn't), I'm just wondering why they'd come to a different conclusion than, say, the NYT.

mjevans 8y ago
They aren't publishing it, just indexing what others have published. The aggregation of information should never be censored; it is telling you where things are out there in the world. As a loosely related topic; the conveyance of truthful or believed to be truthful information should never be suppressed. However polity asking someone to be quiet for a time or for some other reason might be. This is why I believe 'state secrets' and secrets of all other types should only be for a specific limited time, and that all official records MUST receive re-classification on a regular interval (say once every 10 years, but a new review party who must also agree that it's worth keeping secret for another 10 years). Failure to review should result in publishing ~1 year after the expiration period.
- phs318u 8y ago
  Good points. On indexing, I'd question if that's all that search engines do. They used to "only index" (in reality, "simple" index), but doesn't the complexity of current promotion/demotion algorithms go beyond that (given the biases those algorithms encode)? Might that cross the line? Do these algorithms encode a sort-of editorial policy? Also, agree in principle re: classification timeouts and mandatory review, though the sheer number of state/corporate secrets might make that impractical.
- paranoidrobot 8y ago
  >They aren't publishing it, just indexing what others have published. Depends on how you define publishing, I guess. They definitely pushed news about both things to my phone, and I'm in Australia, moreover Google clearly knows I'm in Australia as many of the news articles relate to Australia/Australian things.
sho 8y ago
> the fact [..] that the New York Times, an American media company, is effectively banned [..] from reporting it This is absolutely fascinating to me too, that an Australian court order is influencing the behaviour of media in another country - the NYT no less! I can't think of any precedent to this. I'm Australian too, and I am honestly not sure how I feel about this. There are good arguments on both sides. We're really in uncharted territory.
- paranoidrobot 8y ago
  I worked for a wholly Australian-owned company that was subject to the EU GDPR laws. This was because we had customers, offices, and partnerships in EU Countries.
- Khaine 8y ago
  The NY Times have an Australian Bureau[1] and as such the laws of Australia apply to that Bureau. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/world/australia/news-expansion.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/world/australia/new...

my_first_acct 8y ago

(Since it is too late to edit my parent comment): Just to clarify, my parent comment was not a complaint that this article was posted to HN; rather, it was to justify my posting the article in the first place.

mjevans 8y ago
I agree, it is news-worthy on HN: Discussion about suppression of speech on the Internet.