5 ms·

Most people ( and a lot of people on HN) really believe that online platforms should be able to suppress such unlawful videos. "Such unlawful videos." So basic

Most people ( and a lot of people on HN) really believe that online platforms should be able to suppress such unlawful videos. "Such unlawful videos." So basically, the government should be able to declare content "unlawful" and it's okay so long as public sentiment goes along with it? Basically, you've simply thrown out Free Speech. I can understand why someone would find the video of the shooting shocking. Personally, I've chosen not to view it. However, if Free Speech isn't an absolute right, then it's simply broken. Habeas corpus, the Presumption of Innocence, and due process -- what if the government could just suspend those things when it felt like it? Those human rights would simply be broken. The difference between a just society and an unjust one, is that the just society extends the same rights and protections to all its citizens, no infringements, no exceptions. A society with Free Speech extends the right of speech and the right to read/hear that speech to everyone without infringement as well. The interesting thing about the Weimar Republic, is that almost all of the laws covering human rights had an "out" for the government, allowing them to suspend the right, "for the common good" in emergency situations. As a result, the subsequent regime didn't have to change many laws to operate as a totalitarian regime.

enitihas 8y ago
Nowhere did I say Government should be able to throw out free speech. I am just acknowledging what I have observed. If you think my observations are incorrect, please feel free to go through the relevant HN threads (e.g, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19414591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19414591) You will find a lot of comments saying such censorship is needed. I agree with you that free speech is important, and I think this contradiction between free speech and society trying to prevent the spread of radicalisation is an important question of our times.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Suppressing Free Speech creates more radicalization. If certain radicals are really bad, then more Free Speech ultimately gets rid of them. Suppression just gives them more ammunition. This is the lesson from across just about all of history. In 2019, governments and big tech have essentially been tricked into replacing societal backlash against nonsense with societal backlash against suppression. What governments and big tech should be doing is protecting the integrity of speech. On a level playing field, Bad Actors will reveal themselves. It's on a tilted playing field where things dysfunction, and the crowd cries foul and declares the game invalid. In short, in 2019, for governments and big tech to have the Bad Actors fail, they need to stop doing end-runs around the law and principles of Human Rights. They need to stop giving ammunition to Bad Actors by being bad actors themselves.
  - ABCLAW 8y ago
    >Suppressing Free Speech creates more radicalization. Most quantitative reviews on deplatforming and and other social moderation efforts have shown the opposite. Maybe in the long-term social view of the issue you're right but on a platform by platform basis this doesn't seem to be the case.
    - BigBlueBanjo 8y ago
      Sure, censoring racists on YouTube means less racists on YouTube. But it does NOT mean less racists in the world.
      - ABCLAW 8y ago
        >But it does NOT mean less racists in the world. I don't think we have the data to make a conclusion on this point, but why is the lack of success in respect of the second point sufficient to make us want to stop the first point?
        Mirioron 8y ago
        Because it creates echochambers and it weaponizes the term hate speech. Label everyone you disagree with a nazi and then demand platforms ban them. If the platforms do that, then people will slowly move on to other platforms. It's not going to change their beliefs one bit.
        ABCLAW 8y ago
        >Because it creates echochambers and it weaponizes the term hate speech. Okay, so that's the downside of curating your platform. You need to contrast that downside with the upside of taking action. Reasonable limits on Free Speech are plentiful, and there's an easy false dichotomy in believing that you can either censor everything or censor nothing. Is there a middle ground where we establish a solid rule set where we get most of the beneficial effects are retained, but a plurality of voices remain? Also a note: >It's not going to change their beliefs one bit. This isn't supported by research and it's antithetical to your first line. If platforming isn't going to change beliefs, then why care about it? Just move over to Gab, Voat or any of the other offshoots created for deplatformed groups. Have you visited them? They're cesspools. Overt changes in social acceptability and norms cause populations to reconsider their views, which is why people are upset by being deplatformed in the first place.
bonaldi 8y ago
The Christchurch shooter had no more right of access to a privately-owned live-streaming platform with an audience in the millions than he had right of access to a broadcast TV network. Saying so (which I suspect is what OP intended) is not "throwing out Free Speech" You can tease apart the right to say something with the right to have it signal-boosted along the way, and if you want to save Free Speech you're going to have to in case we throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
- jimmy1 8y ago
  You conflate regulatory expectation with consumer expectation. Most people don't want to see things they don't like. So they don't tune into channels, (YT or otherwise) that play things they don't like to see. The marke corrects itself over time. Broadcast stations aren't refusing to show that content because of a law, but because they are making a business decision.
  - bonaldi 8y ago
    I think the problem is exactly the opposite: people are now getting way too much of the content they can’t help but like, and that in way too many cases turns out to be deliberately polarising and extreme content. The marketplace of ideas no more leads to good content choices than the marketplace of food leads to healthy eating.
    - jimmy1 8y ago
      We give content personalization far too much credit for the modern issue of both social and political polarization, it is much more fundamental. We've had "filter bubbles" since the dawn of civilization -- in fact it's where those concepts come from: tribal thinking / group thinking. The mistake I see made time and time again is when we believe we are more rational than we really are! It's an evolutionary battle we are fighting, and evolution had a big head start.
    - BigBlueBanjo 8y ago
      You can argue that when given a choice, many people make the wrong one. However this is better than having the government make the wrong choice for you.
ataturk 8y ago
Yes. I would rather be shocked by ISIS propaganda than the opposite, which is corporo-statist censorship. They're already misusing these capabilities by trying to silence conservatives who hold entirely valid political positions that need to be heard. Also, nobody can just walk away from the NZ situation where a terrorist stated his intentions, including a semi-auto gun ban and then watching as their legislature gave him exactly what he wanted! Terrorism is not supposed to work so perfect A->B like that!

enitihas 8y ago

Nowhere did I say Government should be able to throw out free speech. I am just acknowledging what I have observed. If you think my observations are incorrect, please feel free to go through the relevant HN threads (e.g, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19414591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19414591) You will find a lot of comments saying such censorship is needed. I agree with you that free speech is important, and I think this contradiction between free speech and society trying to prevent the spread of radicalisation is an important question of our times.

stcredzero 8y ago
Suppressing Free Speech creates more radicalization. If certain radicals are really bad, then more Free Speech ultimately gets rid of them. Suppression just gives them more ammunition. This is the lesson from across just about all of history. In 2019, governments and big tech have essentially been tricked into replacing societal backlash against nonsense with societal backlash against suppression. What governments and big tech should be doing is protecting the integrity of speech. On a level playing field, Bad Actors will reveal themselves. It's on a tilted playing field where things dysfunction, and the crowd cries foul and declares the game invalid. In short, in 2019, for governments and big tech to have the Bad Actors fail, they need to stop doing end-runs around the law and principles of Human Rights. They need to stop giving ammunition to Bad Actors by being bad actors themselves.
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  >Suppressing Free Speech creates more radicalization. Most quantitative reviews on deplatforming and and other social moderation efforts have shown the opposite. Maybe in the long-term social view of the issue you're right but on a platform by platform basis this doesn't seem to be the case.
  - BigBlueBanjo 8y ago
    Sure, censoring racists on YouTube means less racists on YouTube. But it does NOT mean less racists in the world.
    - ABCLAW 8y ago
      >But it does NOT mean less racists in the world. I don't think we have the data to make a conclusion on this point, but why is the lack of success in respect of the second point sufficient to make us want to stop the first point?
      - Mirioron 8y ago
        Because it creates echochambers and it weaponizes the term hate speech. Label everyone you disagree with a nazi and then demand platforms ban them. If the platforms do that, then people will slowly move on to other platforms. It's not going to change their beliefs one bit.
        ABCLAW 8y ago
        >Because it creates echochambers and it weaponizes the term hate speech. Okay, so that's the downside of curating your platform. You need to contrast that downside with the upside of taking action. Reasonable limits on Free Speech are plentiful, and there's an easy false dichotomy in believing that you can either censor everything or censor nothing. Is there a middle ground where we establish a solid rule set where we get most of the beneficial effects are retained, but a plurality of voices remain? Also a note: >It's not going to change their beliefs one bit. This isn't supported by research and it's antithetical to your first line. If platforming isn't going to change beliefs, then why care about it? Just move over to Gab, Voat or any of the other offshoots created for deplatformed groups. Have you visited them? They're cesspools. Overt changes in social acceptability and norms cause populations to reconsider their views, which is why people are upset by being deplatformed in the first place.

bonaldi 8y ago

The Christchurch shooter had no more right of access to a privately-owned live-streaming platform with an audience in the millions than he had right of access to a broadcast TV network. Saying so (which I suspect is what OP intended) is not "throwing out Free Speech" You can tease apart the right to say something with the right to have it signal-boosted along the way, and if you want to save Free Speech you're going to have to in case we throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

jimmy1 8y ago
You conflate regulatory expectation with consumer expectation. Most people don't want to see things they don't like. So they don't tune into channels, (YT or otherwise) that play things they don't like to see. The marke corrects itself over time. Broadcast stations aren't refusing to show that content because of a law, but because they are making a business decision.
- bonaldi 8y ago
  I think the problem is exactly the opposite: people are now getting way too much of the content they can’t help but like, and that in way too many cases turns out to be deliberately polarising and extreme content. The marketplace of ideas no more leads to good content choices than the marketplace of food leads to healthy eating.
  - jimmy1 8y ago
    We give content personalization far too much credit for the modern issue of both social and political polarization, it is much more fundamental. We've had "filter bubbles" since the dawn of civilization -- in fact it's where those concepts come from: tribal thinking / group thinking. The mistake I see made time and time again is when we believe we are more rational than we really are! It's an evolutionary battle we are fighting, and evolution had a big head start.
  - BigBlueBanjo 8y ago
    You can argue that when given a choice, many people make the wrong one. However this is better than having the government make the wrong choice for you.

ataturk 8y ago

Yes. I would rather be shocked by ISIS propaganda than the opposite, which is corporo-statist censorship. They're already misusing these capabilities by trying to silence conservatives who hold entirely valid political positions that need to be heard. Also, nobody can just walk away from the NZ situation where a terrorist stated his intentions, including a semi-auto gun ban and then watching as their legislature gave him exactly what he wanted! Terrorism is not supposed to work so perfect A->B like that!