4 ms·

Replace "censoring conservative viewpoints" with "censoring the nice people who tell me about how I can make $13,000 a week working from home". Which part of th

Replace "censoring conservative viewpoints" with "censoring the nice people who tell me about how I can make $13,000 a week working from home". Which part of this argument changes? I can't find any part that does.

tomp 7y ago
The difference is that there's a Spam folder in your GMail where you can see all those "unwelcome" emails... and also, filters adapt to your preferences, not the other way around.
- jasonlotito 7y ago
  So, the argument is Twitter shouldn't combat spam? That HN shouldn't edit/delete content? That if a website accepts user generated content, they should have to make it viewable?
  - tomp 7y ago
    That's my argument, yes. I'm fine with hiding replies, and users using opt-out-able block-lists (e.g. that's how porn is implemented on Twitter and many other websites)... moderation is OK, censorship & (shadow)banning is the evil.
jerf 7y ago
I can't speak for the article, but I can speak for myself. The difference is that I, personally, have control over the blocking of the "make money fast" communication. I think part of the right to free speech is the right to be able to choose what speech you consume, i.e., everyone has the right to free speech but nobody has the right to impose upon you. For me personally, since I run my own incoming mail server, there is no platform censoring those emails. I use my own tools, trained on my own emails and my own choices about what to block, to do the filtering. When a platform entirely blocks some speech, that is not my choice; it is theirs. That is the critical difference. This is still not a bright shining line, because there isn't one. But it's sufficiently clear to be a guiding principle. If you want to lock yourself in some particular filter bubble, that's your choice, but nobody else has the right to force you into one.
- woopwoop 7y ago
  The article specifically complains about even slightly less than even-handed promotion of conservative and liberal viewpoints, so it's certainly not only talking about forcing people into a filter bubble. It's just not the case that internet companies make it literally impossible to hear conservative viewpoints. (I'm not conceding the point that they are biased in any important way, but it's just certainly not the case that it's impossible to find conservative viewpoints on Twitter.)
- klyrs 7y ago
  > The difference is that I, personally, have control over the blocking of the "make money fast" communication Have you never encountered a phpBB forum, or a wiki, or a social network, that doesn't have spam blockers? In my experience, such sites are inundated with spam, occasionally to the point that signal is hard to find over the noise. Your "solution" only touches on email. Filtering spam from such diverse sources would require a much more intrusive technology. Also, you're putting a wholly unreasonable burden on website owners to preserve abusive content -- if somebody uploads a flood of junk data, are you legally required to retain and redistribute it all? And are you forcing users to download gigabytes of garbage, and filter it down to a kilobyte of content?
  - jerf 7y ago
    As a pragmatist on this matter, I believe the solution here is scale. The control I have over a phpBB forum is that if I don't like their spam policy, I can leave, and either join another or form my own. We're not talking about a phpBB forum or a little blog with a few thousand commenters. We're talking about single companies with very significant fractions of the total discourse flowing through them. If Facebook blocks something, it affects a massive number of people, and "just go make your own Facebook" is not a suitable recourse. Scale matters. Small entities can do things without being a threat to the body politic that large entities can not. As I've said before, I'm not entirely convinced that something the size of Facebook can actually work in the long term [1]. Trying to jam everybody into one set of rules may simply be infeasible, for reasons not entirely related to "rights". If you look at the current conflicts over Facebook through this window, you may find it makes sense over the conflict. Especially if you are one of the majority here on HN who are kinda lost over the idea of why so many have become anti-Facebook, when you just see Facebook imposing your perfectly sensible, obviously correct values on the world, why is everyone complaining? Well, it's that whole diversity thing you may have heard rumors about. It's real. It may not be the case that you can get everyone into one community with one set of standards, regardless of how "obviously right" those standards are. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20146868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20146868 - in fact, I'd amplify the original post I made by also pointing out Facebook is international, so we're not just trying to stick the diverse cultures of the US in there, but trying to stick all the diverse cultures of the world in one big pile. When I put it that way, does the idea that such a thing could work in the long term even pass the smell test?
claudiawerner 7y ago
>Which part of this argument changes? I can find any part that does. One is fraudulent spam, the other is not.
P_I_Staker 7y ago
Conservative viewpoints are political ideals. Scams are scams. If you don't make that distinction, then Ponzi schemes become protected speech. There's also a clear (direct) profit motive, and it's depriving people of property. There's lots of ways this argument changes. When you censor political views, you're depriving people of their rights. Shutting out a swindler isn't even close to the same thing.
- F00bart 7y ago
  Are you really sure that is the distinction. A lot of conservative policies results in even the conservative voters being worse off as a result. And there IS a direct profit motive by those who fund conservative politicians (a.k.a. scammers)
  - P_I_Staker 7y ago
    Absolutely, I'm 100% sure. I'm not talking about indirect "cui bono" desire to use politics to one's own advantage. Whether or not voters are worse off is subjective and debatable. Policy discussions are a form political participation. Selling a product isn't. There's a very clear distinction here. In my view, it's much less reasonable to make content distinctions based on "correct" political beliefs, vs. venders selling a product.
commandlinefan 7y ago
> Which part of this argument changes? One is that people arguing about politics in political discussion forums are using the forum for its intended purpose whereas spammers are abusing it (in fact, stealing from it, since it makes its money through advertising). I’ve yet to see anybody oppose removing political discussions on forums about woodworking - that’s not what it’s for.

tomp 7y ago

The difference is that there's a Spam folder in your GMail where you can see all those "unwelcome" emails... and also, filters adapt to your preferences, not the other way around.

jasonlotito 7y ago
So, the argument is Twitter shouldn't combat spam? That HN shouldn't edit/delete content? That if a website accepts user generated content, they should have to make it viewable?
- tomp 7y ago
  That's my argument, yes. I'm fine with hiding replies, and users using opt-out-able block-lists (e.g. that's how porn is implemented on Twitter and many other websites)... moderation is OK, censorship & (shadow)banning is the evil.

jerf 7y ago

I can't speak for the article, but I can speak for myself. The difference is that I, personally, have control over the blocking of the "make money fast" communication. I think part of the right to free speech is the right to be able to choose what speech you consume, i.e., everyone has the right to free speech but nobody has the right to impose upon you. For me personally, since I run my own incoming mail server, there is no platform censoring those emails. I use my own tools, trained on my own emails and my own choices about what to block, to do the filtering. When a platform entirely blocks some speech, that is not my choice; it is theirs. That is the critical difference. This is still not a bright shining line, because there isn't one. But it's sufficiently clear to be a guiding principle. If you want to lock yourself in some particular filter bubble, that's your choice, but nobody else has the right to force you into one.

woopwoop 7y ago
The article specifically complains about even slightly less than even-handed promotion of conservative and liberal viewpoints, so it's certainly not only talking about forcing people into a filter bubble. It's just not the case that internet companies make it literally impossible to hear conservative viewpoints. (I'm not conceding the point that they are biased in any important way, but it's just certainly not the case that it's impossible to find conservative viewpoints on Twitter.)
klyrs 7y ago
> The difference is that I, personally, have control over the blocking of the "make money fast" communication Have you never encountered a phpBB forum, or a wiki, or a social network, that doesn't have spam blockers? In my experience, such sites are inundated with spam, occasionally to the point that signal is hard to find over the noise. Your "solution" only touches on email. Filtering spam from such diverse sources would require a much more intrusive technology. Also, you're putting a wholly unreasonable burden on website owners to preserve abusive content -- if somebody uploads a flood of junk data, are you legally required to retain and redistribute it all? And are you forcing users to download gigabytes of garbage, and filter it down to a kilobyte of content?
- jerf 7y ago
  As a pragmatist on this matter, I believe the solution here is scale. The control I have over a phpBB forum is that if I don't like their spam policy, I can leave, and either join another or form my own. We're not talking about a phpBB forum or a little blog with a few thousand commenters. We're talking about single companies with very significant fractions of the total discourse flowing through them. If Facebook blocks something, it affects a massive number of people, and "just go make your own Facebook" is not a suitable recourse. Scale matters. Small entities can do things without being a threat to the body politic that large entities can not. As I've said before, I'm not entirely convinced that something the size of Facebook can actually work in the long term [1]. Trying to jam everybody into one set of rules may simply be infeasible, for reasons not entirely related to "rights". If you look at the current conflicts over Facebook through this window, you may find it makes sense over the conflict. Especially if you are one of the majority here on HN who are kinda lost over the idea of why so many have become anti-Facebook, when you just see Facebook imposing your perfectly sensible, obviously correct values on the world, why is everyone complaining? Well, it's that whole diversity thing you may have heard rumors about. It's real. It may not be the case that you can get everyone into one community with one set of standards, regardless of how "obviously right" those standards are. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20146868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20146868 - in fact, I'd amplify the original post I made by also pointing out Facebook is international, so we're not just trying to stick the diverse cultures of the US in there, but trying to stick all the diverse cultures of the world in one big pile. When I put it that way, does the idea that such a thing could work in the long term even pass the smell test?

claudiawerner 7y ago

>Which part of this argument changes? I can find any part that does. One is fraudulent spam, the other is not.

P_I_Staker 7y ago

Conservative viewpoints are political ideals. Scams are scams. If you don't make that distinction, then Ponzi schemes become protected speech. There's also a clear (direct) profit motive, and it's depriving people of property. There's lots of ways this argument changes. When you censor political views, you're depriving people of their rights. Shutting out a swindler isn't even close to the same thing.

F00bart 7y ago
Are you really sure that is the distinction. A lot of conservative policies results in even the conservative voters being worse off as a result. And there IS a direct profit motive by those who fund conservative politicians (a.k.a. scammers)
- P_I_Staker 7y ago
  Absolutely, I'm 100% sure. I'm not talking about indirect "cui bono" desire to use politics to one's own advantage. Whether or not voters are worse off is subjective and debatable. Policy discussions are a form political participation. Selling a product isn't. There's a very clear distinction here. In my view, it's much less reasonable to make content distinctions based on "correct" political beliefs, vs. venders selling a product.

commandlinefan 7y ago

> Which part of this argument changes? One is that people arguing about politics in political discussion forums are using the forum for its intended purpose whereas spammers are abusing it (in fact, stealing from it, since it makes its money through advertising). I’ve yet to see anybody oppose removing political discussions on forums about woodworking - that’s not what it’s for.