4 ms·
The problem that arises when you define censorship broadly is that the opposite of censorship is censorship. If no one can restrict what gets published in thei
by nullc 7y ago
The problem that arises when you define censorship broadly is that the opposite of censorship is censorship.
If no one can restrict what gets published in their venues then as soon as a venue starts discussing stuff I don't like, I can spin up a shill call center or a guy with a thousand accounts and a copy of GPT2 and flood that venue with so much divisive moronicism that the voices that threaten me will be almost completely drowned out.
Worse, large open venues being flooded with low quality communications already happens even without any intentional censorship-by-flooding attack. ... providing great cover for these attacks. Especially savvy attackers can leverage the pre-existing populations of well meaning fools by shaping their messages to motivate fools into carrying on the disruption on their own.
If you think about it-- the classical view of censorship where someone outright silences you is nearly impossible online today in most of the world. It is extraordinarily hard to completely stop the spread of information that people want to spread. But at the same time, censorship that works by flooding out an idea or discrediting it by association with abusive nutballs has never been easier or more effective.
When we worry too much about private parties shutting down conversations in their own venues we risk improving the situation around an outmoded and somewhat ineffectual model of censorship at the expense of making a modern and highly effective model much worse.
The best I think we can do is foster an internet structure where everyone can have their own venues which they can operate under whatever rules they think are best, and everyone is free to move among them at the lowest cost possible. That way, effective moderation can shut down flooding attacks and voting-with-your-feet can shut down overly censorious (or overly passive!) moderation.
Unfortunately, the highly centralized world created by the popularity and network effects of sites like facebook, twitter, and youtube are the opposite of this. Instead of people being empowered to self-regulate abuse and migration being easy, people are disempowered and migration costs are high.
- leereeves 7y agoThis is a rather common style of argument often used against civil rights: every person's civil rights should be restrained because criminals abuse those rights. We can't have censorship free platforms because someone might spin up a thousand accounts. We need the NSA to monitor all communications because terrorists use the Internet. We should arrest 12-year olds for making finger guns because of school shooters. But in this case as in so many, it's an off-topic argument, merely a distraction or an excuse for overreaching authority. No one here is arguing that someone who makes a thousand accounts shouldn't be restrained; that's simply not the topic under discussion, even if the word "censorship" can be stretched to include that topic.
- aricrocuta 7y agoWhat if you take out "makes a thousand accounts" and substitute "spreads hate speech" or "calls people racial slurs"? In that case there's no abuse of the system; only the speech itself is problematic. Would censorship-free platforms have a way to suppress that speech? Should such speech be suppressed? In my opinion, yes, but I'd like to know what you think.
- leereeves 7y agoI haven't seen a platform that actually banned hate speech; they all allow such speech, as long as it's directed at acceptable targets (often white people or Christians). These platform's actions aren't about problematic speech, but about identity politics. But in theory a platform could ban such content impartially. Should they? Should such speech be universally suppressed? I'd have to say no; if it were, who could criticize Wahhabism or Scientology? Now I'd like to know what you think. Should "hate speech" directed at Scientology be suppressed?
- potatoz2 7y agoCriticism is not hate speech. Ignoring the unclear phrase "hate speech", banning calls to violence or verbal harassment is very different from banning opinions. Free speech as it is understood in the US applies to the government and the government can and does limit your rights when it comes to violence and time and place (e.g. you can't yell during a session of Congress). It's absolutely morally fine to do so and it does not infringe on freedom of speech in any way.
- leereeves 7y agoAnother distracting discussion of criminal behavior. As I said two posts up, we all agree such abuses should be banned. Opposition to censorship and defense of free speech is about censorship based on opinions; free speech advocates aren't fighting for an unlimited right to make threats or yell "Fire!" just for fun. By "ignoring the unclear phrase 'hate speech'" you've ignored the very issue under discussion.