4 ms·

> Youtube should be under no obligation to provide a platform for him on their private service, either. And that’s TOTALLY FINE. But the issue surrounding the

> Youtube should be under no obligation to provide a platform for him on their private service, either. And that’s TOTALLY FINE. But the issue surrounding the whole “should these monopolies be the free speech overlords?” Is that if they say this guy can’t be allowed speech, they should have to take responsibility for the speech they do allow. Publisher vs Platform.

mullingitover 7y ago
So your position is that if someone starts spamming Hacker News with hate speech, HN shouldn't be allowed to ban that user and delete their posts without shutting down the entire site? Because if web sites are legally liable for every post that's what's going to happen.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  Strawman aside... “Hate speech” is a very loose term. Do you mean actual calls to incite violence? Which are illegal and no one has any problem with their removal? Or do you mean “things I just don’t like”? Because HN already has a strong bubble mechanic to remove wrong-think (in practice right now!) “I disagree with you” or “I’m wildly wrong” isn’t typically against a website’s terms of service. Is this looney guy being wrong about 5G calling for violence? Is his opinion illegal in anyway? Can you see no scenario (past your own nose) that your opinion ever winds up on the “wrong side” of corporate judgment? Furthermore, if you’re just going to kick people off your platform because they’re wrong, you had better not selectively enforce that. Seems like it’s best to just be a PLATFORM. Which is exactly what they all claim to be. Except they do it while enjoying PUBLISHER convenience of removing things they just don’t like but are otherwise within the rules and terms.
  - mullingitover 7y ago
    > “Hate speech” is a very loose term. No. It really isn't. Normal people know it when they see it, and the people who claim not to know it are usually the ones using it, along with the bad faith contrarians. > Seems like it’s best to just be a PLATFORM. Which is exactly what they all claim to be. Most sites refer to themselves as communities, and I have no problem with a community kicking bad actors (which they're free to define on their own terms) out while not being held legally responsible if they fail to do that perfectly.
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      > No. It really isn't. Normal people know it when they see it, Wow. That’s an argument I didn’t expect to see. Do you know we’ve already been over this for pornography? It’s a pretty famous argument that didn’t go the way you might want if you’re using it too. If you can’t tell me what hate speech is, but prove my point saying “people know what it is”... that’s exactly the definition of “loosely defined”. I’m not even saying it shouldn’t be loosely defined, there is nuance per context. >Communities Would you please be so kind as to tell me where that definition is in Section 230? You can refer to yourself however you like. In this context the LEGAL terms are platform and publisher. Well, Sounds like a good plan you have there. That it’s entirely ethical to hide wrong-think. Yes, I hope you never think the wrong things! Surely that could never happen right? Do you think it is coincidence that your opinion largely agrees with Silicon Valley’s “taste makers”?
      - mullingitover 7y ago
        > Do you know we’ve already been over this for pornography? It’s a pretty famous argument that didn’t go the way you might want if you’re using it too. I know exactly the context I'm lifting that line from (fun fact: Hacker News is not The Government). The great thing about Section 230 is that what is 'offensive' is up to the interactive service provider to judge. We're free to host our own web sites, let others publish to them, and we're free to tell them to get lost if they post repugnant things we don't like. It's perfectly in the spirit of the 1st Amendment. You're free to start your own web site and allow hate speech to be posted there. Many have tried. This site doesn't do that, and you're still spending time here and not on the hate speech-friendly sites. Why is that?
        SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        > You're free to start your own web site and allow hate speech to be posted there. And we’re done. That’s two strawmen in two posts.
throwaway5752 7y ago
I definitely am in the "not public forum" camp. Let me explain. The second you allow a private company control over a public resource, you are creating an expectation that a private company cannot meet. Public access tv and public streets are examples of public forums, and for example, I am very against free speech zones. But Youtube, Facebook, Reddit are ultimately private for-profit companies and - as indispensable as they feel in modern life - we shouldn't conflate them with public platforms. To your other point, they are responsible for content on their platform in many cases (violent threats, illegal adult content, allowing access to adult content to minors, copyright violations, dissemination of classified information, and so on) so I don't see a problem. edit: please don't downvote the parent poster? This is a perfectly fine response and good faith dialogue. We don't downvote something because we disagree with it.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  I agree with you except the reality is that we have no alternative to YouTube, not a serious one anyhow. So until that changes, unfortunately and regrettably, I do consider it a public forum - held by a private company. It’s a brave new world! Should thinking there is correlation between 5G and viral sensitivity be illegal? Of course not. The examples you listed are illegal and no one has any issue with those being removed. Public forum or not, these companies should not ethically be engaging in the policing of things they consider “wrong think”. It does nothing but distort reality for both sides. Look at HN, this is an extremely strong bubble mechanic here. I’ve lost 50-some “points” on this site in the last two days and prevented from replying for saying true, first hand, or on-topic things people don’t want to see, certainly nothing that breaks rules or should be hidden because one disagrees... but that’s what it is - people trying to hide the thing that makes them upset. Same issue in micro scale. No one should celebrate this mechanism. You should defend lizard man’s wrong think as “allowed speech” - because at some point no matter how smart or “Correct” you think you are, you will eventually find yourself on the “wrong side” of a corporate opinion, and when that happens, you will want to have supported protections for everyone the whole time. No one ever thinks the pendulum will swing. What child-like naively would be needed so just always assume the monopolies will “just happen” to agree with one’s sensibilities on who should get a voice or not?

mullingitover 7y ago

So your position is that if someone starts spamming Hacker News with hate speech, HN shouldn't be allowed to ban that user and delete their posts without shutting down the entire site? Because if web sites are legally liable for every post that's what's going to happen.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
Strawman aside... “Hate speech” is a very loose term. Do you mean actual calls to incite violence? Which are illegal and no one has any problem with their removal? Or do you mean “things I just don’t like”? Because HN already has a strong bubble mechanic to remove wrong-think (in practice right now!) “I disagree with you” or “I’m wildly wrong” isn’t typically against a website’s terms of service. Is this looney guy being wrong about 5G calling for violence? Is his opinion illegal in anyway? Can you see no scenario (past your own nose) that your opinion ever winds up on the “wrong side” of corporate judgment? Furthermore, if you’re just going to kick people off your platform because they’re wrong, you had better not selectively enforce that. Seems like it’s best to just be a PLATFORM. Which is exactly what they all claim to be. Except they do it while enjoying PUBLISHER convenience of removing things they just don’t like but are otherwise within the rules and terms.
- mullingitover 7y ago
  > “Hate speech” is a very loose term. No. It really isn't. Normal people know it when they see it, and the people who claim not to know it are usually the ones using it, along with the bad faith contrarians. > Seems like it’s best to just be a PLATFORM. Which is exactly what they all claim to be. Most sites refer to themselves as communities, and I have no problem with a community kicking bad actors (which they're free to define on their own terms) out while not being held legally responsible if they fail to do that perfectly.
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    > No. It really isn't. Normal people know it when they see it, Wow. That’s an argument I didn’t expect to see. Do you know we’ve already been over this for pornography? It’s a pretty famous argument that didn’t go the way you might want if you’re using it too. If you can’t tell me what hate speech is, but prove my point saying “people know what it is”... that’s exactly the definition of “loosely defined”. I’m not even saying it shouldn’t be loosely defined, there is nuance per context. >Communities Would you please be so kind as to tell me where that definition is in Section 230? You can refer to yourself however you like. In this context the LEGAL terms are platform and publisher. Well, Sounds like a good plan you have there. That it’s entirely ethical to hide wrong-think. Yes, I hope you never think the wrong things! Surely that could never happen right? Do you think it is coincidence that your opinion largely agrees with Silicon Valley’s “taste makers”?
    - mullingitover 7y ago
      > Do you know we’ve already been over this for pornography? It’s a pretty famous argument that didn’t go the way you might want if you’re using it too. I know exactly the context I'm lifting that line from (fun fact: Hacker News is not The Government). The great thing about Section 230 is that what is 'offensive' is up to the interactive service provider to judge. We're free to host our own web sites, let others publish to them, and we're free to tell them to get lost if they post repugnant things we don't like. It's perfectly in the spirit of the 1st Amendment. You're free to start your own web site and allow hate speech to be posted there. Many have tried. This site doesn't do that, and you're still spending time here and not on the hate speech-friendly sites. Why is that?
      - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        > You're free to start your own web site and allow hate speech to be posted there. And we’re done. That’s two strawmen in two posts.

throwaway5752 7y ago

I definitely am in the "not public forum" camp. Let me explain. The second you allow a private company control over a public resource, you are creating an expectation that a private company cannot meet. Public access tv and public streets are examples of public forums, and for example, I am very against free speech zones. But Youtube, Facebook, Reddit are ultimately private for-profit companies and - as indispensable as they feel in modern life - we shouldn't conflate them with public platforms. To your other point, they are responsible for content on their platform in many cases (violent threats, illegal adult content, allowing access to adult content to minors, copyright violations, dissemination of classified information, and so on) so I don't see a problem. edit: please don't downvote the parent poster? This is a perfectly fine response and good faith dialogue. We don't downvote something because we disagree with it.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
I agree with you except the reality is that we have no alternative to YouTube, not a serious one anyhow. So until that changes, unfortunately and regrettably, I do consider it a public forum - held by a private company. It’s a brave new world! Should thinking there is correlation between 5G and viral sensitivity be illegal? Of course not. The examples you listed are illegal and no one has any issue with those being removed. Public forum or not, these companies should not ethically be engaging in the policing of things they consider “wrong think”. It does nothing but distort reality for both sides. Look at HN, this is an extremely strong bubble mechanic here. I’ve lost 50-some “points” on this site in the last two days and prevented from replying for saying true, first hand, or on-topic things people don’t want to see, certainly nothing that breaks rules or should be hidden because one disagrees... but that’s what it is - people trying to hide the thing that makes them upset. Same issue in micro scale. No one should celebrate this mechanism. You should defend lizard man’s wrong think as “allowed speech” - because at some point no matter how smart or “Correct” you think you are, you will eventually find yourself on the “wrong side” of a corporate opinion, and when that happens, you will want to have supported protections for everyone the whole time. No one ever thinks the pendulum will swing. What child-like naively would be needed so just always assume the monopolies will “just happen” to agree with one’s sensibilities on who should get a voice or not?