3 ms·

> If an HN admin removes a comment on a post, they've curated that discussion, effectively. Then they'd be responsible for the comment that got removed; what's

> If an HN admin removes a comment on a post, they've curated that discussion, effectively. Then they'd be responsible for the comment that got removed; what's the problem with that? It's not like they'd be modifying one word in a sentence and not want to be responsible for the next one. This kind of thing should obviously work on small data units, like tweets, posts, etc.

raesene9 6y ago
If they curate the content, they're responsible for it. If they are then accused of political bias or censorship (as with the case that triggered all this), can they be sued by the commentor whose comment they removed? Once they've curated a conversation (removing comments) are they responsible for the ones they didn't remove in that conversation as it's implicit approval?
- DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
  Maybe the question is, how much content can you remove for what reasons until it becomes an endorsement of the remaining content. Removing a specific post for reasons like violating site rules is different than removing hundreds of posts that express some common political opinion. How should that line be drawn? That's complicated, but that doesn't mean there's no good answer. Maybe the line should be form vs. content; removing a post because of strong language (if the site specifically does not allow it) is different from removing a post because of an expressed idea. There's also a clear difference between presenting something demonstrably false as fact and and questioning the reasoning by which such falsehoods are identified. Both might be expressions of conspiracy theory, but should be protected by a persons freedom to express their opinion, the other is a lie.
  - raesene9 6y ago
    Under current rules, on most social media sites, things can be cause for removal without being demonstrably false. What you appear to be suggesting is that only demonstrably false or things like strong language apply. If you suggest that platforms cannot remove other content, a lot of actions from people like reddit to remove objectionable content are banned, similarly here. Content has been removed from HN for example for "not contributing to the discussion", that's a subjective opinion, but one I'd suggest that site owners are entitled to. Also when you start getting into very fine grained distinctions (for example have some of the things president trump has said been "demonstrably false" or not?) the chances of a law accurately capturing that requirement in such a way that a massive number of lawsuits are not started are (in my opinion) low. Opening the door to that kind of lawsuit would seem likely to destroy smaller, less well funded sites, whilst larger players could likely weather the storm.
- raesene9 6y ago
  Just as an addendum to this, HN provided a great example. This whole post just dropped off the front page and isn't showing in the top 3 pages of results. It could very much be argued that they curated the post, and if they're responsible for removing it from the front page , is that a form of censorship...
  - loopz 6y ago
    Social media platforms came from private forums, not publishing and newspapers. Moderation has always been a form of accepted censorship on private forums, and indeed, they cannot exist in every legal form without being able to curate own design and content.
    - raesene9 6y ago
      I agree with you, that's why I don't think it's plausible to apply legal rules to them in the way that's proposed for twitter. The point I was making is that things that could apply to twitter also apply everywhere there is user generated content.

raesene9 6y ago

If they curate the content, they're responsible for it. If they are then accused of political bias or censorship (as with the case that triggered all this), can they be sued by the commentor whose comment they removed? Once they've curated a conversation (removing comments) are they responsible for the ones they didn't remove in that conversation as it's implicit approval?

DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
Maybe the question is, how much content can you remove for what reasons until it becomes an endorsement of the remaining content. Removing a specific post for reasons like violating site rules is different than removing hundreds of posts that express some common political opinion. How should that line be drawn? That's complicated, but that doesn't mean there's no good answer. Maybe the line should be form vs. content; removing a post because of strong language (if the site specifically does not allow it) is different from removing a post because of an expressed idea. There's also a clear difference between presenting something demonstrably false as fact and and questioning the reasoning by which such falsehoods are identified. Both might be expressions of conspiracy theory, but should be protected by a persons freedom to express their opinion, the other is a lie.
- raesene9 6y ago
  Under current rules, on most social media sites, things can be cause for removal without being demonstrably false. What you appear to be suggesting is that only demonstrably false or things like strong language apply. If you suggest that platforms cannot remove other content, a lot of actions from people like reddit to remove objectionable content are banned, similarly here. Content has been removed from HN for example for "not contributing to the discussion", that's a subjective opinion, but one I'd suggest that site owners are entitled to. Also when you start getting into very fine grained distinctions (for example have some of the things president trump has said been "demonstrably false" or not?) the chances of a law accurately capturing that requirement in such a way that a massive number of lawsuits are not started are (in my opinion) low. Opening the door to that kind of lawsuit would seem likely to destroy smaller, less well funded sites, whilst larger players could likely weather the storm.
raesene9 6y ago
Just as an addendum to this, HN provided a great example. This whole post just dropped off the front page and isn't showing in the top 3 pages of results. It could very much be argued that they curated the post, and if they're responsible for removing it from the front page , is that a form of censorship...
- loopz 6y ago
  Social media platforms came from private forums, not publishing and newspapers. Moderation has always been a form of accepted censorship on private forums, and indeed, they cannot exist in every legal form without being able to curate own design and content.
  - raesene9 6y ago
    I agree with you, that's why I don't think it's plausible to apply legal rules to them in the way that's proposed for twitter. The point I was making is that things that could apply to twitter also apply everywhere there is user generated content.