4 ms·

These alternatives are ultimately the solution to the controversy of online censorship - no matter which side you're on. The ability to control and censor broa

These alternatives are ultimately the solution to the controversy of online censorship - no matter which side you're on. The ability to control and censor broad swaths of human communication globally is not a power any corporation should have. ...it is just one of many negative by-products of oligopolies.

olah_1 6y ago
Well a large amount of censorship has to do with being attractive to advertisers. And there’s this strange viscous cycle of how the Overton Window[1] is formed and then rigidly enforced. It’s not clear to me what comes first, chicken or egg, but I do think it’s not ideal. I think Minds does have a pretty unique system for moderation[2]. It does seem pretty resilient because the voting happens in private, so you can really vote your conscience. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window [2]: https://www.minds.com/content-policy https://www.minds.com/content-policy
godshatter 6y ago
They help, but there are other ways that something like minds.com could be inconvenienced that don't relate to financial issues. Gab.com, for example, has been dropped in the past by at least one domain registrar, by at least one web hosting company, and by a couple of different payment processors.
CamperBob2 6y ago
The ability to control and censor broad swaths of human communication globally is not a power any corporation should have. Scale it down for argument's sake, such that people are using a video service that you own and operate to spread extremely destructive false information about everything from elections and politics to public health. Your first reaction is "This is fine, the marketplace of ideas will sort it out in the end." Instead, it turns out that the more offensive, destructive, and just plain stupid the content is, the more people eagerly lap it up. Are you going to take steps to prevent this from happening? If not, how are you not at least partially responsible for the real-world consequences of the videos on your service, which seem to be mounting by the day? How about if someone posts a video calling for political assassinations or other violent criminal activity? Do you act to keep that sort of content off your channel? Where do you draw the line? And why should Google be prohibited from drawing the line at all? None of this justifies the unaccountable use of flawed algorithms to delete random channels, of course. But that's a separate point from the one you've raised.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  The argument most people make hinges exactly on the scale of the corporation and their reach. When a corporation is global and controls a very wide segment of all human communication, then it inherits certain ethical duties because frankly it's starting to look more and more like a government entity - one with zero accountability. > Where do you draw the line? Somewhere reasonable. I'd say Facebook, Twitter, Google, Reddit, Microsoft, and maybe a couple other massive communications companies, have a duty to preserve free speech - with a small number of exceptions like CP, calling directly for violence, etc... Ideally, the market would have more competition, but until that happens these companies should remain obligated not to bar content. Imagine if ISPs started blocking content to people who went to the "wrong" websites, or cell phone providers who overheard the "wrong" phone conversations.
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    Somewhere reasonable No comment. Imagine if ISPs started blocking content to people who went to the "wrong" websites, or cell phone providers who overheard the "wrong" phone conversations. For the record, my actual opinion mirrors yours almost 100%, except that I don't believe Google or Facebook should be forced to publish anything they don't want to. That's no better than overt censorship. These companies are not ISPs or public utilities, in that they don't rely on government-granted monopolies over public airwaves and physical rights of way. So they shouldn't be subject to strict content neutrality requirements.
- gerland 6y ago
  There is this weird thing that actually specifies what should be taken down and what should not. I think it was called the codex of law.

olah_1 6y ago

Well a large amount of censorship has to do with being attractive to advertisers. And there’s this strange viscous cycle of how the Overton Window[1] is formed and then rigidly enforced. It’s not clear to me what comes first, chicken or egg, but I do think it’s not ideal. I think Minds does have a pretty unique system for moderation[2]. It does seem pretty resilient because the voting happens in private, so you can really vote your conscience. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window [2]: https://www.minds.com/content-policy https://www.minds.com/content-policy

godshatter 6y ago

They help, but there are other ways that something like minds.com could be inconvenienced that don't relate to financial issues. Gab.com, for example, has been dropped in the past by at least one domain registrar, by at least one web hosting company, and by a couple of different payment processors.

CamperBob2 6y ago

The ability to control and censor broad swaths of human communication globally is not a power any corporation should have. Scale it down for argument's sake, such that people are using a video service that you own and operate to spread extremely destructive false information about everything from elections and politics to public health. Your first reaction is "This is fine, the marketplace of ideas will sort it out in the end." Instead, it turns out that the more offensive, destructive, and just plain stupid the content is, the more people eagerly lap it up. Are you going to take steps to prevent this from happening? If not, how are you not at least partially responsible for the real-world consequences of the videos on your service, which seem to be mounting by the day? How about if someone posts a video calling for political assassinations or other violent criminal activity? Do you act to keep that sort of content off your channel? Where do you draw the line? And why should Google be prohibited from drawing the line at all? None of this justifies the unaccountable use of flawed algorithms to delete random channels, of course. But that's a separate point from the one you've raised.

koheripbal 6y ago
The argument most people make hinges exactly on the scale of the corporation and their reach. When a corporation is global and controls a very wide segment of all human communication, then it inherits certain ethical duties because frankly it's starting to look more and more like a government entity - one with zero accountability. > Where do you draw the line? Somewhere reasonable. I'd say Facebook, Twitter, Google, Reddit, Microsoft, and maybe a couple other massive communications companies, have a duty to preserve free speech - with a small number of exceptions like CP, calling directly for violence, etc... Ideally, the market would have more competition, but until that happens these companies should remain obligated not to bar content. Imagine if ISPs started blocking content to people who went to the "wrong" websites, or cell phone providers who overheard the "wrong" phone conversations.
- CamperBob2 6y ago
  Somewhere reasonable No comment. Imagine if ISPs started blocking content to people who went to the "wrong" websites, or cell phone providers who overheard the "wrong" phone conversations. For the record, my actual opinion mirrors yours almost 100%, except that I don't believe Google or Facebook should be forced to publish anything they don't want to. That's no better than overt censorship. These companies are not ISPs or public utilities, in that they don't rely on government-granted monopolies over public airwaves and physical rights of way. So they shouldn't be subject to strict content neutrality requirements.
gerland 6y ago
There is this weird thing that actually specifies what should be taken down and what should not. I think it was called the codex of law.