4 ms·

Should fix... how? Companies should be compelled to provide a platform for free expression, and forbidden from removing any content, no matter how objectionable

Should fix... how? Companies should be compelled to provide a platform for free expression, and forbidden from removing any content, no matter how objectionable? It's unclear to me what you're suggesting.

x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
I think it's clear what parent commenter is suggesting. And that no medium if privately owned has the right to moderate itself and must carry any and all speech and productions. Just because it's unreasonable and makes no sense doesn't mean people don't want it or widely support it on HN.
- ethanwillis 6y ago
  I think the difference is mediums that have reached a certain size and cultural influence that they are effectively modern public forums. If all public discussion is on happening on these private platforms then they a civic duty to not suppress speech. What's happening is people conflate "not suppressing speech" with "supporting hate speech." They don't support anything. They're nothing more at this point than a public space maintained by a private entity. Private entities I'll add that are essentially subsidized by taxpayers due to not meeting their obligations of paying their taxes, and no I'm not talking about minimizing tax obligations[0]. [0] - https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/19/21144291/facebook-irs-lawsuit-9-billion-taxes https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/19/21144291/facebook-irs-law... And nobody ever said "no matter how objectionable." We still have limits on obscenity.
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    Obscenity as a legal term is complicated. Culturally, even more so. One person's "obscenity" is another person's "vernacular of the street." What is obscene in Kuwait might be an everyday greeting in Sydney. Primarily, you are arguing for compelling corporation to expend effort and expense to carry content deemed objectionable by officers of that company, and I'm not sure you've thought that through. You might think politically-[whatever] voices are being silenced--absent evidence--but if the US government decides to violate hundreds of years of established norms and force websites to cease censoring content, it won't be just content you favor that explodes. And if the US government can force Facebook and Twitter to carry content they don't like, then what legal standard separates them from Hacker News, for example?
    - ethanwillis 6y ago
      I'd rather leave the definition of obscenity to the courts than to a private company. If a company wants to editorialize their content and provide moderation when they deem fit then they specifically should lose their protections under section 230.
      - pwinnski 6y ago
        That is completely the opposite of how section 230 works, and section 230 is the entire reason websites like Hacker News are allowed to exist. Your argument has now gotten even worse, not better! If a company loses Section 230 protections, the safest move is to disable user content completely. No comments anywhere. The next-safest move is to be extremely heavy-handed editorially, since any comment left alone could be the basis for a company-ending lawsuit. Whatever views you believe are being censored now, I guarantee you they would be actually censored completely without Section 230. Read Section 230[0]. It's the foundation of the modern internet and says almost exactly the opposite of what you're suggesting. Read 230(c)(2)(A) twice. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
mixedCase 6y ago
Not the GP, but I'm thinking you could have a system where instead of centralized control, as a user you can subscribe to blocklists provided by the company as well as community-made ones. These would be tasked with the regulation of legal speech, and providing a framework for these lists would be a requirement to be protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act if you meet certain requirements; while illegal speech can still be controlled under traditional centralized moderation. Not sure how legislation would define the requirements for something like this. What would metrics would signal that a platform to have to comply with the regulation? (MAUs?, revenue?, surely having moderation, but should certain kinds of moderation like removing botspam count?) Should a provider be able to silently set-up default lists for new users or should they be prompted? Should the company be required to break down blocklists among different topics (spam/pornography/depictions of violence/a goose with a campfire in the background) and how should the boundaries of topics be defined if so? What kind of functionality should be considered the bare minimum for a framework to build community-curated blocklists? Mind you, I still am not sure regulation is the way to go. But the truth is that these platforms wield a scary amount of power over the psyche of people to extents that would've made the Stasi drool all over the place, and it does have the ability of corrupting democracy far more than biased TV channels and newspapers since it's no longer Fox News or CNN presenting you something, it's your own acquaintances that get some of their voices artificially boosted while some others are silenced; literally distorting a huge amount of voters' own grasp on reality.

x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago

I think it's clear what parent commenter is suggesting. And that no medium if privately owned has the right to moderate itself and must carry any and all speech and productions. Just because it's unreasonable and makes no sense doesn't mean people don't want it or widely support it on HN.

ethanwillis 6y ago
I think the difference is mediums that have reached a certain size and cultural influence that they are effectively modern public forums. If all public discussion is on happening on these private platforms then they a civic duty to not suppress speech. What's happening is people conflate "not suppressing speech" with "supporting hate speech." They don't support anything. They're nothing more at this point than a public space maintained by a private entity. Private entities I'll add that are essentially subsidized by taxpayers due to not meeting their obligations of paying their taxes, and no I'm not talking about minimizing tax obligations[0]. [0] - https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/19/21144291/facebook-irs-lawsuit-9-billion-taxes https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/19/21144291/facebook-irs-law... And nobody ever said "no matter how objectionable." We still have limits on obscenity.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  Obscenity as a legal term is complicated. Culturally, even more so. One person's "obscenity" is another person's "vernacular of the street." What is obscene in Kuwait might be an everyday greeting in Sydney. Primarily, you are arguing for compelling corporation to expend effort and expense to carry content deemed objectionable by officers of that company, and I'm not sure you've thought that through. You might think politically-[whatever] voices are being silenced--absent evidence--but if the US government decides to violate hundreds of years of established norms and force websites to cease censoring content, it won't be just content you favor that explodes. And if the US government can force Facebook and Twitter to carry content they don't like, then what legal standard separates them from Hacker News, for example?
  - ethanwillis 6y ago
    I'd rather leave the definition of obscenity to the courts than to a private company. If a company wants to editorialize their content and provide moderation when they deem fit then they specifically should lose their protections under section 230.
    - pwinnski 6y ago
      That is completely the opposite of how section 230 works, and section 230 is the entire reason websites like Hacker News are allowed to exist. Your argument has now gotten even worse, not better! If a company loses Section 230 protections, the safest move is to disable user content completely. No comments anywhere. The next-safest move is to be extremely heavy-handed editorially, since any comment left alone could be the basis for a company-ending lawsuit. Whatever views you believe are being censored now, I guarantee you they would be actually censored completely without Section 230. Read Section 230[0]. It's the foundation of the modern internet and says almost exactly the opposite of what you're suggesting. Read 230(c)(2)(A) twice. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

mixedCase 6y ago

Not the GP, but I'm thinking you could have a system where instead of centralized control, as a user you can subscribe to blocklists provided by the company as well as community-made ones. These would be tasked with the regulation of legal speech, and providing a framework for these lists would be a requirement to be protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act if you meet certain requirements; while illegal speech can still be controlled under traditional centralized moderation. Not sure how legislation would define the requirements for something like this. What would metrics would signal that a platform to have to comply with the regulation? (MAUs?, revenue?, surely having moderation, but should certain kinds of moderation like removing botspam count?) Should a provider be able to silently set-up default lists for new users or should they be prompted? Should the company be required to break down blocklists among different topics (spam/pornography/depictions of violence/a goose with a campfire in the background) and how should the boundaries of topics be defined if so? What kind of functionality should be considered the bare minimum for a framework to build community-curated blocklists? Mind you, I still am not sure regulation is the way to go. But the truth is that these platforms wield a scary amount of power over the psyche of people to extents that would've made the Stasi drool all over the place, and it does have the ability of corrupting democracy far more than biased TV channels and newspapers since it's no longer Fox News or CNN presenting you something, it's your own acquaintances that get some of their voices artificially boosted while some others are silenced; literally distorting a huge amount of voters' own grasp on reality.