3 ms·

I find it interesting (/ sad) that even on HN, we have a bunch of people saying things like "This is a bare minimum which should've been done a long time ago.”

I find it interesting (/ sad) that even on HN, we have a bunch of people saying things like "This is a bare minimum which should've been done a long time ago.” as if it’s an obvious fact that this is a good thing with no bad side effects; and people saying things like "Never let speech get censored no matter how good it makes you feel in the moment. It’s the worst precedent you can ever set.” as if it’s an equally unquestionable fact that this is a bad thing with no good side effects. I’ve spent 20 minutes scanning the discussion, and didn’t see anybody saying “there are both pros and cons here, but on balance, I think this is mostly-[good/bad]” - only 100% one way or the other :( (Feel free to correct me if there’s a ton of posts like this that I somehow missed) How can we be so sure we know what’s best for a platform of billions, when we can’t even stop our own community of thousands from being so polarised? D:

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
3np 6y ago
My (IMO) middle-ground take: Facebook runs a walled garden and has full authority to censor all they want within it. They can make rules and enforcement as arbitrary any forum admin or subreddit mod. I think this is as it should. No company should have authority over personal communication or public debate. Facebook only has the power users hand over to them. IMO it's clear that no company should be in the position that they are in. The answer isn't solidifying Facebook's role as central arbiter of free speech and regulate their role as moderator over public debate and private communication alike, but to transition to a state where the application, protocol, social graph and mode of communication aren't coupled with moderation by a given entity. Decentralize and federate. There's work to be done, but we need to fill the gap.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

3np 6y ago

My (IMO) middle-ground take: Facebook runs a walled garden and has full authority to censor all they want within it. They can make rules and enforcement as arbitrary any forum admin or subreddit mod. I think this is as it should. No company should have authority over personal communication or public debate. Facebook only has the power users hand over to them. IMO it's clear that no company should be in the position that they are in. The answer isn't solidifying Facebook's role as central arbiter of free speech and regulate their role as moderator over public debate and private communication alike, but to transition to a state where the application, protocol, social graph and mode of communication aren't coupled with moderation by a given entity. Decentralize and federate. There's work to be done, but we need to fill the gap.