4 ms·

But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship I was born in t

But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship I was born in the 1970s and I can tell you why I flipped. The (hopelessly naive) ideal many of us had was that, by breaking down communication barriers, we'd create an egalitarian "marketplace of ideas" and the best ideas would win. And by "best" ideas we generally meant principles of equality, science, and so forth. Regardless of what you feel needs to be done... I'm sure you can agree that hasn't been achieved. Probably more like the opposite. The problem is that by amplifying all voices, we've simply created another "might makes right" situation. Unfettered online discourse is dominated by those who yell the loudest. This includes a large number of woefully misinformed people, and genuinely malicious actors such as (for example) the hordes of paid internet trolls funded by America's rivals in order to sow discord and disinformation during our 2016 elections. In effect, we've replaced the staid and conservative corporate self-censorship of decades past with something that is quite frequently worse. I mean, free speech sure sounds good, but in reality it means that your racist uncle ranting about chemtrails on Facebook gets to be heard right alongside people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about. I unapologetically do not know what the solution is.

Karunamon 6y ago
There is no solution to this problem that doesn't involve unaccountable third parties setting the ground rules for what is okay to say. I'd take a thousand racist uncles writing about chemtrails before taking a single official censor. The abuse factor for the latter is simply too high to ever permit. Freedom of speech, as a concept, includes by extension the freedom to be wrong.
- JohnBooty 6y ago
  There is no solution to this problem that doesn't involve unaccountable third parties setting the ground rules for what is okay to say Literally nobody is talking about taking away anybody's right to say, write, or think things. You're confusing this right with Twitter's utterly nonexistent obligation to transmit and amplify your thoughts to others.
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    If Twitter wants to editorialize in this manner, then perhaps it's time to revisit section 230 after all.
    - JohnBooty 6y ago
      We should revisit it, for sure. I do not think that law is adequate to cover the current state of affairs. Personally, I'd allow curation/gatekeeping by platforms like Twitter as long as (1) it's transparent (2) there are viable alternatives, including totally unmoderated places where people can post all the coronavirus hoaxes and exhortations to "join the race war" they desire. It's also worth noting that you are posting this on Hacker News, platform that is far more stringently curated/moderated than Twitter. Why are you here if moderation is so objectionable to you? You are here presumably because you like the job they do. If that changes you can go someplace else. There are countless alternatives to both HN and Twitter and you can even start your own. Either from scratch, or just spin up a Wordpress site or a Mastodon instance or whatever.
- anthonyrstevens 6y ago
  >> There is NO SOLUTION [Emphasis added] to this problem that doesn't involve unaccountable third parties setting the ground rules Are you absolutely sure that this statement is correct?

Karunamon 6y ago

There is no solution to this problem that doesn't involve unaccountable third parties setting the ground rules for what is okay to say. I'd take a thousand racist uncles writing about chemtrails before taking a single official censor. The abuse factor for the latter is simply too high to ever permit. Freedom of speech, as a concept, includes by extension the freedom to be wrong.

JohnBooty 6y ago
There is no solution to this problem that doesn't involve unaccountable third parties setting the ground rules for what is okay to say Literally nobody is talking about taking away anybody's right to say, write, or think things. You're confusing this right with Twitter's utterly nonexistent obligation to transmit and amplify your thoughts to others.
- Karunamon 6y ago
  If Twitter wants to editorialize in this manner, then perhaps it's time to revisit section 230 after all.
  - JohnBooty 6y ago
    We should revisit it, for sure. I do not think that law is adequate to cover the current state of affairs. Personally, I'd allow curation/gatekeeping by platforms like Twitter as long as (1) it's transparent (2) there are viable alternatives, including totally unmoderated places where people can post all the coronavirus hoaxes and exhortations to "join the race war" they desire. It's also worth noting that you are posting this on Hacker News, platform that is far more stringently curated/moderated than Twitter. Why are you here if moderation is so objectionable to you? You are here presumably because you like the job they do. If that changes you can go someplace else. There are countless alternatives to both HN and Twitter and you can even start your own. Either from scratch, or just spin up a Wordpress site or a Mastodon instance or whatever.
anthonyrstevens 6y ago
>> There is NO SOLUTION [Emphasis added] to this problem that doesn't involve unaccountable third parties setting the ground rules Are you absolutely sure that this statement is correct?