5 ms·

Content moderation is a form of free speech.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
So this would make censorship a form of free speech. We've reach a contradiction, so there must be an error in the chain of reasoning. My money is on "content moderation is a form of free speech" being wrong.
- nkurz 6y ago
  I'm not sure. What is the exact contradiction that you see? Viewing moderation as another form as speech seems reasonable to me, or at least as reasonable as viewing a campaign contribution as a form of speech. Perhaps the actual issue is that "free speech" cannot be a guaranteed right shared by all, but is inherently a rivalrous good.
- RangerScience 6y ago
  My money is on censorship being a form of free speech. Not a concept that I've heard before, or that (at a glance) makes any kind of sense to me. Can you walk me through that equality?
- chrisoverzero 6y ago
  >We’ve reach[ed] a contradiction […] No, it’s only that people are using differing definitions of “censorship” and talking past each other. Content moderation is, in fact, a form of free speech. Twitter (for example) is allowed to choose what they want to host on their website, and what they want not to host on their website. This is free speech – it’s their site, one can’t make them host what one writes. If choosing what to remove from their website is deemed “censorship”, then there’s no contradiction.
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    The contradiction is that "freedom" is paradoxical. It is impossible for everyone to be free if any two individuals disagree.
- cortesoft 6y ago
  My money is on content moderation being censorship. If content moderation is censorship, then you are arguing that if I ask you to say something out loud and you don't say it, you are censoring me.
  - salawat 6y ago
    No. You are censoring the other by attempting to compel their speech. Their speech is no longer free.
    - cortesoft 6y ago
      Isn't requiring twitter to publish a tweet also compelling speech?
- krapp 6y ago
  Content moderation isn't free speech, it's freedom of association, or in constitutional terms, freedom of assembly. Consider that Ben Franklin wouldn't publish libelous or slanderous material submitted to his newspaper - clearly a form of "content moderation." He believed in the right of the people submitting such things to express them and would suggest they try elsewhere, but also believed in his right not to publish those views on his "platform." I don't think anyone would accuse Ben Franklin of not believing in free speech, so clearly a reasonable person can square the apparent circle. Freedom of speech isn't the only right relevant to speech, and freedom of speech doesn't guarantee a right to speak on all platforms.
googthrowaway42 6y ago
Free speech is a moral principle. Content moderation decisions can adhere to this principle or not. Removal of viagra bot spam from a blog comment section is a clear example where content moderation adheres to the principles of free speech. Removing content on a platform like Twitter simply because the Silicon Valley elitists/leftists that run Twitter don't like it is not in keeping with the principle of free speech (for the record I interviewed and got an offer from Twitter but declined). A good razor to use is to see if the rules are being applied in an uneven way. The principle of freedom of speech is an application of the idea of epistemic humility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_humility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_humility The point you were trying to make is "Content moderation falls under the first amendment" which I can't disagree with. It's important to understand the difference between a moral principle and a legal instantiation of it (the first amendment). I hope that helps clear things up for you.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  "Content moderation" is about the speech someone running a website is willing to participate in. Requiring them to publish everything their users post would be what's called "coerced speech", which happens to be single biggest no-no of the legal concept of freedom of speech. Forcing someone to say something against their will is considered far worse than preventing someone from saying something they want to say. That's how "warrant canaries" work: the government can stop you from disclosing the court order you received. But they cannot force you to continue saying that you never received such an order.
  - googthrowaway42 6y ago
    I think you're stretching the idea of compelled speech to the point where it loses its essential meaning. Compelled speech is when someone forces you to say something, not when you are prevented from disallowing someone to say something under their own name on your website/property. When I comment on HN I do not comment as HN itself. What you're talking about seems like an application of the idea of private property rights (i.e. kicking someone out of your house/office for saying something you don't like).

So this would make censorship a form of free speech. We've reach a contradiction, so there must be an error in the chain of reasoning. My money is on "content moderation is a form of free speech" being wrong.

nkurz 6y ago
I'm not sure. What is the exact contradiction that you see? Viewing moderation as another form as speech seems reasonable to me, or at least as reasonable as viewing a campaign contribution as a form of speech. Perhaps the actual issue is that "free speech" cannot be a guaranteed right shared by all, but is inherently a rivalrous good.
RangerScience 6y ago
My money is on censorship being a form of free speech. Not a concept that I've heard before, or that (at a glance) makes any kind of sense to me. Can you walk me through that equality?
chrisoverzero 6y ago
>We’ve reach[ed] a contradiction […] No, it’s only that people are using differing definitions of “censorship” and talking past each other. Content moderation is, in fact, a form of free speech. Twitter (for example) is allowed to choose what they want to host on their website, and what they want not to host on their website. This is free speech – it’s their site, one can’t make them host what one writes. If choosing what to remove from their website is deemed “censorship”, then there’s no contradiction.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  The contradiction is that "freedom" is paradoxical. It is impossible for everyone to be free if any two individuals disagree.
cortesoft 6y ago
My money is on content moderation being censorship. If content moderation is censorship, then you are arguing that if I ask you to say something out loud and you don't say it, you are censoring me.
- salawat 6y ago
  No. You are censoring the other by attempting to compel their speech. Their speech is no longer free.
  - cortesoft 6y ago
    Isn't requiring twitter to publish a tweet also compelling speech?
krapp 6y ago
Content moderation isn't free speech, it's freedom of association, or in constitutional terms, freedom of assembly. Consider that Ben Franklin wouldn't publish libelous or slanderous material submitted to his newspaper - clearly a form of "content moderation." He believed in the right of the people submitting such things to express them and would suggest they try elsewhere, but also believed in his right not to publish those views on his "platform." I don't think anyone would accuse Ben Franklin of not believing in free speech, so clearly a reasonable person can square the apparent circle. Freedom of speech isn't the only right relevant to speech, and freedom of speech doesn't guarantee a right to speak on all platforms.

googthrowaway42 6y ago

Free speech is a moral principle. Content moderation decisions can adhere to this principle or not. Removal of viagra bot spam from a blog comment section is a clear example where content moderation adheres to the principles of free speech. Removing content on a platform like Twitter simply because the Silicon Valley elitists/leftists that run Twitter don't like it is not in keeping with the principle of free speech (for the record I interviewed and got an offer from Twitter but declined). A good razor to use is to see if the rules are being applied in an uneven way. The principle of freedom of speech is an application of the idea of epistemic humility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_humility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_humility The point you were trying to make is "Content moderation falls under the first amendment" which I can't disagree with. It's important to understand the difference between a moral principle and a legal instantiation of it (the first amendment). I hope that helps clear things up for you.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
"Content moderation" is about the speech someone running a website is willing to participate in. Requiring them to publish everything their users post would be what's called "coerced speech", which happens to be single biggest no-no of the legal concept of freedom of speech. Forcing someone to say something against their will is considered far worse than preventing someone from saying something they want to say. That's how "warrant canaries" work: the government can stop you from disclosing the court order you received. But they cannot force you to continue saying that you never received such an order.
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  I think you're stretching the idea of compelled speech to the point where it loses its essential meaning. Compelled speech is when someone forces you to say something, not when you are prevented from disallowing someone to say something under their own name on your website/property. When I comment on HN I do not comment as HN itself. What you're talking about seems like an application of the idea of private property rights (i.e. kicking someone out of your house/office for saying something you don't like).