3 ms·

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

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).
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  > "Forcing someone to say something against their will" As many on HN have said in the past, corporations aren't people. Speaking about their will makes no sense.
jakelazaroff 6y ago
How does removing “Viagra bot spam” adhere to the moral principle of free speech? Why does the New York Post get special moral privileges that Bob’s Viagra Store does not? This is the frustrating thing about this debate: one side tries to position itself as “anti-censorship”, when really that position only extends to cover speech they care about.
- abnry 6y ago
  Because the one is an obvious expression of carnal desires and greed while the other is at least ostensibly about ideology and truth.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    The whole point of “freedom of speech” is that there should be no value judgment that determines whether or not something is acceptable to say.
    - googthrowaway42 6y ago
      To accept the legitimacy of the principle of freedom of speech is to make a value judgement. If you want some pure criteria you can use to make content moderation decisions, then the purest criteria is no content moderation at all. You can remove obvious spam (e.g. viagra advertisements posted by bots) and still adhere to principles of free speech. Advertisements posted by bots are not written by human beings acting in good faith in the pursuit of truth. And I mean that very broadly. Even trolling can be done in good faith.
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        > Advertisements posted by bots are not written by human beings acting in good faith in the pursuit of truth. So if Twitter didn't believe that the New York Post article was written by people acting in "good faith in the pursuit of truth", it's okay to censor? The intentions of the speaker and the value of their speech are subjective. It's fine to argue that we should be okay with censoring some thing you don't like. But at least acknowledge that you're not making an appeal to "the principle of freedom of speech" — you're just arguing for others to adopt your own boundaries of what's acceptable.

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).
ThrowawayR2 6y ago
> "Forcing someone to say something against their will" As many on HN have said in the past, corporations aren't people. Speaking about their will makes no sense.

jakelazaroff 6y ago

How does removing “Viagra bot spam” adhere to the moral principle of free speech? Why does the New York Post get special moral privileges that Bob’s Viagra Store does not? This is the frustrating thing about this debate: one side tries to position itself as “anti-censorship”, when really that position only extends to cover speech they care about.

abnry 6y ago
Because the one is an obvious expression of carnal desires and greed while the other is at least ostensibly about ideology and truth.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  The whole point of “freedom of speech” is that there should be no value judgment that determines whether or not something is acceptable to say.
  - googthrowaway42 6y ago
    To accept the legitimacy of the principle of freedom of speech is to make a value judgement. If you want some pure criteria you can use to make content moderation decisions, then the purest criteria is no content moderation at all. You can remove obvious spam (e.g. viagra advertisements posted by bots) and still adhere to principles of free speech. Advertisements posted by bots are not written by human beings acting in good faith in the pursuit of truth. And I mean that very broadly. Even trolling can be done in good faith.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      > Advertisements posted by bots are not written by human beings acting in good faith in the pursuit of truth. So if Twitter didn't believe that the New York Post article was written by people acting in "good faith in the pursuit of truth", it's okay to censor? The intentions of the speaker and the value of their speech are subjective. It's fine to argue that we should be okay with censoring some thing you don't like. But at least acknowledge that you're not making an appeal to "the principle of freedom of speech" — you're just arguing for others to adopt your own boundaries of what's acceptable.