4 ms·

I've been of the opinion that hosting sites should be agnostic of the posted content. The moment you try to fact-check one person, you open a very large can of

I've been of the opinion that hosting sites should be agnostic of the posted content. The moment you try to fact-check one person, you open a very large can of worms and become responsible for fact-checking everyone. Information is cheap and people post correct and incorrect facts all the time. Censorship does not scale. The world is a dangerous place and it's more scalable to teach future generations that they'll run into good and bad information and that they should make decisions for themselves. Trying to censor all of the "bad" stuff is a huge can of worms and is not something huge platforms should even try to be doing. Let the mirror be black, and teach people how to scrub the dirt off. When in doubt, err on the side of higher user agency.

kajecounterhack 6y ago
What do you think of spam filters? Do you think Facebook would be a useful product if predatory posts or rampant advertising were allowed? https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/this-is-bob https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/this-is-bob What do you think of this? Would you still use hacker news if such posts littered the site? > Information is cheap and people post correct and incorrect facts all the time. Censorship does not scale. Censorship on platforms will never be perfect but there's a great deal of space between perfect censorship and a ridiculous free for all. You need moderation/filtering to make the modern web work.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jedimastert 6y ago
  > Do you think Facebook would be a useful product if predatory posts or rampant advertising were allowed? ...do you think it's not allowed?
  - kajecounterhack 6y ago
    Phishing attempts and bot-posting ads are surely disallowed.
- sebmellen 6y ago
  Is this not a strawman argument? The hosting layer should be agnostic (like, say, https://nearlyfreespeech.net https://nearlyfreespeech.net), but the site admins can do what they'd like with their site (including removing spam).
  - kajecounterhack 6y ago
    No, this is literally what happens on FB. Anything public on the main platform is censored by Facebook. Anything in private groups are moderated by site admins (including removing spam, though users can still report classes of entirely banned things like violence, hate speech, etc -- but until a user reports, Facebook doesn't see). Consider the alternative: public groups would get spammed by bots. There would be no more public groups. Agnostic just isn't possible, because now you'll have to ask the question, "well what's spam?" For legal reasons you need to consider things like CSAI (https://protectingchildren.google/intl/en https://protectingchildren.google/intl/en), and then ask yourself questions of morality like "is it OK that the platform I'm building helps to proliferate misinformation that is affecting election outcomes -- potentially damaging democracy, and is causing deaths by way of encouraging people to behave recklessly" ??? There's no way to build the platform and not ask these questions.
    - sebmellen 6y ago
      I think you're misinterpreting the definition of hosting — I believe the grandparent was referring to web hosting (not a site "being the host of" specific discourse).
      - kajecounterhack 6y ago
        Oh you read the OP's comment differently. I don't think they were talking about an actual web host, because given context it sounded much more like they were talking about a platform that is "hosting" users. E.g they say ```Trying to censor all of the "bad" stuff is a huge can of worms and is not something huge platforms should even try to be doing.``` << clearly talking about social media platforms Yeah obviously a company providing server resources has / should have nothing to do with user moderation. Same with ISPs. They couldn't do anything if they wanted. I guess some webhosts have policies against hosting adult content but it's probably more about avoiding legal issues (e.g with CSAI) than anything else.
- anonytrary 6y ago
  Spam filters as I know them are different. A good spam filter will just be a bifurcation where you can still see what was considered "spam" by looking at the spam tab. When Wordpress, Facebook, et al. decide to show you certain things based off of what they consider is good, you are being denied the full story entirely.
XorNot 6y ago
Freedom of association is a right covered by the 1st Amendment as interpreted by the US Supreme Court. You have a right to go to the Town Square and voice your views if people want to listen, you don't have a right to do the same in a Wendy's.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  And being forced to associate with someone by the government is just as tyrannical as being forced to not associate with someone by the government.
  - arrosenberg 6y ago
    That really depends on what you mean by “forced to associate”. You live in the same country, some association may be unavoidable.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      That's such a broad definition of both "force" and "associate", I'm inclined to call this a bad faith argument. No reasonable definition of "forced to associate" in the context of governmental power has anything to do with happening to live in the same country as someone you dislike.
    - cortesoft 6y ago
      "Forced to associate" in this case means requiring a private company to host content it doesn't agree with.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- mrslave 6y ago
  > You have a right to go to the Town Square and voice your views if people want to listen, you don't have a right to do the same in a Wendy's. But what about when the town square has moved on-line? Let's say it's not Wendy's IRL, but wendys.com. This is now a public space where people talk. And on top of this, people who don't like what you have to say aren't following you and don't have to listen to you anyway. Perhaps these websites are rather like a pub. People mostly go there in a group of friends, obviously are more likely to exchange with similar people or people with similar ideas, but there are other people there too having their own fun in a social setting. Occasionally very different people also exchange, sometimes politely, but sometimes not. But until fists are thrown, the publican isn't looking to kick anyone out. Sometimes the best exchanges are disagreeing people discussing in good faith, if that's what they're in the mood for. Sometimes they're just polite enough to talk about something they do agree on, rather than call for other people to be banned just because they're unpopular.
JoshTriplett 6y ago
> The moment you try to fact-check one person, you open a very large can of worms and become responsible for fact-checking everyone. This is untrue, and a false dichotomy. An argument of the form "you must (do thing I want anyway) or (do impossible thing)" doesn't actually make any case for why those are the only two options, and in this case, those are not the only two options. It's entirely possible to deal with things as they arise, on a case-by-case basis as you become aware of them.
- anonytrary 6y ago
  > It's entirely possible to deal with things as they arise, on a case-by-case basis as you become aware of them. Although do not forget that your rate of "dealing with things" may be lower than the rate of "things happening". The admin's bias comes in when they decide who to focus on, etc. If you are famous or have burned the wrong bridges, your chances of being censored are higher.
cortesoft 6y ago
> The moment you try to fact-check one person, you open a very large can of worms and become responsible for fact-checking everyone. Says who? This isn't some logical conclusion that can just be said a priori. This is like saying "we can't have speed limits... if you pull over one speeding car, you have to pull over every speeding car! That would be impossible!"

kajecounterhack 6y ago

What do you think of spam filters? Do you think Facebook would be a useful product if predatory posts or rampant advertising were allowed? https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/this-is-bob https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/this-is-bob What do you think of this? Would you still use hacker news if such posts littered the site? > Information is cheap and people post correct and incorrect facts all the time. Censorship does not scale. Censorship on platforms will never be perfect but there's a great deal of space between perfect censorship and a ridiculous free for all. You need moderation/filtering to make the modern web work.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jedimastert 6y ago
> Do you think Facebook would be a useful product if predatory posts or rampant advertising were allowed? ...do you think it's not allowed?
- kajecounterhack 6y ago
  Phishing attempts and bot-posting ads are surely disallowed.
sebmellen 6y ago
Is this not a strawman argument? The hosting layer should be agnostic (like, say, https://nearlyfreespeech.net https://nearlyfreespeech.net), but the site admins can do what they'd like with their site (including removing spam).
- kajecounterhack 6y ago
  No, this is literally what happens on FB. Anything public on the main platform is censored by Facebook. Anything in private groups are moderated by site admins (including removing spam, though users can still report classes of entirely banned things like violence, hate speech, etc -- but until a user reports, Facebook doesn't see). Consider the alternative: public groups would get spammed by bots. There would be no more public groups. Agnostic just isn't possible, because now you'll have to ask the question, "well what's spam?" For legal reasons you need to consider things like CSAI (https://protectingchildren.google/intl/en https://protectingchildren.google/intl/en), and then ask yourself questions of morality like "is it OK that the platform I'm building helps to proliferate misinformation that is affecting election outcomes -- potentially damaging democracy, and is causing deaths by way of encouraging people to behave recklessly" ??? There's no way to build the platform and not ask these questions.
  - sebmellen 6y ago
    I think you're misinterpreting the definition of hosting — I believe the grandparent was referring to web hosting (not a site "being the host of" specific discourse).
    - kajecounterhack 6y ago
      Oh you read the OP's comment differently. I don't think they were talking about an actual web host, because given context it sounded much more like they were talking about a platform that is "hosting" users. E.g they say ```Trying to censor all of the "bad" stuff is a huge can of worms and is not something huge platforms should even try to be doing.``` << clearly talking about social media platforms Yeah obviously a company providing server resources has / should have nothing to do with user moderation. Same with ISPs. They couldn't do anything if they wanted. I guess some webhosts have policies against hosting adult content but it's probably more about avoiding legal issues (e.g with CSAI) than anything else.
anonytrary 6y ago
Spam filters as I know them are different. A good spam filter will just be a bifurcation where you can still see what was considered "spam" by looking at the spam tab. When Wordpress, Facebook, et al. decide to show you certain things based off of what they consider is good, you are being denied the full story entirely.

XorNot 6y ago

Freedom of association is a right covered by the 1st Amendment as interpreted by the US Supreme Court. You have a right to go to the Town Square and voice your views if people want to listen, you don't have a right to do the same in a Wendy's.

ashtonkem 6y ago
And being forced to associate with someone by the government is just as tyrannical as being forced to not associate with someone by the government.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  That really depends on what you mean by “forced to associate”. You live in the same country, some association may be unavoidable.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    That's such a broad definition of both "force" and "associate", I'm inclined to call this a bad faith argument. No reasonable definition of "forced to associate" in the context of governmental power has anything to do with happening to live in the same country as someone you dislike.
  - cortesoft 6y ago
    "Forced to associate" in this case means requiring a private company to host content it doesn't agree with.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mrslave 6y ago
> You have a right to go to the Town Square and voice your views if people want to listen, you don't have a right to do the same in a Wendy's. But what about when the town square has moved on-line? Let's say it's not Wendy's IRL, but wendys.com. This is now a public space where people talk. And on top of this, people who don't like what you have to say aren't following you and don't have to listen to you anyway. Perhaps these websites are rather like a pub. People mostly go there in a group of friends, obviously are more likely to exchange with similar people or people with similar ideas, but there are other people there too having their own fun in a social setting. Occasionally very different people also exchange, sometimes politely, but sometimes not. But until fists are thrown, the publican isn't looking to kick anyone out. Sometimes the best exchanges are disagreeing people discussing in good faith, if that's what they're in the mood for. Sometimes they're just polite enough to talk about something they do agree on, rather than call for other people to be banned just because they're unpopular.

JoshTriplett 6y ago

> The moment you try to fact-check one person, you open a very large can of worms and become responsible for fact-checking everyone. This is untrue, and a false dichotomy. An argument of the form "you must (do thing I want anyway) or (do impossible thing)" doesn't actually make any case for why those are the only two options, and in this case, those are not the only two options. It's entirely possible to deal with things as they arise, on a case-by-case basis as you become aware of them.

anonytrary 6y ago
> It's entirely possible to deal with things as they arise, on a case-by-case basis as you become aware of them. Although do not forget that your rate of "dealing with things" may be lower than the rate of "things happening". The admin's bias comes in when they decide who to focus on, etc. If you are famous or have burned the wrong bridges, your chances of being censored are higher.

cortesoft 6y ago

> The moment you try to fact-check one person, you open a very large can of worms and become responsible for fact-checking everyone. Says who? This isn't some logical conclusion that can just be said a priori. This is like saying "we can't have speed limits... if you pull over one speeding car, you have to pull over every speeding car! That would be impossible!"