12 ms·
Why do you think it was flagged/dead?
by troughway 6y ago
Why do you think it was flagged/dead?
- BrianOnHN 6y agoPoor title. It's a broader discussion around censorship with Greenwald.
- gnarbarian 6y agoThat's literally the title of the video... Many places will remove your submission if you change it.
- cutitout 6y ago10 minutes in and it's still mostly about Silicon Valley and private companies, as announced as the main subject by Greenwald in the beginning of the video.
- censorthis 6y agoCensorship has become a partisan issue. Liberals of several years ago were pro free speech, anti censorship, and pro privacy. Now liberals view censorship as a good thing, because it’s used predominantly against conservatives. They are forgetting that these censorship tools can also be leveraged against them in the wrong hands. Censorship should not be a partisan issue, all sides should be against censorship.
- BrianOnHN 6y ago> Now liberals view censorship as a good thing, because it’s used predominantly against conservatives. This is such a misleading statement that it needs a disclaimer.
- censorthis 6y agoThis is widely known: https://nypost.com/2020/11/18/democrats-use-big-tech-hearings-to-demand-more-censorship/?utm_source=url_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons https://nypost.com/2020/11/18/democrats-use-big-tech-hearing... https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/08/19/most-americans-think-social-media-sites-censor-political-viewpoints/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/08/19/most-america...
- BrianOnHN 6y agoWhat is widely known?
- boomboomsubban 6y agoYour first source describes some members of Congress scolding the CEO of Facebook and Twitter, and the second is an opinion poll. Neither would even be strong sources showing a censorship event happened, they don't even attempt a comparison between conservatives and liberal censorship targets.
- newen 6y agoIt’s what I see everywhere on the internet now. It doesn’t seem misleading at all.
- censorthis 6y agoOh the irony, you have flagged a post you do not agree with on a thread about censorship.
- carapace 6y agoDon't do that. If you're gonna come on HN and pontificate at least try to keep the level of discourse up, eh? - - - - FWIW I'm left-leaning (by US standards) and I'm concerned about the increasingly censorious actions of left-leaning (again by US standards) mainstream media. E.g. the editorial that Sen. Cotton wrote and the blowback from publishing it seemed really sketchy. My hope is that we see the moderate Left and moderate Right come together and form a new political party around common ground like free speech and fiscal responsibility.
- cambalache 6y ago> My hope is that we see the moderate Left and moderate Right come together and form a new political party around common ground like free speech and fiscal responsibility. That already exists, it is called the Democratic party. The moderate right won, people like Biden, Pelosi or Warren, the moderate left (AOC, Sanders, etc) played second fiddle. The tension between the 2 groups is clear and if it werent for a common enemy (Trump/GOP) they would split in a second.
- carapace 6y ago> That already exists, it is called the Democratic party. I don't see a lot of conservatives and right-moderates who want to distance themselves from the Tea Party/Trumpists flocking to the Democrats though. > moderate right won, people like Biden, Pelosi or Warren (FWIW, by US standards those are Left politicians.) Yeah but only barely. None of them are wildly popular are they? > the moderate left (AOC, Sanders, etc) (FWIW, by US standards those are extreme Left politicians.) But those folks aren't "second fiddle", they're sops: distractions to keep the Left's equivalent of the Tea Party from becoming a real political force. America is run by the rich, for the rich, and they do pretty well for themselves. I'm not even talking about gathering real political power (right OR left), just having less sturm und drang and more stability. We've got serious problems on the stove (climate, disease, etc.) that are going to take some concerted effort to tackle, eh?
- eiji 6y agoMore and more very highly esteemed journalists, not pundits, are starting to voice their concerns about this more and more publicly. At the same rate they are being censored. I wouldn't be surprised if Snowden gets a pardon before inauguration. Imagine that. How the tables turn.
- BrianOnHN 6y ago> more very highly esteemed journalists Can you give us some examples/names?
- eiji 6y agoGreenwald, Snowden, Matt Taibbi, Lee Fang, Aaron Maté, Max Blumenthal, Bret Weinstein, ... None of these can be called right-wing or conservatives. I'm not even mentioning people like Rogan. All of them are aware or actual targets of the censoring.
- BrianOnHN 6y agoSo what you're saying is that these people: > Greenwald, Snowden, Matt Taibbi, Lee Fang, Aaron Maté, Max Blumenthal, Bret Weinstein, ... Would agree with your previous statement: > Now liberals view censorship as a good thing, because it’s used predominantly against conservatives. Is that true?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- sul_tasto 6y agohttps://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/
- jackfoxy 6y agoThere is a direct intellectual line of descent from classical liberals to 1960s liberals to the woke vocal elitists dominating tech culture, academia, and corporate media today. But liberal is no longer a good noun to represent them.
- francisofascii 6y agoAnecdotally I see this in work online chats, with the younger liberals totally supporting censorship and firing people for tweets. Where the "older" liberals are saying no, that's not right.
- free_rms 6y agoMaybe hacker news should forcibly insert a modal saying that they don't think it's true, and make you click through that to display the objectionable content, like twitter does. Can't have people thinking there's censorship out there.
- cbozeman 6y agoOr they - where "they" is "every social media platform ever" can just not do a goddamned thing, and I'll make up my own fucking mind. This viewpoint that people need or want shit to be labelled for them is the most disgusting, paternalistic, anti-freedom bullshit to disgrace America in recent memory. Too many of these fucking people, not just in tech, but also in politics, have this viewpoint of "nudging people into better patterns", etc. My best friend, a smart man, but by no means the smartest of my friends once said something that resonated with me so strongly I doubt I'll ever forget it: "The problem with freedom is what other people do with it." Turns out people don't always do what you want, and that's the "true" price of freedom. Tolerating other people's stupidity.
- free_rms 6y agoGuess I fell afoul of Poe's law on that one.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Helloworldboy 6y agoNot sure why you are being downvoted. This is absolutely the case. We’ve replaced evangelical christians with social justice mobs.
- NoOneCaresAtAll 6y agoAt least you can make fun of Christians. I dare you to openly mock a Goldman Sachs-backed black trans dolphin.
- wyldfire 6y agoSock puppet accounts like this are a sybil attack. You can remain anonymous and use an existing HN account to participate in the conversation. Brand new accounts look ambiguous with the propaganda accounts pushed by various nation states.
- exstudent2 6y agoOne of the reason people need to make new accounts when they post anti-censorship thoughts, is that censorship has reached into our industry and a sort of neo-McCarthy blacklisting can occur if you don't espouse neo-liberal talking points. If your pseudonym can be traced to your identity, you risk your career when you fight for individual liberty.
- BrianOnHN 6y agoWhat are "neo-liberal" talking points?
- _qwfv 6y agoI suspect that this person doesn't understand what neo-liberalism is, who is a neoliberal, or what their talking points are. Neoliberals are the centrist or right leaning part of the democratic party and the moderate republicans. It is the political position of laissez-faire capitalism, reform, and reduced state influence over the economy. Reagan and Pelosi are both neoliberal. Maybe this person meant Leftist, Socialist, Anticapitalist, or Progressive talking points?
- NikolaeVarius 6y agoHow the hell is, I presume Pelosi=Nancy Pelosi, a Neoliberal?
- _qwfv 6y agoYes, Nancy Pelosi. She's part and parcel a corporate democrat, interested in incremental changes that fundamentally support the capital class. She's against universal healthcare, she's committed to austerity, she supports the surveillance state, she fights against progressive reforms. It's easy to see the grandstanding that people like Pelosi do as somehow leftist or progressive, but fundamentally she's playing a much more conservative game. She's a democrat who will put on Kente cloth and say black lives matter, while doing nothing to actually improve black lives. For instance, she mandates pay-go, meaning any new programs must come with new taxes. Seems reasonable, but she's not proposing new programs. She's letting the progressive wing propose them, then letting the right wing attack the progressive wing, and then saying "there was nothing that could be done, maybe we should be taking my compromise, which is predominantly a market driven compromise." Pelosi is not someone who is out there calling for labor strikes and strong union protections. Compare her to, say, Martin Luther King Jr and his Poor People's Campaign. I'll leave you with a quote from her: "I have to say we’re capitalists. And that’s just the way it is."
- CodeGlitch 6y agoNot sure why this is being downvoted so much. We all know it. "Bury head into sand" comes to mind.
- BrianOnHN 6y agoKnow what?
- CodeGlitch 6y agoMost of the parent's comments, but mostly: > They are forgetting that these censorship tools can also be leveraged against them in the wrong hands.
- throwaway_234 6y agoWhile i didnt vote for red this year (independent) I totally agree and the sudden labeling of certain tweets is egregious towards free speech. There is so much fake stuff on the Internet and tech companies suddenly labeling tweets of the president, but not others is disgusting and goes against free speech. No labeling is needed.. speech that doesn't cause physical harm should not be labeled! Im speaking as a proponent of free speech only as I could not vote for that person and do not believe much of any political mumbo jumbo (to me it's two billionaires using their resources to do whatever and make up whatever to win).
- watwut 6y agoIsn't labeling speech too?
- throwaway_234 6y agoYes, but if your labeling one viewpoint and not another then your stifling free speech/free thought ... you no longer are a neutral platform. Idiotic for them to go down such road as labeling only further riles up that persons base.
- acdha 6y agoYou’re misrepresenting what’s being labeled. Trump doesn’t get labeled for stating his opinions or policies, he gets labeled for lying. If Biden starts flagrantly tweeting malicious lies he’ll get labeled, too. The difference is that the modern Republican Party is a couple decades into using their own propaganda supply it's easy to feel like their side is being singled out because the distribution of lying and threats of violence is so heavily skewed.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tzs 6y agoFor many of the kinds of things that get labeled, I'm having some trouble figuring out how you would label both viewpoints. If X says that the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines are made using aborted fetal tissue and Y says that they are not, and I want to label X as false, what label should I put on Y to label the other viewpoint?
- devwastaken 6y agoReddits /r/conservative only allows those who have 'proven they align with conservative views with the mods' to interact with many of their threads. This is in line with my general experience that those who claim 'conservstices are being censored' are the boy who cried wolf so that they themselves can censor what they don't like. Also called hypocrisy, double standards, the usual. The reality is most political conservatives align with immoral and/or factually incorrect ideas, therefore they're rejected and filtered out because they attract anti-intellectuals that you can find on any youtube comments section about the coronavirus. The number of people that claim they 'do their own research' and then claim the 'virus is a hoax' is representative of the kind of people you attract when you allow those kinds of people. The fact that places like youtube and Facebook even allow it to exist demonstrates how little 'conservstives' are censored. You can find plenty of conservative channels that advocate for all manner of immoral, factually incorrect and Ill intent to people.
- BrianOnHN 6y agoWhy is this flagged? Seems good to me. > The reality is most political conservatives align with immoral and/or factually incorrect ideas, therefore they're rejected and filtered out because they attract anti-intellectuals that you can find on any youtube comments section about the coronavirus. The number of people that claim they 'do their own research' and then claim the 'virus is a hoax' is representative of the kind of people you attract when you allow those kinds of people.
- natchy 6y agoso your primary example of conservatives censoring is a board dedicated to discussing conservatism?
- tzs 6y ago> The reality is most political conservatives align with immoral and/or factually incorrect ideas, therefore they're rejected and filtered out because they attract anti-intellectuals that you can find on any youtube comments section about the coronavirus. I think it is important to note that there is nothing inherent in conservatism that leads to this. Conservatives are not dumber or more gullible than liberals. It is just an accident of timing that has resulted in conservatives currently being more likely to fall for such stuff. With just one change 12 years ago, it would be liberals far more than conservatives embracing fact-free conspiracy theories today. In another few years, it may go the other way. Social media got big enough that a lot of people started getting most of their news that way. More and more people stopped noticing the difference between actual news items in the feed, sponsored items in the feed, opinion pieces in their feed, comments on stories the haven't seen from friends, and satire in their feed. Two things arose to take advantage of this. One was governments. They started state sponsored operations that made fake accounts to post material on the social media of countries they were not friendly with. The other was content farms that generated a bunch of low quality content cheaply, and make money from ads. Both of these concentrated on content that would be divisive. For the state sponsored material, governments know that just posting a bunch of stuff that extols their government or directly attacks US policies against their government would not help them. That would be caught and called out. By concentrating on things that would be divisive they hoped to at least distract the US government by making it have to devote more time to dealing with domestic issues. For the content farms making money from ads, divisive content gets more eyeballs which means for ad revenue. This started seriously happening during the Obama administration, and so the foreign governments and content farms pushed material aimed at encouraging conservative conspiracy theories because Obama was a liberal. If McCain had won in 2008, it would have been liberal conspiracy theories that got pushed.
- greesil 6y agoHow would you recommend handling false information then? I'm talking about false information that has real world impact, like yelling fire in a crowded theater. Telling people a polling location is closed when it's not is a practical example.
- CodeGlitch 6y agoIt's a difficult problem to crack. My current line of thinking is that we need to improve critical-thinking amongst the population. People with critical thinking will question the things they hear and read, and with an unfiltered source of information (E.g. the Internet) will be able to determin fact from fiction. I used to think they we should censor bad information (E.g. 5G causes COVID), but that's just not going to work in the modern era.
- BrianOnHN 6y ago> I used to think they we should sensor bad information (E.g. 5G causes COVID) Can you describe these sensors?
- CodeGlitch 6y agoI obviously meant "censors". Now go away troll :)
- greesil 6y agoHow would you improve critical thinking at scale?
- sneak 6y agoI think that there are a lot of people on HN and similar communities who either didn't live through the crypto wars of the 90s or are burned out on the critical privacy and societal implications of networked software and services. It's nicer to just "shut up and hack", but the last time we did that, we ended up with hollywood indirectly dictating what we can do with our own devices. This time the stakes are much higher, as it's not just the "hollywood-only" devices like disc players and TVs they're getting ready to totally ruin. It's disheartening to me to see the trend of people in technology, at least in certain circles, wishing only to enjoy the benefits of giant corporation resources (eg golang, TLS1.3, HTTP2/3, v8/node, Chrome, Android, iOS) without contemplating the implications of the downsides of giant corporation resources (surveillance, censorship, AMP, javascript hard dependencies, browser monoculture, et c). A system needs to be evaluated on the whole.
- grep_name 6y agoI think about this semi-constantly, and have a lot of trouble getting most of my friends to factor these kinds of issues into their world view or consider their importance. I'm too young to remember the crypto wars of the 90's (I was a kid back then), but I'm well aware of them and bring them up fairly often when talking to peers about the background pushes against encryption that constantly happen. I also make a lot of personal effort to rid my life of resources owned by large corporations, but I often wonder if there is something more I could be doing to resist these things.
- sneak 6y agoIt ultimately has nothing to do with whether or not we outliers use these services or not; the world needs to be changed so that these services are either modified to preserve privacy, or the services need to be shut down, or the user base needs to abandon them. I'm not a big fan of forcing people to do things they don't want to do, so I think the best way forward is 3, via education. Already it's uncool to use Facebook. The next step is Instagram and WhatsApp, and perhaps even the facebook spyware SDK.