5 ms·

Setting aside the issue of government suppression, social media (Facebook, Reddit, Twitter all being specific examples) have been terrible with censorship this

by timr 6y ago

Setting aside the issue of government suppression, social media (Facebook, Reddit, Twitter all being specific examples) have been terrible with censorship this year. It has become impossible to discuss any scientific question for which there is a political angle without being censored. I've seen peer-reviewed publications on Facebook and Twitter, hidden behind "misinformation" flags. Questioning orthodox views (even with well-sourced, rational scientific arguments) is enough to get you banned or blocked on the major social media platforms. We're in a dark place that I didn't think I'd ever see in my lifetime. If you cannot question science, it isn't science.

neolog 6y ago
What criteria should be used to determine which sources to promote?
- timr 6y ago
  None. Twitter and Facebook and Reddit should not be promoting a viewpoint or source. It is unfortunate that some people will use freedom of speech to share misinformation, but the alternative -- convincing the public that any form of skepticism is bad, and only the "consensus" is correct -- is unthinkable. Virtually every scientific theory of any impact has been opposed by the "consensus" at one point or another.
  - freedomben 6y ago
    I saw a pretty powerful "joke" tweet the other day where "Galileo" tweets about thinking maybe the sun is the center of the solar system instead of the earth, and it gets slapped with a "learn more about how experts agree on the geocentric model." Pretty funny, but also eerily relevant. https://twitter.com/marcorandazza/status/1327263962799480832?s=21 https://twitter.com/marcorandazza/status/1327263962799480832...
    - timr 6y ago
      Yeah, I've seen that. It's sadly accurate.
- function_seven 6y ago
  No matter the answer, it will fall short in some scenario. So I'd say kill the premise instead. Facebook and Twitter should show me things that my friends posted. That's it. If I don't follow someone—or search directly for something—then I don't see it. There, now you don't need to make tough choices on how to tune your algorithm. There is no algorithm! Of course, this will reduce engagement and DAU and whatever other metrics they track. But that's a fundamental conflict: earnings vs. neutrality. You can't maximize both.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Make your own social network, Chronofeed, if that's what you want.
maerF0x0 6y ago
IMO flagging on HN falls into this darkness too. Frequently people are flagged without knowing why. Would be nice if flaggers had to provide a short sentence of why...
- timr 6y ago
  HN has a real problem with both voting-based and flag-based censorship. Graying out comments has led to a weaponization of the downvote. One of the few things I like about reddit is that downvotes don't hide comments (immediately, anyway).
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    They don't here. Turn on "showdead" in your profile.
    - freedomben 6y ago
      Showdead is a killer feature IMHO. I love it.
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    I get downvoted lots and lots but it’s not censorship. If you don’t like your audience here, go find or build it elsewhere. No one is stopping you. But you’re not entitled to this one.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      Exactly. This is the home of the HN community. They get to choose the mode of engagement. I, too, am frequently downvoted and often flagged when communicating civilly. This is, imho, just fine.
      - eyelidlessness 6y ago
        I’ve only been flagged once (that I recall) and I definitely wished I had some explanation. But I don’t feel suppressed by not having it. Just baffled. But then I’m baffled by a lot of what gets me downvoted too, and it’s... well, a heterogeneous community where I have some outlier opinions so I just carry on.
eyelidlessness 6y ago
Yes, it’s a dark time when the social media platforms, which have always been our only outlet to engage and challenge science, suppress the scientific process by choosing what content is allowed on their privately owned websites.
- jjcon 6y ago
  I think the point they are making (and you are proving) is that freedom of expression/speech/discussion as a value (not a law) is being diminished.
  - takeda 6y ago
    Same as penalties for triggering fire alarms when there is no fire diminish 1A. We didn't have FB, Twitter, Reddit 15 years ago and people could express their opinions. Currently those are being weaponized to subvert our democracy. Right now we have president trying to start a coup and 70M of people don't see problem with that.
    - pokeymcsnatch 6y ago
      What a ridiculous comparison. Being blocked and banned from what is essentially a public forum, despite having something of value to add to the discussion, is absolutely in opposition to the concept of freedom of speech.
      - eyelidlessness 6y ago
        Except it’s not public and you agree to the rules in order to participate.
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    I’m not proving anything of the sort. In another comment I invited GP to find the audience they desire. But that doesn’t mean they’re entitled to an audience on someone else’s dime.

by timr 6y ago

neolog 6y ago

What criteria should be used to determine which sources to promote?

timr 6y ago
None. Twitter and Facebook and Reddit should not be promoting a viewpoint or source. It is unfortunate that some people will use freedom of speech to share misinformation, but the alternative -- convincing the public that any form of skepticism is bad, and only the "consensus" is correct -- is unthinkable. Virtually every scientific theory of any impact has been opposed by the "consensus" at one point or another.
- freedomben 6y ago
  I saw a pretty powerful "joke" tweet the other day where "Galileo" tweets about thinking maybe the sun is the center of the solar system instead of the earth, and it gets slapped with a "learn more about how experts agree on the geocentric model." Pretty funny, but also eerily relevant. https://twitter.com/marcorandazza/status/1327263962799480832?s=21 https://twitter.com/marcorandazza/status/1327263962799480832...
  - timr 6y ago
    Yeah, I've seen that. It's sadly accurate.
function_seven 6y ago
No matter the answer, it will fall short in some scenario. So I'd say kill the premise instead. Facebook and Twitter should show me things that my friends posted. That's it. If I don't follow someone—or search directly for something—then I don't see it. There, now you don't need to make tough choices on how to tune your algorithm. There is no algorithm! Of course, this will reduce engagement and DAU and whatever other metrics they track. But that's a fundamental conflict: earnings vs. neutrality. You can't maximize both.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Make your own social network, Chronofeed, if that's what you want.

maerF0x0 6y ago

IMO flagging on HN falls into this darkness too. Frequently people are flagged without knowing why. Would be nice if flaggers had to provide a short sentence of why...

timr 6y ago
HN has a real problem with both voting-based and flag-based censorship. Graying out comments has led to a weaponization of the downvote. One of the few things I like about reddit is that downvotes don't hide comments (immediately, anyway).
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  They don't here. Turn on "showdead" in your profile.
  - freedomben 6y ago
    Showdead is a killer feature IMHO. I love it.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  I get downvoted lots and lots but it’s not censorship. If you don’t like your audience here, go find or build it elsewhere. No one is stopping you. But you’re not entitled to this one.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Exactly. This is the home of the HN community. They get to choose the mode of engagement. I, too, am frequently downvoted and often flagged when communicating civilly. This is, imho, just fine.
    - eyelidlessness 6y ago
      I’ve only been flagged once (that I recall) and I definitely wished I had some explanation. But I don’t feel suppressed by not having it. Just baffled. But then I’m baffled by a lot of what gets me downvoted too, and it’s... well, a heterogeneous community where I have some outlier opinions so I just carry on.

eyelidlessness 6y ago

Yes, it’s a dark time when the social media platforms, which have always been our only outlet to engage and challenge science, suppress the scientific process by choosing what content is allowed on their privately owned websites.

jjcon 6y ago
I think the point they are making (and you are proving) is that freedom of expression/speech/discussion as a value (not a law) is being diminished.
- takeda 6y ago
  Same as penalties for triggering fire alarms when there is no fire diminish 1A. We didn't have FB, Twitter, Reddit 15 years ago and people could express their opinions. Currently those are being weaponized to subvert our democracy. Right now we have president trying to start a coup and 70M of people don't see problem with that.
  - pokeymcsnatch 6y ago
    What a ridiculous comparison. Being blocked and banned from what is essentially a public forum, despite having something of value to add to the discussion, is absolutely in opposition to the concept of freedom of speech.
    - eyelidlessness 6y ago
      Except it’s not public and you agree to the rules in order to participate.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  I’m not proving anything of the sort. In another comment I invited GP to find the audience they desire. But that doesn’t mean they’re entitled to an audience on someone else’s dime.