8 ms·

I am actively developing tools for the purpose of evading censorship. I find it disturbing that people have stopped supporting free speech when they stopped lik

I am actively developing tools for the purpose of evading censorship. I find it disturbing that people have stopped supporting free speech when they stopped liking its content. Disturbing because either these people have caved to yet another mob thought or never believed in the concept at all. I don't agree with most of the content I see on my platforms. The content doesn't change me, however-- and I refuse the premise that we tech workers know best and therefore must protect the fragile little minds of everyone else.

dane-pgp 6y ago
> I refuse the premise that we tech workers know best The only people worthy of wielding power are those that are humble enough to know they can't be trusted with it.
- odessacubbage 6y ago
  unfortunately this also seems to be why power tends to self select the exact sort of people who should never have it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
xfitm3 6y ago
> I refuse the premise that we tech workers know best and therefore must protect the fragile little minds of everyone else. I quit my tech job and went into construction. Only in hindsight has it been glaringly obvious how egocentric tech workers are. High paid, wielding incredible power, and the praise from their managers/peers just reinforces delusions. Try doing a hard days work in a skilled trade such as woodworking, electrical, or HVAC. Now that's humbling. It also exposes you to many different people and types of thinking, which IMO, promotes healthy self perspective. Echoing here even on HN just amplifies the dilemma.
- odessacubbage 6y ago
  more and more i've grown into the opinion that aspiring members of the professional class should be required to spend at least one year doing some form of ungracious working class labor. there are things you learn as a line cook or a garbage truck driver that not even the most elite school will ever be able to teach you. personally i think i would've become a real asshole if not for misfortune & hardship and learning exactly what it means to start over with nothing.
  - hated 6y ago
    Some professional classes in Eastern European countries used to have mandatory time they had to spend working in factories, probably for this reason.
    - xfitm3 6y ago
      Early high schools in the US had shop classes, too. It was still just a token effort at trade work but it was still something. Almost all of these classes have been cut due to budget.
  - 6510 6y ago
    I think 6 months around age 13. That way it also helps kids who don't really see the point of school and it helps ordering school tasks by importance.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - tenaciousDaniel 6y ago
    Yep, definitely. I'm very fortunate that I didn't discover coding until my late twenties. I worked odd jobs in several industries, and right up until I started in tech, I was working two jobs in order to make $30K per year. I feel unbelievably lucky to be in this industry and I try not to take it for granted.
- jl2718 6y ago
shrimp_emoji 6y ago
But if (in the U.S.) you hollow out and defund the public education system and cultivate a lower class of the unthinking and uninformed (presumably part of a ploy to create more Republicans that'll keep voting for your side), you have to take great pains to protect the general public from misinformation. If the anti-vaxxers or QAnoners can take refuge in your decentralized, uncensored platform, that platform now acts as a vector for great social self-harm. There's also the "what if you could 3D print an extinction-level, bioengineered supervirus with an open source genome in your garage" argument, where our values start to break down, and that might not be too far away. BUT other kinds of censorship are also horrible, and, for my part, I love privacy, so fight the good fight fam <33
- Fellshard 6y ago
  That's a grossly distorted, partisan, and inconsistent view.
- canjobear 6y ago
  The US spends a huge amount on education and the amount has increased over time. https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart....
  - jstarfish 6y ago
    Considering that textbooks now ship with software licenses, I'm not surprised. The education vendors are all-too-quick to find reason to soak up any available gubmint cheddar. For the expense, where is the value? My kids' online curriculums are a nightmare. They're expected to keep track of arbitrary assignments across a litany of broken "apps" without any sort of cohesion. One of them is taking chemistry-- online! And naturally, we need to redefine the way we teach things like basic math for every generation. Forced obsolescence rears its ugly head here too. My parents could never figure out my math homework. I can't figure out my own kids'. Thankfully we have Pearson's successive suites of books and erratic ActiveX plugins to show us what the ancients haven't. Government spending should not be considered an indicator of progress.
- 6y ago
dasudasu 6y ago
>never believed in the concept at all New generations come and go. Nobody is born with pre-existing notions of what is right or not, including free speech. It's not a surprise that some values are replaced with others on a per generation basis.
- Fellshard 6y ago
  It is worth examining why those values were not passed on, though, between generations; nature and nurture are both implicated.
dirtyid 6y ago
>The content doesn't change me The content changes enough individuals that there is aggregate effect on larger scale social dynamics which impacts all facets of society. Unregulated free speech with wide reach over global media platforms is not standard human interaction. It is unnatural. It is new medium dyamamic with different messaging potential. Online censorship is not about limiting free speech, it's calibrating / optimizing the new medium for specific messaging goals. Right now it's money and eyes, maybe a more sensible one is political serenity. It doesn't have to be Chinese great firewall level of suppression, but more and more are realizing it can't be next to nothing.
- betwixthewires 6y ago
  Why can't it be next to nothing? How is freely discussing things with other people without someone policing that unnatural? You're making a lot of declarative suppositions that are self supportive, and you have to explain and justify them. A cursory look at least from my point of view shows that at least the two I mentioned are entirely unfounded.
  - dirtyid 6y ago
    Freely discussing in small human-social scale is natural. Ability to broadcast and disseminate information at instantaneous, transnational scale is as unnatural as printing press, radio and television. For individuals to do so via unfettered individual platform outside of existing power structures that's foundation to all large scale human governance systems since history even more so. Free speech + mass dissemination was conceived and rationalized as the ultimate democratic instrument, and it may very well be. But it is also an artificial instrument that was always going to disrupt. We anticipated it, an experimented with it for 15 years. The question now is whether this type of instrument is useful for governance and this type of democracy preferable. I don't think it is. I don't think it isn't either, there could very well be a combination of factors like proper media and civil literacy that enables a society that could operate with unlimited speech. All I _feel_ is the status quo now is not working. Many feel the same way. It's not a hard why, it's a slowing growing consensus that does not feel misplaced. Information and ideas spreading faster than word of mouth and walking speed shapes society through each successive technological mediation that enables faster and broader transmission. Free speech in person with your peers is not the same as free speech online. Hence medium is the message. If the medium is the problem, than tweak it.
valec 6y ago
>when they stopped liking its content well when that content is "these people do not deserve to live, are degenerate, and need need to be killed" I think it is reasonable to protest against that.
nickthemagicman 6y ago
I would love to find a censorship free version of this website hacker news. Good tech content and discussion without the censorship.
- krapp 6y ago
  You can't have consistent good content without curation and moderation, both of which are considered forms of censorship. The closest thing to what you're describing in the /g/ board on 4chan, except of course even they have a line.
  - asddubs 6y ago
    It's sort of a form of the paradox of tolerance. If there is no moderation, the least pleasant/most abrasive people will drag the quality of discussion down, and drive everyone else away. That's not to say I agree with the conclusions of the author of the blog post
    - nickthemagicman 6y ago
      Moderation and censorship are radically different. Moderation is just to prevent spam and personal attacks and things that have no connection to the conversation. Censorship is manipulating the conversation by removing ideas that go against the conversation even if they are relevant, well sourced, and respectfully presented. Be sure not to get the two confused.
      - bccdee 6y ago
        The difference between censorship and moderation is entirely subjective. Censors always think they're moderators — that they're protecting the quality of the discourse rather than stifling ideas they dislike — because part of how they rationalize their dislike of those ideas is by believing that they harm the discussion.
        nickthemagicman 6y ago
cortesoft 6y ago
I really hate that these discussions always end up stopping at whether the idea of censorship is good or bad. One side will point out all the bad ways censorship can be used, and then the other side will point out the misinformation that spreads when there is absolute free speech. The thing is, both sides are right. However, neither side ever talks about trying to take any steps to mitigate the negatives of their position. I am anti-censorship, but I think that people on our side can't just ignore the damage misinformation is causing our society right now. We also can't just rely on the old adage that "the truth will win out in the end". Free speech advocates like to believe that is a truism, but the evidence keeps showing us that that isn't true. There is nothing inevitable about the truth, and lies have many advantages that can often prevent the truth from winning. So what do we do? I am much more interested in talking about steps we can take to mitigate and prevent misinformation while preserving free speech. Just because censorship isn't a good option doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and allow misinformation to win the day. The truth needs allies, and allies with a strategy.
- winstonstimes 6y ago
  I feel that solution is to build, use, and promote platforms that encourage dialog without censorship. A free exchange of ideas is still the right solution. This includes discouraging the practice of silence-by-mob. All these tactics accomplish is polarization and tribalism and don't do much to contain disinformation.
  - cortesoft 6y ago
    How do you have a platform that doesn’t do any censorship but also discourages “silence-by-mob”? I feel like every platform that is focused on absolute free speech always ends up filled with racists and the like... that can’t be a coincidence.
    - sneak 6y ago
      Every other platform that doesn't publish racist publications is hiding from you the fact that there are many racists in our society. Personally, I'd rather know and see what we're up against.
mattlondon 6y ago
> I find it disturbing that people have stopped supporting free speech when they stopped liking its content. I think the problem is that - in the west at least - we have fairly good free speech, and the governments do not routinely go around censoring discussion etc (obviously this is not true everywhere and varies from place to place). So this means that people who want to say something can say something using the usual means/technologies. They do not generally need to resort to anything special to avoid censorship or consequences. As a result, a large proportion of the people who do end up using the uncensorable/untraceable tech are the worst of society doing outright illegal stuff. Drug dealers, kiddie fidlers, murders, organised crime, terrorists etc. I love the idea of decentralised web tech etc, but I do not want to spend my time facilitating the scum of society to break the laws in my country. I also don't want to host their decentralised content on my machines or waste my bandwidth transmitting their uncensorable porn etc. Of course I realise that there are places in the world where there are not as many freedoms as I enjoy and people might genuinely need to use such technology to avoid oppression. I guess I am just selfish. Tl;Dr - you can support free speech without supporting illegal activity.
bvinc 6y ago
> I find it disturbing that people have stopped supporting free speech when they stopped liking its content. You're misunderstanding the argument. The argument isn't that they don't like the content. The argument is that it's a net-negative to society, and possibly an extreme-negative.

dane-pgp 6y ago

> I refuse the premise that we tech workers know best The only people worthy of wielding power are those that are humble enough to know they can't be trusted with it.

odessacubbage 6y ago
unfortunately this also seems to be why power tends to self select the exact sort of people who should never have it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

xfitm3 6y ago

> I refuse the premise that we tech workers know best and therefore must protect the fragile little minds of everyone else. I quit my tech job and went into construction. Only in hindsight has it been glaringly obvious how egocentric tech workers are. High paid, wielding incredible power, and the praise from their managers/peers just reinforces delusions. Try doing a hard days work in a skilled trade such as woodworking, electrical, or HVAC. Now that's humbling. It also exposes you to many different people and types of thinking, which IMO, promotes healthy self perspective. Echoing here even on HN just amplifies the dilemma.

odessacubbage 6y ago
more and more i've grown into the opinion that aspiring members of the professional class should be required to spend at least one year doing some form of ungracious working class labor. there are things you learn as a line cook or a garbage truck driver that not even the most elite school will ever be able to teach you. personally i think i would've become a real asshole if not for misfortune & hardship and learning exactly what it means to start over with nothing.
- hated 6y ago
  Some professional classes in Eastern European countries used to have mandatory time they had to spend working in factories, probably for this reason.
  - xfitm3 6y ago
    Early high schools in the US had shop classes, too. It was still just a token effort at trade work but it was still something. Almost all of these classes have been cut due to budget.
- 6510 6y ago
  I think 6 months around age 13. That way it also helps kids who don't really see the point of school and it helps ordering school tasks by importance.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tenaciousDaniel 6y ago
  Yep, definitely. I'm very fortunate that I didn't discover coding until my late twenties. I worked odd jobs in several industries, and right up until I started in tech, I was working two jobs in order to make $30K per year. I feel unbelievably lucky to be in this industry and I try not to take it for granted.
jl2718 6y ago

shrimp_emoji 6y ago

But if (in the U.S.) you hollow out and defund the public education system and cultivate a lower class of the unthinking and uninformed (presumably part of a ploy to create more Republicans that'll keep voting for your side), you have to take great pains to protect the general public from misinformation. If the anti-vaxxers or QAnoners can take refuge in your decentralized, uncensored platform, that platform now acts as a vector for great social self-harm. There's also the "what if you could 3D print an extinction-level, bioengineered supervirus with an open source genome in your garage" argument, where our values start to break down, and that might not be too far away. BUT other kinds of censorship are also horrible, and, for my part, I love privacy, so fight the good fight fam <33

Fellshard 6y ago
That's a grossly distorted, partisan, and inconsistent view.
canjobear 6y ago
The US spends a huge amount on education and the amount has increased over time. https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart....
- jstarfish 6y ago
  Considering that textbooks now ship with software licenses, I'm not surprised. The education vendors are all-too-quick to find reason to soak up any available gubmint cheddar. For the expense, where is the value? My kids' online curriculums are a nightmare. They're expected to keep track of arbitrary assignments across a litany of broken "apps" without any sort of cohesion. One of them is taking chemistry-- online! And naturally, we need to redefine the way we teach things like basic math for every generation. Forced obsolescence rears its ugly head here too. My parents could never figure out my math homework. I can't figure out my own kids'. Thankfully we have Pearson's successive suites of books and erratic ActiveX plugins to show us what the ancients haven't. Government spending should not be considered an indicator of progress.
6y ago

dasudasu 6y ago

>never believed in the concept at all New generations come and go. Nobody is born with pre-existing notions of what is right or not, including free speech. It's not a surprise that some values are replaced with others on a per generation basis.

Fellshard 6y ago
It is worth examining why those values were not passed on, though, between generations; nature and nurture are both implicated.

dirtyid 6y ago

>The content doesn't change me The content changes enough individuals that there is aggregate effect on larger scale social dynamics which impacts all facets of society. Unregulated free speech with wide reach over global media platforms is not standard human interaction. It is unnatural. It is new medium dyamamic with different messaging potential. Online censorship is not about limiting free speech, it's calibrating / optimizing the new medium for specific messaging goals. Right now it's money and eyes, maybe a more sensible one is political serenity. It doesn't have to be Chinese great firewall level of suppression, but more and more are realizing it can't be next to nothing.

betwixthewires 6y ago
Why can't it be next to nothing? How is freely discussing things with other people without someone policing that unnatural? You're making a lot of declarative suppositions that are self supportive, and you have to explain and justify them. A cursory look at least from my point of view shows that at least the two I mentioned are entirely unfounded.
- dirtyid 6y ago
  Freely discussing in small human-social scale is natural. Ability to broadcast and disseminate information at instantaneous, transnational scale is as unnatural as printing press, radio and television. For individuals to do so via unfettered individual platform outside of existing power structures that's foundation to all large scale human governance systems since history even more so. Free speech + mass dissemination was conceived and rationalized as the ultimate democratic instrument, and it may very well be. But it is also an artificial instrument that was always going to disrupt. We anticipated it, an experimented with it for 15 years. The question now is whether this type of instrument is useful for governance and this type of democracy preferable. I don't think it is. I don't think it isn't either, there could very well be a combination of factors like proper media and civil literacy that enables a society that could operate with unlimited speech. All I _feel_ is the status quo now is not working. Many feel the same way. It's not a hard why, it's a slowing growing consensus that does not feel misplaced. Information and ideas spreading faster than word of mouth and walking speed shapes society through each successive technological mediation that enables faster and broader transmission. Free speech in person with your peers is not the same as free speech online. Hence medium is the message. If the medium is the problem, than tweak it.

valec 6y ago

>when they stopped liking its content well when that content is "these people do not deserve to live, are degenerate, and need need to be killed" I think it is reasonable to protest against that.

nickthemagicman 6y ago

I would love to find a censorship free version of this website hacker news. Good tech content and discussion without the censorship.

krapp 6y ago
You can't have consistent good content without curation and moderation, both of which are considered forms of censorship. The closest thing to what you're describing in the /g/ board on 4chan, except of course even they have a line.
- asddubs 6y ago
  It's sort of a form of the paradox of tolerance. If there is no moderation, the least pleasant/most abrasive people will drag the quality of discussion down, and drive everyone else away. That's not to say I agree with the conclusions of the author of the blog post
  - nickthemagicman 6y ago
    Moderation and censorship are radically different. Moderation is just to prevent spam and personal attacks and things that have no connection to the conversation. Censorship is manipulating the conversation by removing ideas that go against the conversation even if they are relevant, well sourced, and respectfully presented. Be sure not to get the two confused.
    - bccdee 6y ago
      The difference between censorship and moderation is entirely subjective. Censors always think they're moderators — that they're protecting the quality of the discourse rather than stifling ideas they dislike — because part of how they rationalize their dislike of those ideas is by believing that they harm the discussion.
      - nickthemagicman 6y ago

cortesoft 6y ago

I really hate that these discussions always end up stopping at whether the idea of censorship is good or bad. One side will point out all the bad ways censorship can be used, and then the other side will point out the misinformation that spreads when there is absolute free speech. The thing is, both sides are right. However, neither side ever talks about trying to take any steps to mitigate the negatives of their position. I am anti-censorship, but I think that people on our side can't just ignore the damage misinformation is causing our society right now. We also can't just rely on the old adage that "the truth will win out in the end". Free speech advocates like to believe that is a truism, but the evidence keeps showing us that that isn't true. There is nothing inevitable about the truth, and lies have many advantages that can often prevent the truth from winning. So what do we do? I am much more interested in talking about steps we can take to mitigate and prevent misinformation while preserving free speech. Just because censorship isn't a good option doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and allow misinformation to win the day. The truth needs allies, and allies with a strategy.

winstonstimes 6y ago
I feel that solution is to build, use, and promote platforms that encourage dialog without censorship. A free exchange of ideas is still the right solution. This includes discouraging the practice of silence-by-mob. All these tactics accomplish is polarization and tribalism and don't do much to contain disinformation.
- cortesoft 6y ago
  How do you have a platform that doesn’t do any censorship but also discourages “silence-by-mob”? I feel like every platform that is focused on absolute free speech always ends up filled with racists and the like... that can’t be a coincidence.
  - sneak 6y ago
    Every other platform that doesn't publish racist publications is hiding from you the fact that there are many racists in our society. Personally, I'd rather know and see what we're up against.

mattlondon 6y ago

> I find it disturbing that people have stopped supporting free speech when they stopped liking its content. I think the problem is that - in the west at least - we have fairly good free speech, and the governments do not routinely go around censoring discussion etc (obviously this is not true everywhere and varies from place to place). So this means that people who want to say something can say something using the usual means/technologies. They do not generally need to resort to anything special to avoid censorship or consequences. As a result, a large proportion of the people who do end up using the uncensorable/untraceable tech are the worst of society doing outright illegal stuff. Drug dealers, kiddie fidlers, murders, organised crime, terrorists etc. I love the idea of decentralised web tech etc, but I do not want to spend my time facilitating the scum of society to break the laws in my country. I also don't want to host their decentralised content on my machines or waste my bandwidth transmitting their uncensorable porn etc. Of course I realise that there are places in the world where there are not as many freedoms as I enjoy and people might genuinely need to use such technology to avoid oppression. I guess I am just selfish. Tl;Dr - you can support free speech without supporting illegal activity.

bvinc 6y ago

> I find it disturbing that people have stopped supporting free speech when they stopped liking its content. You're misunderstanding the argument. The argument isn't that they don't like the content. The argument is that it's a net-negative to society, and possibly an extreme-negative.