6 ms·

People don’t seem to understand, censorship is a double edged sword. You never know who will be in charge years from now and will abuse those very same good int

• war1025 6y ago
  Well, hey, as long as its your sub-human enemies going off to the death camps, it doesn't really matter, right?
• ravenstine 6y ago
  And being against draconian censorship doesn't mean being against all forms of content moderation.
  • Proziam 6y ago
    It's the publisher vs platform debate. Private communities can moderate. Public utilities (Social Media) should not, but currently do. Social Media companies call themselves platforms while acting like publishers. They do this while using engagement-driving algorithms that intentionally stir up dissent because [0]negativity increases engagement. [0] https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JAMR-05-2017-0065/full/html https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JAMR-05-...
• lovecg 6y ago
  I agree. It would be very dangerous if people in charge, say, prohibited Apple (a private company) from removing Parler. Thankfully, the 1st amendment is still in power and Apple is free to express itself as it sees fit.
  • read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    You're arguing as if there were no precedent for this, but there already are bounds to how Apple can "express itself". They cannot refuse to serve people of a certain race for example. So are we in a dangerous place now, or should Apple be allowed to exclude people by race?
    • Digory 6y ago
      Should Apple have to bake a wedding cake for Parler? Discuss.
    • danans 6y ago
      > So are we in a dangerous place now, or should Apple be allowed to exclude people by race? Race is a protected class per the law. Parler is not
      • read_if_gay_ 6y ago
        Which makes zero difference in principle.
        • danans 6y ago
          It makes a world of difference when you consider it in the context of American history. Race and the other legally protected classes have been the biggest factors in discrimination in this country - the biggest ways in which US society has violated its creed "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal". Political party has not, nor has "users of a computer application", nor the intersection of those manifested in Parler. But sure, if you algebraically treat race and political party as equivalents without any historical context, the comparison is "in principle" the same, but that is deeply flawed as it requires the conscious exclusion of historical context.
    • alkonaut 6y ago
      Which group of people is banned from the App Store though? If group A can publish an app following the guidelines and group B is banned while adhering to the same guidelines, that’s clearly discrimination of group B. But if group A and B both are stopped from breaking guidelines equally then how is it discrimination? Guidelines could be written to be exclusive (no apps can use Swahili!) but that’s not what’s going on here is it? Guidelines are neutral. People who think there is a ban on Trump supporters or Conservatives must be seeing something I don’t.
  • tomp 6y ago
    Not really, no. It just requires recognising that corporations are not people and thus don’t deserve freedom of speech protection. especially big corporations, which should definitely be considered “serving the public good” and therefore under even greater scrutiny.
    • amanaplanacanal 6y ago
      The Supreme Court has recognized that corporations are just ways of organizing people, and those people do have free speech rights. I’m not sure how this could be changed without a constitutional amendment. Unless you have another suggestion?
      • tomp 6y ago
        Personally I’d try by enforcing an exchange - limited liability status for speech restrictions - that way people can still “organize in corporations” - unlimited liability ones - but if they want extra privileges, they have to give up some of their rights. If that won’t work, yeah, constitutional amendment. Although there definitely exist a number of regulations that effectively restrict corporate speech - e.g. anti-terrorist funding legislation - so probably there’s other ways to do it as well.
      • tarboreus 6y ago
        Use the laws on the books to make these companies public trusts, as was done to the large trusts in the 20th century. If there is real competition on these platforms, if there were many app stores, then this wouldn't be an issue. These five or six companies have too much consolidated power.
        • kemitchell 6y ago
          Can you provide an example of a public trust from the 20th century? I'm aware of "trust busting" in an earlier time, but not nationalizations, except, predominantly, in time of war.
          • 6y ago
• CraigJPerry 6y ago
  Why is there content to censor in the first place? What has broken to cause that abhorrent content to exist (e.g. “shoot them all and let god decide what to do with them”) Why have they lost the ability of civilised communication? If that can be fixed or self-policed, the calls for censorship evaporate.
• strathmeyer 6y ago
  Content moderation is a form of free speech. A police state is when the state tells you that you have to allow something.
  • kemitchell 6y ago
    For those interested, the relevant search term for United States law is "compelled speech".
    • strathmeyer 6y ago
      I am an old school hacker/programmer and for some reason I can't rise above 300 karma on HN because of how much people hate discussing free speech. In another thread someone called me 'Joseph Stalin' for advocating for free expression.
      • kemitchell 6y ago
        I ran a Greasemonkey script for several years that removed all karma figures from HN. I don't anymore, but it helped me develop the right mentality early on.
  • Gibbon1 6y ago
    Also point out there is a line where 'free speech' drifts into criminal conspiracy. If a group is using your platform for criminal conspiracy you have an absolute right to kick them off.
• dakial1 6y ago
  People don't seem to understand what censorship is. Nobody is threatening throwing them in jail for saying anything, platforms are just saying "your speech is not welcome in my platform". They can still say whatever they want it in the streets. If they want a platform for it they can build it themselves....
  • intended 6y ago
    Both of you are correct. When I was a mod, I saw bots show up to automate removal of content - and there was simply no time to think or worry about the long term effects. If you want to remove hate speech at internet scales, you are going to be creating lists of bad words and acting on it. That also means that tomorrow, that same tech can be used to remove healthy speech and only amplify the worst kind of content that influences people. We’re still going to use those bots though. The only thing I do more of is study what creates unhealthy speech in the first place.
  • zaroth 6y ago
    > If they want a platform for it they can build it themselves... Right, right. That’s working out well for Parlor.
    • FridgeSeal 6y ago
      They found their own pool to go pee in, and now they’re surprised that nobody wants to swim with them. It’s not everyone else’s fault that nobody else wants to be around these people. If you go to the pub and start picking fights you’ll be avoided and thrown out pretty quickly. This is the same: they went off and created their own app, their behaviour got worse, and now nobody else wants to deal with them. What is unreasonable here?
      • zaroth 6y ago
        Your analogy makes no sense? The users within Parlor are very happy to be swimming in whatever it is they are swimming in over there. It’s the water department who wants to turn off the hose. Or some strained analogy like that.
• wankerrific 6y ago
  this is a contract dispute. Do you not believe in free enterprise?
• boringg 6y ago
  It is like when the republicans nuked the filibuster for supreme court justices. Same concept. Question ... does 4chan have an app on the apple store?
• alkonaut 6y ago
  What law? I assume you mean in charge of Apple?