4 ms·

That’s not censorship (private companies, etc), and reducing the flow of harmful communication is a good thing.

by hk__2 6y ago

nilkn 6y ago
Censorship can be performed by private companies. From Wikipedia: “Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies.”
- sixothree 6y ago
  It would be censorship to _force_ a company to say something they didn't want to say. That is clearly taking away their rights to free speech.
  - valvar 6y ago
    Are you being purposefully obtuse, or do you actually believe that HN wrote your comment?
    - sixothree 6y ago
      I don't think you understand. Read it again. But sigh. I could explain it again. Disallowing companies from banning users would be forcing those companies to carry content they disagree with, thereby removing their right to free speech.
      - Proziam 6y ago
        Your stance is effectively that social media sites are publishers instead of platforms. This is my opinion as well, but it carries with it liability. Unfortunately, they currently are immune to such liability while being able to choose who can say what. If they want the protections the phone company gets, they need to act more like the phone company.
        Rapzid 6y ago
        It's not really. You can disagree with something but still not be responsible for it and carry it on your properties. You can also disagree with it and not carry it. I can even prove it. That's how it works. Right. Now.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- undersuit 6y ago
  Control. Trump is not controlled by Twitter. He is controlled by the government just like the rest of the US. A school, they control the children, and they have a limited control over the child's free speech. Your job, possibly a private institution, has control over you. They can censor you with the power they have. We need the 1A because we don't get to choose our government, we do get to choose our internet messaging platforms and they choose to work with us.
blisterpeanuts 6y ago
It is the very definition of censorship. And one man's "harmful communication" is another woman's useful communication. Since your comment is egregiously wrong and, in my opinion, harmful, I'm going to delete it so that it doesn't mislead people about the harms of censorship. See where I'm going with this? I say my opinion, you present your side, and we can debate, or move on, but we have both had our say (albeit, at varying shades of grey on HackerNews ;) The notion of "harmful tweets" is a very 2020s phenomenon but the concept goes back thousands of years. There's a reason our Bill of Rights is strongly inspired by Voltaire, Descartes, and other (then) modern thinkers. "I disagree with what you say, but I will give my life for your right to say it." It feels as though we've backslid from that ideal.
- sixothree 6y ago
  I want to agree with your argument. But your point that this is censorship is so off base. By definition, it's just not.
  - Proziam 6y ago
    By whose definition? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/whodecides/definitions.html https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/whodecides/definitions...
- asiando 6y ago
  It’s pretty simple, really. “I hate Bob” is fine. “Bob should die” isn’t. Some tweets don’t need to exist because it might lead Bob to be killed, especially when said by someone with a cult-like following.
  - sillycon-valley 6y ago
    "Bob should die" should be allowed to exist and is. It can be said jokingly, yes it's bad taste but not credible. "Bob, I am coming to kill you" or "Bob I'll kill you if you don't do X for me" a court would say is probably a credible threat, which is already illegal. Why do we want to shift the responsibility of deciding how to police speech to private companies? Sticks & stones.

That’s not censorship (private companies, etc), and reducing the flow of harmful communication is a good thing.

by hk__2 6y ago

That’s not censorship (private companies, etc), and reducing the flow of harmful communication is a good thing.

Censorship can be performed by private companies. From Wikipedia: “Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies.”

sixothree 6y ago
It would be censorship to _force_ a company to say something they didn't want to say. That is clearly taking away their rights to free speech.
- valvar 6y ago
  Are you being purposefully obtuse, or do you actually believe that HN wrote your comment?
  - sixothree 6y ago
    I don't think you understand. Read it again. But sigh. I could explain it again. Disallowing companies from banning users would be forcing those companies to carry content they disagree with, thereby removing their right to free speech.
    - Proziam 6y ago
      Your stance is effectively that social media sites are publishers instead of platforms. This is my opinion as well, but it carries with it liability. Unfortunately, they currently are immune to such liability while being able to choose who can say what. If they want the protections the phone company gets, they need to act more like the phone company.
      - Rapzid 6y ago
        It's not really. You can disagree with something but still not be responsible for it and carry it on your properties. You can also disagree with it and not carry it. I can even prove it. That's how it works. Right. Now.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
undersuit 6y ago
Control. Trump is not controlled by Twitter. He is controlled by the government just like the rest of the US. A school, they control the children, and they have a limited control over the child's free speech. Your job, possibly a private institution, has control over you. They can censor you with the power they have. We need the 1A because we don't get to choose our government, we do get to choose our internet messaging platforms and they choose to work with us.

blisterpeanuts 6y ago

It is the very definition of censorship. And one man's "harmful communication" is another woman's useful communication. Since your comment is egregiously wrong and, in my opinion, harmful, I'm going to delete it so that it doesn't mislead people about the harms of censorship. See where I'm going with this? I say my opinion, you present your side, and we can debate, or move on, but we have both had our say (albeit, at varying shades of grey on HackerNews ;) The notion of "harmful tweets" is a very 2020s phenomenon but the concept goes back thousands of years. There's a reason our Bill of Rights is strongly inspired by Voltaire, Descartes, and other (then) modern thinkers. "I disagree with what you say, but I will give my life for your right to say it." It feels as though we've backslid from that ideal.

sixothree 6y ago
I want to agree with your argument. But your point that this is censorship is so off base. By definition, it's just not.
- Proziam 6y ago
  By whose definition? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/whodecides/definitions.html https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/whodecides/definitions...
asiando 6y ago
It’s pretty simple, really. “I hate Bob” is fine. “Bob should die” isn’t. Some tweets don’t need to exist because it might lead Bob to be killed, especially when said by someone with a cult-like following.
- sillycon-valley 6y ago
  "Bob should die" should be allowed to exist and is. It can be said jokingly, yes it's bad taste but not credible. "Bob, I am coming to kill you" or "Bob I'll kill you if you don't do X for me" a court would say is probably a credible threat, which is already illegal. Why do we want to shift the responsibility of deciding how to police speech to private companies? Sticks & stones.