6 ms·

> best to just scan and pattern match the kind of exchanges occurring before moving swiftly along. How do you do that? I've noticed lately that HN commentary (

> best to just scan and pattern match the kind of exchanges occurring before moving swiftly along. How do you do that? I've noticed lately that HN commentary (at least in threads like this) has trended increasingly pro-censorship[1] lately, and it's pretty disheartening to read. Would rather do something like what you say, but I'm not quite sure what you mean. [1]: Which is a bit ironic, thinking about it.

awb 6y ago
> increasingly pro-censorship[1] lately The US has always had limits on free speech. > Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech Incitement, sedition, public security and harm to others seem to be relevant to this discussion.
- julianmarq 6y ago
  > [US limits on free speech] seem to be relevant to this discussion. But not to my comment, and not just because I'm not from the USA. I'm not speaking in favor of parler if that's what you assumed (for some reason). Specially if it is, like the top comment said, just a propaganda machine trying to enforce a single viewpoint. That's antithesis to free speech.
  - awb 6y ago
    I was referring to the comment where you say HN is “bizarrely” more “pro-censorship”. Where you see “pro-censorship”, many see speech that historically has never been protected in the US like calls to violence, or speech that insights others to violence. Companies gave Trump et. al. the benefit of the doubt on the “inciting violence” part, until the violence actually materialized and the FBI warned of groups organizing online to coordinate future violent attacks.
    - julianmarq 6y ago
      > I was referring to the comment where you say HN is “bizarrely” more “pro-censorship”. Where you see “pro-censorship”, many see speech that historically has never been protected I didn't use the word "bizarrely" and I'm not talking about condemnation of unprotected speech (and again, not just because I'm not from the USA). I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech itself is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", and that's just an example. > [Trump] Again, I wasn't talking about parler nor about Trump. I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to imply that I'm talking about stuff I'm not, or steering the conversation toward subjects I've never even alluded to.
      - awb 6y ago
        > I didn't use the word "bizarrely" Sorry, I meant "ironic". > I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech itself is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", and that's just an example. Maybe downvoted far down the thread, but the majority of the upvoted "censorship" discussions have been directly related to Big Tech's deplatforming of Trump & Parler in response to the capital attacks, and how the existing limits on US free speech apply to these decisions.
        julianmarq 6y ago
        > Maybe downvoted far down the thread No, and no. Please don't tell me what I have or have not seen myself. > [Trump and parler again] Okay, this is the third time so I won't try again to tell you I have no interest in talking about that. I'll just say that the first time I noticed generally well received[1] comments in favor of censorship was almost two years ago, in a thread that had nothing to do with Trump (and I'm not sure if parler even existed by then). According to what I've noticed, it has been growing in prominence since. [1]: Which is to say, they weren't downvoted nor pushed downthread and even though they had several replies disputing them; they had just as many agreeing.
        awb 6y ago
wrs 6y ago
The use of the term “censorship” is itself a negative signal, as it preempts useful discussion by imposing a false dichotomy. There’s no feasible zero-censorship scenario (see “yelling fire in a crowded theater”, etc.) so pretty much everyone is “pro-censorship” to some degree. But pretty much no one wants preapproval of every utterance either, so everyone is also “anti-censorship”. If you see someone talking about “damping positive disinformation feedback loops” or something like that, rather than “censorship”, that’s one signal there’s a substantive discussion taking place. (Zero censorship is kind of like absolute anarchy: an interesting thought experiment that may be useful to inform a practical debate.)
- julianmarq 6y ago
  > But pretty much no one wants preapproval of every utterance either, so everyone is also “anti-censorship”. I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", just as an example of what I meant in my first comment. > so pretty much everyone is “pro-censorship” to some degree Please, don't. You're arguing against an extreme of my comment instead of what I actually meant[1] (which, of course, you're free to do, but I would also be just as free to dismiss it as a bad faith argument), but also you're extending something you might believe onto others. You're of course free to be "pro-censorship", but you don't know what everyone else thinks, and certainly not what I think. > The use of the term “censorship” is itself a negative signal, as it preempts useful discussion by imposing a false dichotomy. I completely disagree with this. The example I gave is absolutely an argument in favor of censorship. > If you see someone talking about “damping positive disinformation feedback loops” or something like that, rather than “censorship”, that’s one signal there’s a substantive discussion taking place. Excusing it by saying "dampening positive disinformation feedback loops" is excusing censorship. You might refuse to call it such, but I don't have a reason not to. [1]: For starters, I'm aware that there's unprotected speech for a reason, and I never called condemnation of such speech "censorship".
  - wrs 6y ago
    Do you see how by using the word “censorship” as if it were a unitary concept with an agreed-upon meaning, you have made it difficult to continue this conversation? I didn’t present any position at all other than saying that neither extreme is realistic — which I think you actually agree with. But you’re trying to argue with me anyway. I was just trying to answer your question on how to recognize a more nuanced and productive discussion: look for people arguing about specific behaviors; avoid people arguing over the definition of the word “censorship”.
confidantlake 6y ago
Why is it ironic? Hacker news censors content more heavily than somewhere like twitter or facebook. If you call someone stupid you will likely get warned and eventually banned.
- julianmarq 6y ago
  I replied this to someone else, but I think it works here too: The irony, for me, is that if I were in favor of censorship, I would be the first person I censor, instead of using an online forum to speak in favor of censorship. I feel that there's irony in using a widely accessed medium just to talk about how censorship is the way to go.

awb 6y ago

> increasingly pro-censorship[1] lately The US has always had limits on free speech. > Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech Incitement, sedition, public security and harm to others seem to be relevant to this discussion.

julianmarq 6y ago
> [US limits on free speech] seem to be relevant to this discussion. But not to my comment, and not just because I'm not from the USA. I'm not speaking in favor of parler if that's what you assumed (for some reason). Specially if it is, like the top comment said, just a propaganda machine trying to enforce a single viewpoint. That's antithesis to free speech.
- awb 6y ago
  I was referring to the comment where you say HN is “bizarrely” more “pro-censorship”. Where you see “pro-censorship”, many see speech that historically has never been protected in the US like calls to violence, or speech that insights others to violence. Companies gave Trump et. al. the benefit of the doubt on the “inciting violence” part, until the violence actually materialized and the FBI warned of groups organizing online to coordinate future violent attacks.
  - julianmarq 6y ago
    > I was referring to the comment where you say HN is “bizarrely” more “pro-censorship”. Where you see “pro-censorship”, many see speech that historically has never been protected I didn't use the word "bizarrely" and I'm not talking about condemnation of unprotected speech (and again, not just because I'm not from the USA). I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech itself is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", and that's just an example. > [Trump] Again, I wasn't talking about parler nor about Trump. I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to imply that I'm talking about stuff I'm not, or steering the conversation toward subjects I've never even alluded to.
    - awb 6y ago
      > I didn't use the word "bizarrely" Sorry, I meant "ironic". > I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech itself is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", and that's just an example. Maybe downvoted far down the thread, but the majority of the upvoted "censorship" discussions have been directly related to Big Tech's deplatforming of Trump & Parler in response to the capital attacks, and how the existing limits on US free speech apply to these decisions.
      - julianmarq 6y ago
        > Maybe downvoted far down the thread No, and no. Please don't tell me what I have or have not seen myself. > [Trump and parler again] Okay, this is the third time so I won't try again to tell you I have no interest in talking about that. I'll just say that the first time I noticed generally well received[1] comments in favor of censorship was almost two years ago, in a thread that had nothing to do with Trump (and I'm not sure if parler even existed by then). According to what I've noticed, it has been growing in prominence since. [1]: Which is to say, they weren't downvoted nor pushed downthread and even though they had several replies disputing them; they had just as many agreeing.
        awb 6y ago

wrs 6y ago

The use of the term “censorship” is itself a negative signal, as it preempts useful discussion by imposing a false dichotomy. There’s no feasible zero-censorship scenario (see “yelling fire in a crowded theater”, etc.) so pretty much everyone is “pro-censorship” to some degree. But pretty much no one wants preapproval of every utterance either, so everyone is also “anti-censorship”. If you see someone talking about “damping positive disinformation feedback loops” or something like that, rather than “censorship”, that’s one signal there’s a substantive discussion taking place. (Zero censorship is kind of like absolute anarchy: an interesting thought experiment that may be useful to inform a practical debate.)

julianmarq 6y ago
> But pretty much no one wants preapproval of every utterance either, so everyone is also “anti-censorship”. I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", just as an example of what I meant in my first comment. > so pretty much everyone is “pro-censorship” to some degree Please, don't. You're arguing against an extreme of my comment instead of what I actually meant[1] (which, of course, you're free to do, but I would also be just as free to dismiss it as a bad faith argument), but also you're extending something you might believe onto others. You're of course free to be "pro-censorship", but you don't know what everyone else thinks, and certainly not what I think. > The use of the term “censorship” is itself a negative signal, as it preempts useful discussion by imposing a false dichotomy. I completely disagree with this. The example I gave is absolutely an argument in favor of censorship. > If you see someone talking about “damping positive disinformation feedback loops” or something like that, rather than “censorship”, that’s one signal there’s a substantive discussion taking place. Excusing it by saying "dampening positive disinformation feedback loops" is excusing censorship. You might refuse to call it such, but I don't have a reason not to. [1]: For starters, I'm aware that there's unprotected speech for a reason, and I never called condemnation of such speech "censorship".
- wrs 6y ago
  Do you see how by using the word “censorship” as if it were a unitary concept with an agreed-upon meaning, you have made it difficult to continue this conversation? I didn’t present any position at all other than saying that neither extreme is realistic — which I think you actually agree with. But you’re trying to argue with me anyway. I was just trying to answer your question on how to recognize a more nuanced and productive discussion: look for people arguing about specific behaviors; avoid people arguing over the definition of the word “censorship”.

confidantlake 6y ago

Why is it ironic? Hacker news censors content more heavily than somewhere like twitter or facebook. If you call someone stupid you will likely get warned and eventually banned.

julianmarq 6y ago
I replied this to someone else, but I think it works here too: The irony, for me, is that if I were in favor of censorship, I would be the first person I censor, instead of using an online forum to speak in favor of censorship. I feel that there's irony in using a widely accessed medium just to talk about how censorship is the way to go.