3 ms·

Trolling and many other forms of online abuse may not be against any law but it is in the public interest to allow platforms to remove such content. This initi

Trolling and many other forms of online abuse may not be against any law but it is in the public interest to allow platforms to remove such content. This initiative may turn out to be the opposite of what it claims to stand for.

bilekas 6y ago
What its claiming to stand for and what its intended use are not mutually exclusive.
baq 6y ago
the ruling party has very much in common with the GOP, so much so that the default assumption should be that the opposite is the intent.
COGlory 6y ago
> it is in the public interest to allow platforms to remove such content This is not always true, and that is the issue. If the government is going to, for instance, tell us we can't gather on public property, there has to be some way to guarantee that a digital commons will remain.
- __s 6y ago
  Let Poland run news.polishcombinator.com where they decide to not moderate anything not against Polish law then Are we going to have dang explain how any post he moderates violates Polish law? What about what he's moderating which isn't illegal in Poland?
  - bzb6 6y ago
    Nobody seemed to care too much here about these issues when the gdpr was shoved into the faces of everybody.
    - __s 6y ago
      Lots of people were wary of the GDPR. But "don't track our population" is streets ahead of "don't moderate content" To be clear I'm not too worried about this. It seems like unenforceable policy
      - bzb6 6y ago
        When the livelihood of those businesses depends entirely on their ability to track their users to deliver better ads, I would say that’s so much worse than letting conservative people express themselves freely.
- crististm 6y ago
  If gathering in public space is gone we have bigger problems than wifi not working.
- paxys 6y ago
  In what sense is a private commercial website public space?
  - COGlory 6y ago
    Some judges have hinted that it effectively is: https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/11/packingham-v-north-carolina/ https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/11/packingham-v-north-caro... Ultimately, though, I think the jury is still out.
rodgerd 6y ago
Yep. It would be illegal for dang to remove low-value or irrelevant posts.
cpncrunch 6y ago
It will be great for spammers.
commandlinefan 6y ago
This can, and IMHO should, be addressed the way HN does it (at least by default): content that's downvoted is not visible by default, but not actually removed.
Mediterraneo10 6y ago
> Trolling ... may not be against any law but it is in the public interest to allow platforms to remove such content. Is that really true? When Slashdot was the popular "news for nerds" site, many site regulars intentionally set their threshold to -1 to read the troll posts, because they were often inventive and funny. Yes, a moderation system can filter them out for users who configure the site thusly, but plenty of people would resist banning them outright because they are occasionally enjoyable to read.

bilekas 6y ago

What its claiming to stand for and what its intended use are not mutually exclusive.

baq 6y ago

the ruling party has very much in common with the GOP, so much so that the default assumption should be that the opposite is the intent.

COGlory 6y ago

> it is in the public interest to allow platforms to remove such content This is not always true, and that is the issue. If the government is going to, for instance, tell us we can't gather on public property, there has to be some way to guarantee that a digital commons will remain.

__s 6y ago
Let Poland run news.polishcombinator.com where they decide to not moderate anything not against Polish law then Are we going to have dang explain how any post he moderates violates Polish law? What about what he's moderating which isn't illegal in Poland?
- bzb6 6y ago
  Nobody seemed to care too much here about these issues when the gdpr was shoved into the faces of everybody.
  - __s 6y ago
    Lots of people were wary of the GDPR. But "don't track our population" is streets ahead of "don't moderate content" To be clear I'm not too worried about this. It seems like unenforceable policy
    - bzb6 6y ago
      When the livelihood of those businesses depends entirely on their ability to track their users to deliver better ads, I would say that’s so much worse than letting conservative people express themselves freely.
crististm 6y ago
If gathering in public space is gone we have bigger problems than wifi not working.
paxys 6y ago
In what sense is a private commercial website public space?
- COGlory 6y ago
  Some judges have hinted that it effectively is: https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/11/packingham-v-north-carolina/ https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/11/packingham-v-north-caro... Ultimately, though, I think the jury is still out.

rodgerd 6y ago

Yep. It would be illegal for dang to remove low-value or irrelevant posts.

cpncrunch 6y ago

It will be great for spammers.

commandlinefan 6y ago

This can, and IMHO should, be addressed the way HN does it (at least by default): content that's downvoted is not visible by default, but not actually removed.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago

> Trolling ... may not be against any law but it is in the public interest to allow platforms to remove such content. Is that really true? When Slashdot was the popular "news for nerds" site, many site regulars intentionally set their threshold to -1 to read the troll posts, because they were often inventive and funny. Yes, a moderation system can filter them out for users who configure the site thusly, but plenty of people would resist banning them outright because they are occasionally enjoyable to read.