9 ms·

Poland plans to make censoring of social media accounts illegal

62 points by loriverkutya 6y ago

DangitBobby 6y ago
It's hard to know what's right. It feels like letting the lies continue to spread is tearing out democracy apart.
- julienreszka 6y ago
  Why do you think lies continue to spread?
  - Chazprime 6y ago
    Because companies like Twitter and Facebook have monetized the spreading of lies and disinformation.
  - egwor 6y ago
    Deep question. Sometimes people repeat ideas without sufficient critical thought. That critical thought may well be due to lack of understanding around the subject which limits the ability for the person to review whether it is correct before spreading the information wider. I think that some of this is because the news that we get from credible sources doesn't explain why they're credible (e.g. no sources). Consequently when we see news in the same form from other venues (which are less credible) they look and appear no different from the credible sources. My proposal here is that news sites should link and quote sources. Example: The Times (UK) quoting the UK Government on lockdown rules. The government web site is actually clearer in many cases, and people don't seem to know where to go to get the actual facts. (I've not covered bias here either, but that's important). Another issue that we have is that the experts that are used sometimes don't understand it either! I follow a Doctor (@curexcomplex on twitter) who is an expert immunologist and she often corrects those on news sites. I think that part of this is that when ideas are dumbed down so that a non expert can understand, some of the nuances or subtleties are lost. We can then have 'Chinese whispers' where non-experts then repeat information and the nuance or subtleties are further eroded. I think that also we have a 'fast' news culture, where there's a level of 'coolness' of spreading news first. I think that means that we don't necessarily check things because we want to share that 'cool' story as fast as possible. I've done this myself and been corrected by peers (who are actually experts in Chemistry (the video was on chemistry) which I'm definitely not!) Everyone thinks that they're above average. That means that they think that their view is valid. The opinion is equally valid but as a reliable source this is not directly related. For example, unless a Celebrity is a reliable source (a qualification in the subject would give credibility) on immunology we should call them out as such when they talk about vaccinations. For example we could say 'You don't have a high school qualification in Biology. Your credibility in areas relating to biology is therefore less than someone who has a degree in Biology. Your opinion will therefore get a lower weighting by default.'. That doesn't mean that their opinion is less important than anyone else's but their credibility on this subject is worse. I fear that most don't understand this concept. I think this is much like how in history we have primary sources and secondary sources. Maybe we ought to have a way to indicate if the person is a primary source or secondary source. Lastly, I think that the news sites need to sell ads, so there is and incentive to publish stories quickly and less incentive to take extra time to confirm stories are correct. This is made worse because people have moved on by the time a correction is provided, and it is not shown with the same visibility. That means that the correction is not seen by the same number of people. (One other thing; I think that folk need to be more humble about learning things when they don't know, and when people are factually wrong we should be happy to say that and to receive it. Obviously this needs adequate supporting evidence.) Edit: grammar
    - nanonan 6y ago
      Great answer. I did want to highlight the selling of ads as I believe this is the primary and largest reason behind influencing less informed masses to take unwarranted actions in a harmful 'us vs them' way. Engineered (human or otherwise) attention/action getting ads have given us clickbait, raigebait, and cross-sectional identity politics. I believe that without regulation on the beancounting ad algorithms that fight for attention this will continue and we will have even more extreme "us vs them" attitudes and fallouts in the future. How that is done, I have no idea, but cancel culture seems inherently wrong to me. Perhaps educational reform is the place to start and should focus on helping people be both open-minded and skeptical in their openminded-ness ie, switching from 'i'm right, they are wrong' to 'no one is right'. and from there, humbly rejecting objectively(scientifically) proven falsehoods and seeking to understand the fallacies we all fall victim to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
  - DangitBobby 6y ago
    First, as always, we rely on authority to fill in our knowledge gaps for us. But the authority that we've come to trust has an estranged relationship with the truth. Second, with widespread instant communication, you can choose to listen to just about anyone to trust as an authority. And with so many voices saying so many things (without vetting their own knowledge), you have your pick of the "facts" that you enjoy most.
- ArnoVW 6y ago
  I think the confusion stems from the fact that it should be illegal for a private business to censor someone. But that does not preclude the democratically created law from censoring someone, as interpreted by the judiciary. The issue in the US has been that the executive and judiciary part of the state did nothing for four years. As per the first sentence of the article: "Polish government wants to protect posts that do not break nation’s laws"
  - peteretep 6y ago
    > the fact that it should be illegal for a private business to censor someone Putting the words "the fact that" in front of your opinion on a nuanced and controversial topic does not -- in fact -- make it a fact.
    - ArnoVW 6y ago
      I see what you mean. I did not mean to say that censorship is not controversial. I was refering to the comment, that was commenting the article. What I tried to say was that the controversy about private entities censoring other private entities should be relatively small. That does indeed not diminish the fact that the state censoring someone is more complicated, I agree.
      - pelliphant 6y ago
        That is an american take on censorship. Here is one from the other side of the pond: Private entities setting up rules for their services and then enforcing those rules are not that controversial.
        ArnoVW 6y ago
        Actually, I am Dutch, but have lived in the UK and am now living in France. I agree that "freedom of speech" is less of an issue for the average European, than for an average American. But Angela Merkel for example critisized strongly the actions of Facebook, Twitter et al. You may agree with private entities censoring now, because you disagree with the censored statements. What if the roles are reversed? What if Mark Zuckerberg runs for president and uses his platform to this end? What if whomever-you-disagree-with pays private entities to censor your newspaper / internet site? Democratically defined censorship, enforced by the state is one thing (and already complicated). Censorship without all those guarantees is, IMHO, quite another.
- trhway 6y ago
  >It feels like letting the lies continue to spread is tearing out democracy apart. and the solution of course is "censorship will be increased until free speech and democracy improves".
  - markdown 6y ago
    Well if you remove the liars ability to broadcast their lies, democracy is improved, isn't it?
    - tremon 6y ago
      Only if you simultaneously make sure that the truth does get heard.
  - DangitBobby 6y ago
    Isn't this a relatively censorship-free time compared to, say, the 60s? If I wanted to spread some nonsense, I had to get approval from a publisher or editor or radio or TV station that would allow me to put it out there. Now, anyone can say anything for all to see, with the occasional purging of public forums. You can't argue that there's no censorship, but I certainly argue that there's much less. Have we always been proclaiming that free speech is being eroded, or is this merely a product of our time?
- rich_sasha 6y ago
  My broader view is that the society at large is woefully under-educated for dealing with the new complexities of life. Most educational systems I know of don't really teach critical thinking, evaluation of sources, dealing with biased accounts etc. Censorship of the worst lies is justified as something like "we know better that these are lies, so we'll hide the content from those who don't", and in some sense this does send shivers down your spine. The long-term solution must be that an average person can do the evaluation for themselves.
rich_sasha 6y ago
The funny thing is, who would Twitter care more about? Polish government anti-censorship, or wider corporate governance issues vis-a-vis its shareholders and US regulators? I know where I'd put my money. Plus, who is to decide what content is violating the country's laws? Surely not courts - they would be inundated with every little petty hate comment or reference to Nazis. So it will have to be the platform anyway. And incitement to violence, hate, racial discrimination etc. are already illegal in Poland, so Twitter could go on banning whatever they like. The government would like the enforcement of these laws to be very selective, but as said, in practice, it won't be the up to the government to say what is and what isn't legal content.
danaos 6y ago
I'm not sure this is a right move considering Poland's gov is among the most authoritarian in the West. On the other hand Merkel have said that Trumps Twitter ban is problematic. There is no silver bullet here.
- Daniel_sk 6y ago
  Yes, people need to know the motivations - the current polish government basically won the election on spreading hoaxes on social media (Facebook) and heavily polarizing the population on LGBTI, migrant wave, abortion laws and other topics.
  - the-dude 6y ago
    The LGBTI issue is heavily polarized in NL too : if you don't buy 100% into it, you are assumed to be a fascist.
    - readflaggedcomm 6y ago
      But that's reality, which is why it's such a useful signal for employers and social media companies to use.
peteretep 6y ago
"Following Trump’s Twitter ban, Polish government wants to protect posts that do not break nation’s laws" This wouldn't have affected Twitter at all, who banned Trump for posting illegal incitements to violence. Ironically, this would have hit Parler, the site that moderated lefties and people who posted pictures of poop, the hardest.
detaro 6y ago
previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25736155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25736155
klunger 6y ago
This is absurd. Twitter etc are private companies and can do what they want wrt their user's accounts. If they don't want their far-right politicians getting censored, then they can ban those platforms from the country completely. As the saying goes, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
- wnnzl 6y ago
  of course, you can always create your own social platform, and then if some hosting company decides to ban you, you can always create your own, and have own internet as well right?
  - unarmed-canary 6y ago
    Time to go to Neocities? I know they're a company subject to the same laws of the countries in which they operate but it seems like a suggestion to go back to that (which I've seen Linux-y Youtubers suggest) but it's an old method of solution to a different problem Geocities was set up to solve.
  - eertami 6y ago
    Surely then it is much simpler/cheaper to ban fascists and delete content that incites violence? Unless of course... you aren't really a social platform, and what you really want to be is a fascism platform. Parler pretending to be social media is transparent as glass. There's a fabricated narrative that "right wing ideas" are being censored which is simply untrue. Twitter does not care if you post that you think healthcare should be private. But Twitter obviously does care when people start spreading objectively false information with the express aim of inciting violence.
- AnHonestComment 6y ago
  Twitter can cease offering service in Poland if they don’t like it. Poland has (wisely) decided social media is like telephones and you can’t stop providing service because of what customers say, as long as it is legal. Good for them. Poland is a sovereign country — Twitter doesn’t get to tell them how to act. That’s “tail wags dog”. Social media companies blatantly exerted themselves as political entities — and now they’re facing “common carrier” regulation from existing political entities who don’t like that. Again, if Twitter is uncomfortable being a common carrier for Polish social media — they’re free to exit the market and offer their services elsewhere.
MStrehovsky 6y ago
Ironic that this news from Poland comes a day after activists go on trial for replacing halos with rainbows in a picture in Poland: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9142821/Poland-trial-starts-LGBT-symbol-revered-icon-posters.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9142821/Poland-tria...
- rob74 6y ago
  Not only ironic, also hypocritical: they are proposing to make it illegal to censor views that don't break Polish laws, while replacing a halo with a rainbow in a photo of an icon does break Polish laws, because it "offends religious sentiment", so it could (and probably also should, if you ask them) be censored.
  - rhn_mk1 6y ago
    Where's the hypocrisy in that? They are consistent: lawful views must not be censored, unlawful ones must. I can see how there could be bias in determining what is lawful, but that's not hypocrisy.
    - praptak 6y ago
      It's hypocrisy to paint themselves as protectors of free speech.
      - AnHonestComment 6y ago
        You mean Twitter — yammering about “muh freedoms” in other countries while actively censoring the sitting president of their home country? Yeah, that’s been really hypocritical.
      - bobthechef 6y ago
        Not really. What constitutes free speech is always qualified, so that's a fantastical argument. In this case, Poland has blasphemy laws (and btw, even Strasbourg allows for these under the margin of appreciation). In principle, this move shifts decisions from private global corporate power brokers to national representative government. Facebook and Twitter are private, but they've become so powerful and influential that they function like utilities used for communication. It is better to subject these platforms to laws that can be checked by representative government than to the whims of tech oligarchs.
ajvs 6y ago
Good. Social media sites have for far too long avoided liability for the content on their site by saying they're just platforms, whilst selectively censoring like a publisher. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
doctor_eval 6y ago
All I see lately is people conflating the right to free speech with the right to be heard. Free speech means that you can't be put in jail for something you say. That's it. But nobody has an entitlement to be amplified. That's not a right. Nobody has the right to unfettered access to someone else's platform. That's never, ever been the case. You never had the right to edit the front page of a newspaper that you don't own, you don't have the right to set up a platform in the middle of some company's office to talk about your crazy ass theory, and you don't have the right to spew malicious, bad-faith shit into a twitter thread. /rant
- 2Gkashmiri 6y ago
  Interesting. In India a comedian was arrested (still is) for making a joke which he didn't crack. Some people wanted to make a joke of the system by a false complaint and guess what, the police is supporting a false claim instead of letting the accused go. So much for free speech. Literally the guy didnt say something and he is being arrested for that
- stephenr 6y ago
  As I've said time and time again, people say "free speech" but what they mean is "consequence free speech".
  - ZGDUwpqEWpUZ 6y ago
    Why would you say that more than once? Freedom of speech, whatever your take on it, is by definition freedom from some consequences. The argument is over which consequences are acceptable.
    - stephenr 6y ago
      Because people don't understand? Because people don't read? I don't know. Why would people keep failing to make the distinction between "free speech" and "consequence free speech"? Free Speech is, in most societies considered to be a concept that applies to the government's ability to censor people's speech. This is well defined in the case of the US 1st amendment: it has zero implication on private entities. Edit to add: So in the example case, the US President has been banned from Twitter. People are claiming he's been "censored" by twitter. The government has done nothing to stop him saying whatever the fuck he wants, on national television even. The hypocrisy on this topic by right wingers is pretty crazy when you think about it: Apparently a baker can refuse to make a cake because he can't sleep at night if two dudes kiss, but a social media platform can't stop someone from posting violence inciting messages on their website?
nanna 6y ago
Unless you believe so strongly about FOS that you'd object to it in all counts, eg ISIL recruitment material and propeganda, then your argument is really about whether these Trump accounts have crossed a line of legitimacy, not FOS. If they're involved in pushing for armed, violent insurrection against the US government, then give one credible argument for why you'd defend them, but not ISIL doing the same.
mxcrossb 6y ago
Well farewell to any hacker news readers in Poland. That is, unless the administrators are willing to restore any comment here at the whim of a foreign court.
mrtksn 6y ago
I guess Poland can start make a progress by no longer requesting content removal from twitter: https://transparency.twitter.com/en/reports/removal-requests.html https://transparency.twitter.com/en/reports/removal-requests...
yakshaving_jgt 6y ago
> Censorship of free speech, which is the domain of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, is now returning in the form of a new, commercial mechanism to combat those who think differently. As terrible as PiS are for other reasons, Morawiecki has a point here, although I don't see he is standing by this point consistently when it comes to, e.g., those who "think differently" about sexuality.
- xeyownt 6y ago
  The fact that PiS is terrible is clear indication that they have a bad agenda behind this move. In some countries, it is illegal to promote racist speech, or to call for violent actions, etc. These countries define a limit to free speech. Morawiecki would call these limits censorship of free speech, but these are not. Moreover, anyone crossing these limits may be sued in court. No such things with FB / Twitter ban. This makes Mariewki's statement even more pointless.
lukeitup 6y ago
Say what you want, but I'm not a fan of what the Polish government is doing overall. Feels like they are moving away from democracy. When will the EU say enough is enough?
austincheney 6y ago
If I were a US based social media company I would simply deny service to any IP address from that country. Liability averted.
- newbie578 6y ago
  And by doing that you allow a competitor to emerge. You are free to do that, however note that there are more than enough companies willing to jump at the opportunity...
  - austincheney 6y ago
    That is a simple arithmetic question: Which results in higher operating expenses, the loss of a minor market or the increased liability imposed by that market?
    - newbie578 6y ago
      Completely agreed.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
praptak 6y ago
If you wonder what exactly they want to protect, [1] is the recent ruling of a Polish court. As of Jan 12th, publicly saying that "gay people are perverts" is fine as far as Polish law is concerned. [0] Background in English: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/polish-activist-refuses-to-apologise-for-remarks-on-varadkar-s-perversion-1.3661768 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/polish-activis... [1]The ruling (Polish only): https://oko.press/kaja-godek-wygrala-w-sadzie-zboczency/ https://oko.press/kaja-godek-wygrala-w-sadzie-zboczency/
- xeyownt 6y ago
  Yes exactly. Typical far right / extremists tactic, disguise their discourses as well accepted democratic ones. They say they want to protect free speech, etc, but in fact are only pushing for their own definition of free speech and will be very quick at banning any other speech that are not according to their views/laws.
  - Speednet 6y ago
    As opposed to left-wing/progressive tactics of lumping half the country in with one particular group of rioters (ignoring the violent riots that progressives have encouraged all summer) and then trying to completely eliminate any speech that does not agree with their woke agenda. Got it. Thanks for posting your balanced viewpoint.
- bobthechef 6y ago
  Ad hominem much? And yes, why shouldn't someone have the right to say that? Under natural law theory, same sex attraction is gravely disordered, and indulging that attraction by engaging in an active gay lifestyle is perverse and self-destructive. That some people want to silence traditional views is revealing. Instead of counterargument, you see totalitarian attempts to silence people, in this case Catholics, though one not need be a Catholic to hold this view. The presumption that such criticism must come from a place of contempt shows a profound misunderstanding of the nature of love (the willing of the true good of the other), conflating it with the scandalous encouragement of self-destructive behavior. Regardless, let us suppose such remarks show contempt. Then by that definition, the rabidly anti-clerical and Church-hating Jacobins on the left are the pot calling the kettle black.
m000 6y ago
Before gloating over the planned law, check the background and recent record of those promoting it.
newbie578 6y ago
Let's not act surprised here, it was only natural it would come to this, and I expect other countries to follow suit. If the (still current) president of the world's largest power can be silenced, then just how easily can Jack Dorsey silence a president of a country like let's say Moldavia... I'm not arguing if someone is a bad person or good person, just stating the obvious POV one might get looking at the status quo. And for the classical comments here on HN about how it is "their platform" and they can choose what they want to, do not forget that the platform needs to play by the government's rule, not the other way...
- xeyownt 6y ago
  Exactly. Let's have US companies be ruled by US laws. But then, should Poland ban Twitter? Who's censoring who? The move here is only pushed by bad political agenda. If the move would come from EU, it would be much more neutral and more protective of civil rights and freedom, which is not what Poland wants here.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
kypro 6y ago
While I strongly disagree with social media censorship and I think a lot it is politically motivated, I do recognise that they probably should have the legal right to censor content. Where I personally get far more uncomfortable is with the payment processors. When you have a companies like MasterCard banning donations from all republicans who take a certain political positions (objecting to the electoral vote in this case) then something needs to be done. If Twitter censors you it is possible to move to another platform, or even create your own, but if Visa and Master card ban you, what exactly do you do? To some extent I feel similar about core AWS services. I think people probably should have a some legal right to basic internet services. I understand it's possible to build your own internet infrastructure as Gab has proven, but it's very difficult for the average person to do what Gab did. As an individual I could move to another social media platform, but if my web hosts bans me I wouldn't have the resources to host my own website which seems wrong given how important the internet is to us as a utility today. IMO social media censorship, while an important conversation to have, isn't the primary conservation. This would be far less of an issue if alternative platforms like Gab and Parler weren't constantly under attack by monopolies which provide core services like payment processing and core internet services. The fact a company like Gab has had resort to accepting cash in the post for PRO membership for simply trying to protect its users right to free speech online is a complete failure of regulation IMO.
zxcvbn4038 6y ago
Politics aside this is an interesting situation in that social media companies have forever sought special protections based on the claimed impossibility of their moderating user content - turns out they can moderate content just fine when they want to, so maybe it’s time for their special protections to end, and for them to be responsible for their content. You can blame Twitter for shattering the myth since they keep broadcasting the number of accounts they are suspending and hash tags they are banning, at this point it’s impossible to backtrack and say it’s too hard to do - and if Twitter can do it then it’s hard for any of the other giants to say they can not. I’m betting in future we’ll see these companies held to the same standards that newspapers, tv, and radio are held to today.
- soco 6y ago
  Deleting one guy's account requires much less moderating resources than evaluating each post of an army of bots. So this particular case doesn't prove anything about their moderation capabilities. Yes, they COULD technically look at each and every account and each and every post, but I can't imagine any entity, private or not, having the resources to do so. Which leaves us to the manual banning (irregular, mostly high profile = low hanging fruit) or AI based solutions (and we know already how good they work)
rriepe 6y ago
This is hugely encouraging and a win for human rights everywhere. Poland has fought more against this type of abuse than any nation on the planet.
guerrilla 6y ago
So I've been reading everybody's comments as this comes up about five times a day now and did a little research [1] and the following is what I've come up with for these platforms: - They must censor what's illegal - They may censor what violates TOS - They may not censor what is not illegal and does not violate TOS I think breaking these rules would automatically convert you from a platform to a publisher and you'd have to follow whatever those rules are. Spam handling would have to be part of the TOS. I'm looking for feedback. What would be the problem with this? Doesn't it seem fair? I haven't thought about it much but I wonder if this would also work for cancelling contracts/refusal of service but that's a whole other topic. 1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/
- tremon 6y ago
  You're missing the part where "what's illegal" varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. No international platform can simultaneously comply with points 1 and 3 everywhere in the world.
  - guerrilla 6y ago
    I'm not missing that poiny but my post is. What is presented would have to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Good point to bring up though, especially for we who wouod have to implement it.
bobthechef 6y ago
By bringing national law to bear on Facebook, Twitter, etc. in such a vivid way, it sets a precedent that other countries will follow (like EU members). Now, because contradictions b/w any two bodies of law may come into existence, this will lead to blocks of countries that share a similar body of laws regarding speech meaning greater accommodation and less censorship. If there is a high degree of disagreement, however, there may be a good number of such blocks which means decentralization of social media. So either these companies face increased regulation, or they will be force to retreat from global dominance.

62 points by loriverkutya 6y ago

DangitBobby 6y ago

It's hard to know what's right. It feels like letting the lies continue to spread is tearing out democracy apart.

julienreszka 6y ago
Why do you think lies continue to spread?
- Chazprime 6y ago
  Because companies like Twitter and Facebook have monetized the spreading of lies and disinformation.
- egwor 6y ago
  Deep question. Sometimes people repeat ideas without sufficient critical thought. That critical thought may well be due to lack of understanding around the subject which limits the ability for the person to review whether it is correct before spreading the information wider. I think that some of this is because the news that we get from credible sources doesn't explain why they're credible (e.g. no sources). Consequently when we see news in the same form from other venues (which are less credible) they look and appear no different from the credible sources. My proposal here is that news sites should link and quote sources. Example: The Times (UK) quoting the UK Government on lockdown rules. The government web site is actually clearer in many cases, and people don't seem to know where to go to get the actual facts. (I've not covered bias here either, but that's important). Another issue that we have is that the experts that are used sometimes don't understand it either! I follow a Doctor (@curexcomplex on twitter) who is an expert immunologist and she often corrects those on news sites. I think that part of this is that when ideas are dumbed down so that a non expert can understand, some of the nuances or subtleties are lost. We can then have 'Chinese whispers' where non-experts then repeat information and the nuance or subtleties are further eroded. I think that also we have a 'fast' news culture, where there's a level of 'coolness' of spreading news first. I think that means that we don't necessarily check things because we want to share that 'cool' story as fast as possible. I've done this myself and been corrected by peers (who are actually experts in Chemistry (the video was on chemistry) which I'm definitely not!) Everyone thinks that they're above average. That means that they think that their view is valid. The opinion is equally valid but as a reliable source this is not directly related. For example, unless a Celebrity is a reliable source (a qualification in the subject would give credibility) on immunology we should call them out as such when they talk about vaccinations. For example we could say 'You don't have a high school qualification in Biology. Your credibility in areas relating to biology is therefore less than someone who has a degree in Biology. Your opinion will therefore get a lower weighting by default.'. That doesn't mean that their opinion is less important than anyone else's but their credibility on this subject is worse. I fear that most don't understand this concept. I think this is much like how in history we have primary sources and secondary sources. Maybe we ought to have a way to indicate if the person is a primary source or secondary source. Lastly, I think that the news sites need to sell ads, so there is and incentive to publish stories quickly and less incentive to take extra time to confirm stories are correct. This is made worse because people have moved on by the time a correction is provided, and it is not shown with the same visibility. That means that the correction is not seen by the same number of people. (One other thing; I think that folk need to be more humble about learning things when they don't know, and when people are factually wrong we should be happy to say that and to receive it. Obviously this needs adequate supporting evidence.) Edit: grammar
  - nanonan 6y ago
    Great answer. I did want to highlight the selling of ads as I believe this is the primary and largest reason behind influencing less informed masses to take unwarranted actions in a harmful 'us vs them' way. Engineered (human or otherwise) attention/action getting ads have given us clickbait, raigebait, and cross-sectional identity politics. I believe that without regulation on the beancounting ad algorithms that fight for attention this will continue and we will have even more extreme "us vs them" attitudes and fallouts in the future. How that is done, I have no idea, but cancel culture seems inherently wrong to me. Perhaps educational reform is the place to start and should focus on helping people be both open-minded and skeptical in their openminded-ness ie, switching from 'i'm right, they are wrong' to 'no one is right'. and from there, humbly rejecting objectively(scientifically) proven falsehoods and seeking to understand the fallacies we all fall victim to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
- DangitBobby 6y ago
  First, as always, we rely on authority to fill in our knowledge gaps for us. But the authority that we've come to trust has an estranged relationship with the truth. Second, with widespread instant communication, you can choose to listen to just about anyone to trust as an authority. And with so many voices saying so many things (without vetting their own knowledge), you have your pick of the "facts" that you enjoy most.
ArnoVW 6y ago
I think the confusion stems from the fact that it should be illegal for a private business to censor someone. But that does not preclude the democratically created law from censoring someone, as interpreted by the judiciary. The issue in the US has been that the executive and judiciary part of the state did nothing for four years. As per the first sentence of the article: "Polish government wants to protect posts that do not break nation’s laws"
- peteretep 6y ago
  > the fact that it should be illegal for a private business to censor someone Putting the words "the fact that" in front of your opinion on a nuanced and controversial topic does not -- in fact -- make it a fact.
  - ArnoVW 6y ago
    I see what you mean. I did not mean to say that censorship is not controversial. I was refering to the comment, that was commenting the article. What I tried to say was that the controversy about private entities censoring other private entities should be relatively small. That does indeed not diminish the fact that the state censoring someone is more complicated, I agree.
    - pelliphant 6y ago
      That is an american take on censorship. Here is one from the other side of the pond: Private entities setting up rules for their services and then enforcing those rules are not that controversial.
      - ArnoVW 6y ago
        Actually, I am Dutch, but have lived in the UK and am now living in France. I agree that "freedom of speech" is less of an issue for the average European, than for an average American. But Angela Merkel for example critisized strongly the actions of Facebook, Twitter et al. You may agree with private entities censoring now, because you disagree with the censored statements. What if the roles are reversed? What if Mark Zuckerberg runs for president and uses his platform to this end? What if whomever-you-disagree-with pays private entities to censor your newspaper / internet site? Democratically defined censorship, enforced by the state is one thing (and already complicated). Censorship without all those guarantees is, IMHO, quite another.
trhway 6y ago
>It feels like letting the lies continue to spread is tearing out democracy apart. and the solution of course is "censorship will be increased until free speech and democracy improves".
- markdown 6y ago
  Well if you remove the liars ability to broadcast their lies, democracy is improved, isn't it?
  - tremon 6y ago
    Only if you simultaneously make sure that the truth does get heard.
- DangitBobby 6y ago
  Isn't this a relatively censorship-free time compared to, say, the 60s? If I wanted to spread some nonsense, I had to get approval from a publisher or editor or radio or TV station that would allow me to put it out there. Now, anyone can say anything for all to see, with the occasional purging of public forums. You can't argue that there's no censorship, but I certainly argue that there's much less. Have we always been proclaiming that free speech is being eroded, or is this merely a product of our time?
rich_sasha 6y ago
My broader view is that the society at large is woefully under-educated for dealing with the new complexities of life. Most educational systems I know of don't really teach critical thinking, evaluation of sources, dealing with biased accounts etc. Censorship of the worst lies is justified as something like "we know better that these are lies, so we'll hide the content from those who don't", and in some sense this does send shivers down your spine. The long-term solution must be that an average person can do the evaluation for themselves.

rich_sasha 6y ago

The funny thing is, who would Twitter care more about? Polish government anti-censorship, or wider corporate governance issues vis-a-vis its shareholders and US regulators? I know where I'd put my money. Plus, who is to decide what content is violating the country's laws? Surely not courts - they would be inundated with every little petty hate comment or reference to Nazis. So it will have to be the platform anyway. And incitement to violence, hate, racial discrimination etc. are already illegal in Poland, so Twitter could go on banning whatever they like. The government would like the enforcement of these laws to be very selective, but as said, in practice, it won't be the up to the government to say what is and what isn't legal content.

danaos 6y ago

I'm not sure this is a right move considering Poland's gov is among the most authoritarian in the West. On the other hand Merkel have said that Trumps Twitter ban is problematic. There is no silver bullet here.

Daniel_sk 6y ago
Yes, people need to know the motivations - the current polish government basically won the election on spreading hoaxes on social media (Facebook) and heavily polarizing the population on LGBTI, migrant wave, abortion laws and other topics.
- the-dude 6y ago
  The LGBTI issue is heavily polarized in NL too : if you don't buy 100% into it, you are assumed to be a fascist.
  - readflaggedcomm 6y ago
    But that's reality, which is why it's such a useful signal for employers and social media companies to use.

peteretep 6y ago

"Following Trump’s Twitter ban, Polish government wants to protect posts that do not break nation’s laws" This wouldn't have affected Twitter at all, who banned Trump for posting illegal incitements to violence. Ironically, this would have hit Parler, the site that moderated lefties and people who posted pictures of poop, the hardest.

detaro 6y ago

previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25736155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25736155

klunger 6y ago

This is absurd. Twitter etc are private companies and can do what they want wrt their user's accounts. If they don't want their far-right politicians getting censored, then they can ban those platforms from the country completely. As the saying goes, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

wnnzl 6y ago
of course, you can always create your own social platform, and then if some hosting company decides to ban you, you can always create your own, and have own internet as well right?
- unarmed-canary 6y ago
  Time to go to Neocities? I know they're a company subject to the same laws of the countries in which they operate but it seems like a suggestion to go back to that (which I've seen Linux-y Youtubers suggest) but it's an old method of solution to a different problem Geocities was set up to solve.
- eertami 6y ago
  Surely then it is much simpler/cheaper to ban fascists and delete content that incites violence? Unless of course... you aren't really a social platform, and what you really want to be is a fascism platform. Parler pretending to be social media is transparent as glass. There's a fabricated narrative that "right wing ideas" are being censored which is simply untrue. Twitter does not care if you post that you think healthcare should be private. But Twitter obviously does care when people start spreading objectively false information with the express aim of inciting violence.
AnHonestComment 6y ago
Twitter can cease offering service in Poland if they don’t like it. Poland has (wisely) decided social media is like telephones and you can’t stop providing service because of what customers say, as long as it is legal. Good for them. Poland is a sovereign country — Twitter doesn’t get to tell them how to act. That’s “tail wags dog”. Social media companies blatantly exerted themselves as political entities — and now they’re facing “common carrier” regulation from existing political entities who don’t like that. Again, if Twitter is uncomfortable being a common carrier for Polish social media — they’re free to exit the market and offer their services elsewhere.

MStrehovsky 6y ago

Ironic that this news from Poland comes a day after activists go on trial for replacing halos with rainbows in a picture in Poland: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9142821/Poland-trial-starts-LGBT-symbol-revered-icon-posters.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9142821/Poland-tria...

rob74 6y ago
Not only ironic, also hypocritical: they are proposing to make it illegal to censor views that don't break Polish laws, while replacing a halo with a rainbow in a photo of an icon does break Polish laws, because it "offends religious sentiment", so it could (and probably also should, if you ask them) be censored.
- rhn_mk1 6y ago
  Where's the hypocrisy in that? They are consistent: lawful views must not be censored, unlawful ones must. I can see how there could be bias in determining what is lawful, but that's not hypocrisy.
  - praptak 6y ago
    It's hypocrisy to paint themselves as protectors of free speech.
    - AnHonestComment 6y ago
      You mean Twitter — yammering about “muh freedoms” in other countries while actively censoring the sitting president of their home country? Yeah, that’s been really hypocritical.
    - bobthechef 6y ago
      Not really. What constitutes free speech is always qualified, so that's a fantastical argument. In this case, Poland has blasphemy laws (and btw, even Strasbourg allows for these under the margin of appreciation). In principle, this move shifts decisions from private global corporate power brokers to national representative government. Facebook and Twitter are private, but they've become so powerful and influential that they function like utilities used for communication. It is better to subject these platforms to laws that can be checked by representative government than to the whims of tech oligarchs.

ajvs 6y ago

Good. Social media sites have for far too long avoided liability for the content on their site by saying they're just platforms, whilst selectively censoring like a publisher. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

doctor_eval 6y ago

All I see lately is people conflating the right to free speech with the right to be heard. Free speech means that you can't be put in jail for something you say. That's it. But nobody has an entitlement to be amplified. That's not a right. Nobody has the right to unfettered access to someone else's platform. That's never, ever been the case. You never had the right to edit the front page of a newspaper that you don't own, you don't have the right to set up a platform in the middle of some company's office to talk about your crazy ass theory, and you don't have the right to spew malicious, bad-faith shit into a twitter thread. /rant

2Gkashmiri 6y ago
Interesting. In India a comedian was arrested (still is) for making a joke which he didn't crack. Some people wanted to make a joke of the system by a false complaint and guess what, the police is supporting a false claim instead of letting the accused go. So much for free speech. Literally the guy didnt say something and he is being arrested for that
stephenr 6y ago
As I've said time and time again, people say "free speech" but what they mean is "consequence free speech".
- ZGDUwpqEWpUZ 6y ago
  Why would you say that more than once? Freedom of speech, whatever your take on it, is by definition freedom from some consequences. The argument is over which consequences are acceptable.
  - stephenr 6y ago
    Because people don't understand? Because people don't read? I don't know. Why would people keep failing to make the distinction between "free speech" and "consequence free speech"? Free Speech is, in most societies considered to be a concept that applies to the government's ability to censor people's speech. This is well defined in the case of the US 1st amendment: it has zero implication on private entities. Edit to add: So in the example case, the US President has been banned from Twitter. People are claiming he's been "censored" by twitter. The government has done nothing to stop him saying whatever the fuck he wants, on national television even. The hypocrisy on this topic by right wingers is pretty crazy when you think about it: Apparently a baker can refuse to make a cake because he can't sleep at night if two dudes kiss, but a social media platform can't stop someone from posting violence inciting messages on their website?

nanna 6y ago

Unless you believe so strongly about FOS that you'd object to it in all counts, eg ISIL recruitment material and propeganda, then your argument is really about whether these Trump accounts have crossed a line of legitimacy, not FOS. If they're involved in pushing for armed, violent insurrection against the US government, then give one credible argument for why you'd defend them, but not ISIL doing the same.

mxcrossb 6y ago

Well farewell to any hacker news readers in Poland. That is, unless the administrators are willing to restore any comment here at the whim of a foreign court.

mrtksn 6y ago

I guess Poland can start make a progress by no longer requesting content removal from twitter: https://transparency.twitter.com/en/reports/removal-requests.html https://transparency.twitter.com/en/reports/removal-requests...

yakshaving_jgt 6y ago

> Censorship of free speech, which is the domain of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, is now returning in the form of a new, commercial mechanism to combat those who think differently. As terrible as PiS are for other reasons, Morawiecki has a point here, although I don't see he is standing by this point consistently when it comes to, e.g., those who "think differently" about sexuality.

xeyownt 6y ago
The fact that PiS is terrible is clear indication that they have a bad agenda behind this move. In some countries, it is illegal to promote racist speech, or to call for violent actions, etc. These countries define a limit to free speech. Morawiecki would call these limits censorship of free speech, but these are not. Moreover, anyone crossing these limits may be sued in court. No such things with FB / Twitter ban. This makes Mariewki's statement even more pointless.

lukeitup 6y ago

Say what you want, but I'm not a fan of what the Polish government is doing overall. Feels like they are moving away from democracy. When will the EU say enough is enough?

austincheney 6y ago

If I were a US based social media company I would simply deny service to any IP address from that country. Liability averted.

newbie578 6y ago
And by doing that you allow a competitor to emerge. You are free to do that, however note that there are more than enough companies willing to jump at the opportunity...
- austincheney 6y ago
  That is a simple arithmetic question: Which results in higher operating expenses, the loss of a minor market or the increased liability imposed by that market?
  - newbie578 6y ago
    Completely agreed.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

praptak 6y ago

If you wonder what exactly they want to protect, [1] is the recent ruling of a Polish court. As of Jan 12th, publicly saying that "gay people are perverts" is fine as far as Polish law is concerned. [0] Background in English: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/polish-activist-refuses-to-apologise-for-remarks-on-varadkar-s-perversion-1.3661768 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/polish-activis... [1]The ruling (Polish only): https://oko.press/kaja-godek-wygrala-w-sadzie-zboczency/ https://oko.press/kaja-godek-wygrala-w-sadzie-zboczency/

xeyownt 6y ago
Yes exactly. Typical far right / extremists tactic, disguise their discourses as well accepted democratic ones. They say they want to protect free speech, etc, but in fact are only pushing for their own definition of free speech and will be very quick at banning any other speech that are not according to their views/laws.
- Speednet 6y ago
  As opposed to left-wing/progressive tactics of lumping half the country in with one particular group of rioters (ignoring the violent riots that progressives have encouraged all summer) and then trying to completely eliminate any speech that does not agree with their woke agenda. Got it. Thanks for posting your balanced viewpoint.
bobthechef 6y ago
Ad hominem much? And yes, why shouldn't someone have the right to say that? Under natural law theory, same sex attraction is gravely disordered, and indulging that attraction by engaging in an active gay lifestyle is perverse and self-destructive. That some people want to silence traditional views is revealing. Instead of counterargument, you see totalitarian attempts to silence people, in this case Catholics, though one not need be a Catholic to hold this view. The presumption that such criticism must come from a place of contempt shows a profound misunderstanding of the nature of love (the willing of the true good of the other), conflating it with the scandalous encouragement of self-destructive behavior. Regardless, let us suppose such remarks show contempt. Then by that definition, the rabidly anti-clerical and Church-hating Jacobins on the left are the pot calling the kettle black.

m000 6y ago

Before gloating over the planned law, check the background and recent record of those promoting it.

newbie578 6y ago

Let's not act surprised here, it was only natural it would come to this, and I expect other countries to follow suit. If the (still current) president of the world's largest power can be silenced, then just how easily can Jack Dorsey silence a president of a country like let's say Moldavia... I'm not arguing if someone is a bad person or good person, just stating the obvious POV one might get looking at the status quo. And for the classical comments here on HN about how it is "their platform" and they can choose what they want to, do not forget that the platform needs to play by the government's rule, not the other way...

xeyownt 6y ago
Exactly. Let's have US companies be ruled by US laws. But then, should Poland ban Twitter? Who's censoring who? The move here is only pushed by bad political agenda. If the move would come from EU, it would be much more neutral and more protective of civil rights and freedom, which is not what Poland wants here.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

kypro 6y ago

While I strongly disagree with social media censorship and I think a lot it is politically motivated, I do recognise that they probably should have the legal right to censor content. Where I personally get far more uncomfortable is with the payment processors. When you have a companies like MasterCard banning donations from all republicans who take a certain political positions (objecting to the electoral vote in this case) then something needs to be done. If Twitter censors you it is possible to move to another platform, or even create your own, but if Visa and Master card ban you, what exactly do you do? To some extent I feel similar about core AWS services. I think people probably should have a some legal right to basic internet services. I understand it's possible to build your own internet infrastructure as Gab has proven, but it's very difficult for the average person to do what Gab did. As an individual I could move to another social media platform, but if my web hosts bans me I wouldn't have the resources to host my own website which seems wrong given how important the internet is to us as a utility today. IMO social media censorship, while an important conversation to have, isn't the primary conservation. This would be far less of an issue if alternative platforms like Gab and Parler weren't constantly under attack by monopolies which provide core services like payment processing and core internet services. The fact a company like Gab has had resort to accepting cash in the post for PRO membership for simply trying to protect its users right to free speech online is a complete failure of regulation IMO.

zxcvbn4038 6y ago

Politics aside this is an interesting situation in that social media companies have forever sought special protections based on the claimed impossibility of their moderating user content - turns out they can moderate content just fine when they want to, so maybe it’s time for their special protections to end, and for them to be responsible for their content. You can blame Twitter for shattering the myth since they keep broadcasting the number of accounts they are suspending and hash tags they are banning, at this point it’s impossible to backtrack and say it’s too hard to do - and if Twitter can do it then it’s hard for any of the other giants to say they can not. I’m betting in future we’ll see these companies held to the same standards that newspapers, tv, and radio are held to today.

soco 6y ago
Deleting one guy's account requires much less moderating resources than evaluating each post of an army of bots. So this particular case doesn't prove anything about their moderation capabilities. Yes, they COULD technically look at each and every account and each and every post, but I can't imagine any entity, private or not, having the resources to do so. Which leaves us to the manual banning (irregular, mostly high profile = low hanging fruit) or AI based solutions (and we know already how good they work)

rriepe 6y ago

This is hugely encouraging and a win for human rights everywhere. Poland has fought more against this type of abuse than any nation on the planet.

guerrilla 6y ago

So I've been reading everybody's comments as this comes up about five times a day now and did a little research [1] and the following is what I've come up with for these platforms: - They must censor what's illegal - They may censor what violates TOS - They may not censor what is not illegal and does not violate TOS I think breaking these rules would automatically convert you from a platform to a publisher and you'd have to follow whatever those rules are. Spam handling would have to be part of the TOS. I'm looking for feedback. What would be the problem with this? Doesn't it seem fair? I haven't thought about it much but I wonder if this would also work for cancelling contracts/refusal of service but that's a whole other topic. 1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

tremon 6y ago
You're missing the part where "what's illegal" varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. No international platform can simultaneously comply with points 1 and 3 everywhere in the world.
- guerrilla 6y ago
  I'm not missing that poiny but my post is. What is presented would have to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Good point to bring up though, especially for we who wouod have to implement it.

bobthechef 6y ago

By bringing national law to bear on Facebook, Twitter, etc. in such a vivid way, it sets a precedent that other countries will follow (like EU members). Now, because contradictions b/w any two bodies of law may come into existence, this will lead to blocks of countries that share a similar body of laws regarding speech meaning greater accommodation and less censorship. If there is a high degree of disagreement, however, there may be a good number of such blocks which means decentralization of social media. So either these companies face increased regulation, or they will be force to retreat from global dominance.