4 ms·

Censorship I don't like...

echelon 6y ago
If you argue against censoring Republicans on HN, you'll get downvoted. We should oppose censorship of any form. We have a legal framework to deal with terroristic threats, child porn, and libel / slander. This year has shown the incredible power FAAMG yields with deplatformization, but they've been using their power to cave to authoritarian regimes and belittle minority populations for awhile. It all has to stop. Big platforms should be common carriers. If content is illegal, tell the FBI or get your lawyer to sue for damages. Similarly, if an American company can't operate overseas without trampling on basic rights and civil liberties, they shouldn't be doing business there. I'm a liberal and side with Stallman and the FSF. Censorship, monopoly power, and fascism are bad. Don't defend the instances of it you like. It's all bad.
- sanxiyn 6y ago
  Note that content in question here is, in fact, illegal in Pakistan.
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  Let me know when Republicans start getting blocked for their political philosophy rooted in evidence and opinion, and I'll start being concerned. As long as people of any party regurgitate lies about election results against all evidence, and those lies seem to be fomenting violence, I'm leaning towards "it's okay" to remove them from certain sites. I disagree the big platforms should be common carriers. I think ISPs and datacenters should be.
  - criddell 6y ago
    > Let me know when Republicans start getting blocked for their political philosophy rooted in evidence and opinion Have you considered that their political philosophy has changed to exactly the things you listed?
    - unethical_ban 6y ago
      I didn't list any philosophy; I listed attributes of philosophies and having those as qualifiers for whether someone is being censored on social media.
    - natch 6y ago
      Changed, what, like the wind? Hypocrites will say whatever they think will get them what they want at the time. Change is a given with hypocrites. Principled philosophy is not.
      - criddell 6y ago
        The MAGA part of the GOP's philosophy seems to be (or was) back Trump no matter what. For those people parroting election lies said by Trump is their political speech. Political speech doesn't have to be truthful or grounded to a philosophy, does it?
  - babesh 6y ago
    Your logic is shit. Who decides on what are lies? Are they perfect and unbiased? It’s far more than election results deniers that are being banned nowadays. If you ban lies then you should ban astrologists, most politicians, flat earthers, indeed most people. This isn’t a thought experiment. This has been happened throughout history. The Church imprisoned Galileo for saying that the Earth goes around the Sun. McCarthyism caused many people to be fired for their beliefs. Indeed may left wing people are now being banned from the platforms. Furthermore, many more people are voluntarily silencing themselves (which is what the platforms really want).
    - babesh 6y ago
      Also, are they going to ban election deniers from other countries? I read about one election in an African country where someone got more than 100 percent of the vote (more votes than there were voters, oops). Should we ban people who deny that election?
    - unethical_ban 6y ago
      Watch that slope, it's slippery!
      - babesh 6y ago
        Yup, and we are going down it right now.
- kmeisthax 6y ago
  I generally support what you're saying, however there are two complicating factors with the Parler deplatforming that make me tolerate it. Not accept it, but tolerate it. 1. Parler was being used specifically to plan out acts of terrorism; and their moderation team took no action to stop it 2. Parler was not a free speech platform On that first bit: while I generally want big platforms to be regulated like common carriers, they definitely should not be prohibited from making judgment calls as to what is and isn't illegal to publish. If you're a web host and someone sends a tip that someone's operating a fake bank login page on your service, you shouldn't have to wait for someone who got scammed or phished to get a court order before you can shut down obviously illegal activity. For an example of why that's a problem: DMCA 512 has a case law loophole in which the moment any amount of human moderation happens to a website, the site loses it's copyright safe harbor. So if you have a recommendations algorithm or content ID bot, you have safe harbor. If you hire humans to curate content or search for infringing content, then you're liable for anything you miss to the tune of millions of dollars in damages. This creates a legal incentive to willful blindness. Parler isn't blind, though. The platform wasn't intending to be a neutral, free-speech content host. They were moderating the platform - just not for violence. Parler was a platform created for Trump extremists and them alone, and they had a history of removing left-leaning or left-wing users from their platform. So under any sort of "common carrier for social media" law they still lose.
  - coryrc 6y ago
    How The Capitol Assault Was Planned On Facebook https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/how-us-capitol-insurrection-organized-facebook https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/how-us-capito...
  - _-david-_ 6y ago
    Parler was not used by the rioters. Nobody who was arrested planned anything on Parler, but they did use Facebook and Twitter.
    - kmeisthax 6y ago
      "But Facebook did it too" isn't a great argument for Parler. If anything, you're arguing for more legal pressure on Facebook, not for getting Parler their AWS account back.
- rfrey 6y ago
  I haven't seen much if any support for "censoring Republicans" on HN, or for that matter, anywhere. What I have seen is support for censoring groups instigating violent overthrow of US institutions. The fact that those advocating such violence call themselves Republicans does not mean people are advocating for censoring Republicans as a class. These words matter to me, because unless you are a free-speech absolutist (which most people are not), it's unfair to mischaracterize what sorts of things people are claiming cross the line. It's not being Republican.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  I can't speak for others, but what I was defending is the right of a private entity to determine who can and cannot be on their platform [0]. You can admonish them for it, boycott them for it, or even hate them for it, that's your right. I'm against this whole concept of people feeling entitled to access to a platform just because that platform is big and popular. If you have a problem with what they are doing then stop using them and stop promoting them. They have power because they are popular, so take that power by making them unpopular. If you are unwilling to take even these small steps then clearly you don't even care that much about the issue, so why should anyone else? And I also personally reject the idea that these places [1] should be 100% uncensored. I've seen what the uncensored places look like and extremely few people really want that. There is a reason those places are not popular. I will not accept any argument predicated on the idea that all censorship is bad, which is pretty much entirely the argument against Trump deplatforming. [0] Only because they are not a monopoly, no matter what people claim. The fact that there are so many big players in internet communication is testament to that. [1] That is, communication channels not owned by the government. The government has to respect the 1st amendment, no one else is beholden to it.
mhh__ 6y ago
Hackernews threads seem to be overwhelming against most censorship so you may be preaching to their choir - the silence on the censoring of some hard left groups is a little disappointing.
- _-david-_ 6y ago
  Unless it is Parler then most Hacker News threads are pro censorship.

If you argue against censoring Republicans on HN, you'll get downvoted. We should oppose censorship of any form. We have a legal framework to deal with terroristic threats, child porn, and libel / slander. This year has shown the incredible power FAAMG yields with deplatformization, but they've been using their power to cave to authoritarian regimes and belittle minority populations for awhile. It all has to stop. Big platforms should be common carriers. If content is illegal, tell the FBI or get your lawyer to sue for damages. Similarly, if an American company can't operate overseas without trampling on basic rights and civil liberties, they shouldn't be doing business there. I'm a liberal and side with Stallman and the FSF. Censorship, monopoly power, and fascism are bad. Don't defend the instances of it you like. It's all bad.

sanxiyn 6y ago
Note that content in question here is, in fact, illegal in Pakistan.
unethical_ban 6y ago
Let me know when Republicans start getting blocked for their political philosophy rooted in evidence and opinion, and I'll start being concerned. As long as people of any party regurgitate lies about election results against all evidence, and those lies seem to be fomenting violence, I'm leaning towards "it's okay" to remove them from certain sites. I disagree the big platforms should be common carriers. I think ISPs and datacenters should be.
- criddell 6y ago
  > Let me know when Republicans start getting blocked for their political philosophy rooted in evidence and opinion Have you considered that their political philosophy has changed to exactly the things you listed?
  - unethical_ban 6y ago
    I didn't list any philosophy; I listed attributes of philosophies and having those as qualifiers for whether someone is being censored on social media.
  - natch 6y ago
    Changed, what, like the wind? Hypocrites will say whatever they think will get them what they want at the time. Change is a given with hypocrites. Principled philosophy is not.
    - criddell 6y ago
      The MAGA part of the GOP's philosophy seems to be (or was) back Trump no matter what. For those people parroting election lies said by Trump is their political speech. Political speech doesn't have to be truthful or grounded to a philosophy, does it?
- babesh 6y ago
  Your logic is shit. Who decides on what are lies? Are they perfect and unbiased? It’s far more than election results deniers that are being banned nowadays. If you ban lies then you should ban astrologists, most politicians, flat earthers, indeed most people. This isn’t a thought experiment. This has been happened throughout history. The Church imprisoned Galileo for saying that the Earth goes around the Sun. McCarthyism caused many people to be fired for their beliefs. Indeed may left wing people are now being banned from the platforms. Furthermore, many more people are voluntarily silencing themselves (which is what the platforms really want).
  - babesh 6y ago
    Also, are they going to ban election deniers from other countries? I read about one election in an African country where someone got more than 100 percent of the vote (more votes than there were voters, oops). Should we ban people who deny that election?
  - unethical_ban 6y ago
    Watch that slope, it's slippery!
    - babesh 6y ago
      Yup, and we are going down it right now.
kmeisthax 6y ago
I generally support what you're saying, however there are two complicating factors with the Parler deplatforming that make me tolerate it. Not accept it, but tolerate it. 1. Parler was being used specifically to plan out acts of terrorism; and their moderation team took no action to stop it 2. Parler was not a free speech platform On that first bit: while I generally want big platforms to be regulated like common carriers, they definitely should not be prohibited from making judgment calls as to what is and isn't illegal to publish. If you're a web host and someone sends a tip that someone's operating a fake bank login page on your service, you shouldn't have to wait for someone who got scammed or phished to get a court order before you can shut down obviously illegal activity. For an example of why that's a problem: DMCA 512 has a case law loophole in which the moment any amount of human moderation happens to a website, the site loses it's copyright safe harbor. So if you have a recommendations algorithm or content ID bot, you have safe harbor. If you hire humans to curate content or search for infringing content, then you're liable for anything you miss to the tune of millions of dollars in damages. This creates a legal incentive to willful blindness. Parler isn't blind, though. The platform wasn't intending to be a neutral, free-speech content host. They were moderating the platform - just not for violence. Parler was a platform created for Trump extremists and them alone, and they had a history of removing left-leaning or left-wing users from their platform. So under any sort of "common carrier for social media" law they still lose.
- coryrc 6y ago
  How The Capitol Assault Was Planned On Facebook https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/how-us-capitol-insurrection-organized-facebook https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/how-us-capito...
- _-david-_ 6y ago
  Parler was not used by the rioters. Nobody who was arrested planned anything on Parler, but they did use Facebook and Twitter.
  - kmeisthax 6y ago
    "But Facebook did it too" isn't a great argument for Parler. If anything, you're arguing for more legal pressure on Facebook, not for getting Parler their AWS account back.
rfrey 6y ago
I haven't seen much if any support for "censoring Republicans" on HN, or for that matter, anywhere. What I have seen is support for censoring groups instigating violent overthrow of US institutions. The fact that those advocating such violence call themselves Republicans does not mean people are advocating for censoring Republicans as a class. These words matter to me, because unless you are a free-speech absolutist (which most people are not), it's unfair to mischaracterize what sorts of things people are claiming cross the line. It's not being Republican.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
I can't speak for others, but what I was defending is the right of a private entity to determine who can and cannot be on their platform [0]. You can admonish them for it, boycott them for it, or even hate them for it, that's your right. I'm against this whole concept of people feeling entitled to access to a platform just because that platform is big and popular. If you have a problem with what they are doing then stop using them and stop promoting them. They have power because they are popular, so take that power by making them unpopular. If you are unwilling to take even these small steps then clearly you don't even care that much about the issue, so why should anyone else? And I also personally reject the idea that these places [1] should be 100% uncensored. I've seen what the uncensored places look like and extremely few people really want that. There is a reason those places are not popular. I will not accept any argument predicated on the idea that all censorship is bad, which is pretty much entirely the argument against Trump deplatforming. [0] Only because they are not a monopoly, no matter what people claim. The fact that there are so many big players in internet communication is testament to that. [1] That is, communication channels not owned by the government. The government has to respect the 1st amendment, no one else is beholden to it.

mhh__ 6y ago

Hackernews threads seem to be overwhelming against most censorship so you may be preaching to their choir - the silence on the censoring of some hard left groups is a little disappointing.

_-david-_ 6y ago
Unless it is Parler then most Hacker News threads are pro censorship.