5 ms·

Hard disagree. We can censor, for example, child pornography, bomb-building tutorials, and revenge porn. I'm not going to fight against censoring them on the gr

Hard disagree. We can censor, for example, child pornography, bomb-building tutorials, and revenge porn. I'm not going to fight against censoring them on the grounds that allowing them to be censored will allow anything else to be censored too.

goatcode 6y ago
>Judging what is and is not misinformation must always be in the hands of the people You disagree with letting censorship be decided on democratically?
- vkou 6y ago
  The thing about democracy is that there are so many levels of government - and quite literally any decision made by a democratically elected government can be condemned as undemocratic (Because some other layer of government - or better yet, a Joe on the street - does not agree with it.) This is how you get people shouting about how a democratically elected president, who was given, by a democratically elected congress, powers to operate a regulatory department, is acting undemocratic-ally [1], when he appoints someone those people don't like to head that department. What those people forget is that in a democracy, you can't in good faith cherrypick outcomes as 'undemocratic'. You can only ensure that the process for making changes is democratic. If the people you elect decided to turn your country into a police state, well, that sucks, but that's a democratic decision that they've made - and as long as you can vote them out, it can be democratically reversed. Prohibition was reversed, after all, communist witch hunts eventually ended, it's no longer illegal to ride in a train car while black, people in the US are no longer jailed for writing pro-German newspaper articles, and we no longer round up entire ethnic groups, and concentrate them in a camp (Which are all hallmarks of a police state. They are no longer present in our society, thanks in part to a democratic process. Other hallmarks still are, but if enough people care, we'll eventually get around to them.) [1] Despite neither the constitution, the law that brought that department into existence, the judiciary, nor years of precedent requiring that the department must be ran by an elected official, or that the department's every decision [2] must be voted on by Congress. [2] As it turns out, it's quite democratic for an elected official to defer decision-making to an un-elected underling. That's fine. What makes this democratic, is that you can punish the elected official, if the underling behaves poorly, by voting them out. As long as all power flows from an elected office, this thing works. What is not fine is if the un-elected underling is not appointed, or fire-able by an elected office, or by an agent of an elected office. That's where the difference between democratic, and undemocratic lies.
  - goatcode 6y ago
    > democracy > democratically elected president That's not really what I was talking about.
mjevans 6y ago
Incorrect. We can __prosecute__ against those who break the law. We __must not__ censor, because that is the slippery slope; all the more so when it is done without judicial oversight in an adversarial review system.
- leesalminen 6y ago
  Agreed. If something is explicitly illegal, then that’s grounds for censorship. If something isn’t explicitly illegal, then it shouldn’t be censored. The First Amendment in the US provides for nearly limitless free speech, with very few exceptions. That’s how we should police speech online.
- betterunix2 6y ago
  That is a distinction without a difference. You are talking about the mechanics of censorship.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    It isn't. There are two differences. The first is that prosecutions are retrospective. If something is true and you can't stop anyone from saying it, only punish them after, then people who are willing to sacrifice their freedom for the truth can't be silenced. There is also less incentive to punish them because the cat is already out of the bag, and people are more willing to push back against a prosecution for speaking a truth that they've seen survive an adversarial public debate. The second is that prosecutions happen in courts bound (in the US) by the First Amendment, and the prosecution fails if the defendant was engaged in protected speech. Facebook or Comcast/MSNBC (note: the same company) deciding what constitutes "misinformation" with no accountability for over-censoring is not that.
- jefft255 6y ago
  If I understand correctly, you're claiming that we __must not__ censor child pornography? Isn't prosecution a form of censorship anyways? I think what you're saying is a textbook example of a slippery slope fallacy.
amadeuspagel 6y ago
> child pornography, bomb-building tutorials, and revenge porn None of these things are misinformation.
- swirepe 6y ago
  Technically true, but try building a bomb from one of those tutorials
  - dddddhf 6y ago
    I have as a teenager made acetone peroxide and ammonium nitrate pipe bombs from instructions printed at the library. They worked ;)
sneak 6y ago
See, even these descriptions which you presumably think are clear distinctions are not objective categories of information. Do drawings count? How about deepfakes? Pyrotechnic display textbooks? You're going to need a judge, and that judge is going to wield power.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
LanceH 6y ago
For all of those, they passed a law which has to stand up to judicial scrutiny. Leaning on a company to eliminate speech is censorship without review. edit: removed extra word
Vaslo 6y ago
Except the items you cite are done on a fringe. Almost half of America is conservative, hardly some fringe.

goatcode 6y ago

>Judging what is and is not misinformation must always be in the hands of the people You disagree with letting censorship be decided on democratically?

vkou 6y ago
The thing about democracy is that there are so many levels of government - and quite literally any decision made by a democratically elected government can be condemned as undemocratic (Because some other layer of government - or better yet, a Joe on the street - does not agree with it.) This is how you get people shouting about how a democratically elected president, who was given, by a democratically elected congress, powers to operate a regulatory department, is acting undemocratic-ally [1], when he appoints someone those people don't like to head that department. What those people forget is that in a democracy, you can't in good faith cherrypick outcomes as 'undemocratic'. You can only ensure that the process for making changes is democratic. If the people you elect decided to turn your country into a police state, well, that sucks, but that's a democratic decision that they've made - and as long as you can vote them out, it can be democratically reversed. Prohibition was reversed, after all, communist witch hunts eventually ended, it's no longer illegal to ride in a train car while black, people in the US are no longer jailed for writing pro-German newspaper articles, and we no longer round up entire ethnic groups, and concentrate them in a camp (Which are all hallmarks of a police state. They are no longer present in our society, thanks in part to a democratic process. Other hallmarks still are, but if enough people care, we'll eventually get around to them.) [1] Despite neither the constitution, the law that brought that department into existence, the judiciary, nor years of precedent requiring that the department must be ran by an elected official, or that the department's every decision [2] must be voted on by Congress. [2] As it turns out, it's quite democratic for an elected official to defer decision-making to an un-elected underling. That's fine. What makes this democratic, is that you can punish the elected official, if the underling behaves poorly, by voting them out. As long as all power flows from an elected office, this thing works. What is not fine is if the un-elected underling is not appointed, or fire-able by an elected office, or by an agent of an elected office. That's where the difference between democratic, and undemocratic lies.
- goatcode 6y ago
  > democracy > democratically elected president That's not really what I was talking about.

mjevans 6y ago

Incorrect. We can __prosecute__ against those who break the law. We __must not__ censor, because that is the slippery slope; all the more so when it is done without judicial oversight in an adversarial review system.

leesalminen 6y ago
Agreed. If something is explicitly illegal, then that’s grounds for censorship. If something isn’t explicitly illegal, then it shouldn’t be censored. The First Amendment in the US provides for nearly limitless free speech, with very few exceptions. That’s how we should police speech online.
betterunix2 6y ago
That is a distinction without a difference. You are talking about the mechanics of censorship.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  It isn't. There are two differences. The first is that prosecutions are retrospective. If something is true and you can't stop anyone from saying it, only punish them after, then people who are willing to sacrifice their freedom for the truth can't be silenced. There is also less incentive to punish them because the cat is already out of the bag, and people are more willing to push back against a prosecution for speaking a truth that they've seen survive an adversarial public debate. The second is that prosecutions happen in courts bound (in the US) by the First Amendment, and the prosecution fails if the defendant was engaged in protected speech. Facebook or Comcast/MSNBC (note: the same company) deciding what constitutes "misinformation" with no accountability for over-censoring is not that.
jefft255 6y ago
If I understand correctly, you're claiming that we __must not__ censor child pornography? Isn't prosecution a form of censorship anyways? I think what you're saying is a textbook example of a slippery slope fallacy.

amadeuspagel 6y ago

> child pornography, bomb-building tutorials, and revenge porn None of these things are misinformation.

swirepe 6y ago
Technically true, but try building a bomb from one of those tutorials
- dddddhf 6y ago
  I have as a teenager made acetone peroxide and ammonium nitrate pipe bombs from instructions printed at the library. They worked ;)

sneak 6y ago

See, even these descriptions which you presumably think are clear distinctions are not objective categories of information. Do drawings count? How about deepfakes? Pyrotechnic display textbooks? You're going to need a judge, and that judge is going to wield power.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

LanceH 6y ago

For all of those, they passed a law which has to stand up to judicial scrutiny. Leaning on a company to eliminate speech is censorship without review. edit: removed extra word

Vaslo 6y ago

Except the items you cite are done on a fringe. Almost half of America is conservative, hardly some fringe.