3 ms·

Imagine if that applied to HN. What would be the consequences?

by thereare5lights 6y ago

tachyonbeam 6y ago
What do you imagine would be the consequences?
- cool_dude85 6y ago
  Well, would HN be allowed to moderate the comments section, maybe except to remove illegal content?
  - happytoexplain 6y ago
    Probably not - but there's a pretty strong correlation between people who think social media should be federally regulated and people who feel disproportionately moderated (fair or not) on the current web, and who believe they would be happier with zero value/quality/civility-based moderation (i.e. only legality moderation, as you suggested).
  - bopbeepboop 6y ago
    HN wouldn’t be allowed to remove that content — but that’s different than flagging it as inappropriate (as HN does now). My vision is having HNs flagging system where the content is hidden but available by default would be acceptable — but FB or Reddit style of actually removing the comment would not be. My long term goal in forcing content to be available is to provide more control to users — such as user side content filtering on places like HN. I’m not against filtering what users see, by the users themselves: I’m against platform using their privileged position to do that filtering, in a way that enforces their political vision.
adventured 6y ago
It would never need to apply to HN. The site would never come close to meeting the definition of market dominance that Facebook, Google and other big tech platforms do that is drawing the regulated utility comparison. The Federal Government is also not going to generally worry about applying anti-trust to the only pizza parlor in a small town or worry about forcing it to operate under competition and behavior agreements designed for giant monopolies. Properly we don't apply all competition rules and restraints on all companies/entities in the same way, as all companies are not equally powerful or capable of controlling commerce.
- thereare5lights 6y ago
  > The Federal Government is also not going to generally worry about applying anti-trust to the only pizza parlor in a small town or worry about forcing it to operate under competition and behavior agreements designed for giant monopolies. Reality suggests otherwise. The biggest companies have the most money to throw against enforcement and lobbying to protect themselves. It's why the IRS pretty much stopped auditing the big fish and only goes after the little fish now.
CamperBob2 6y ago
We have to remember that not everyone agrees on the problem that needs to be solved, much less how to solve it. On the surface, it may make sense to adopt a Slashdot-style moderation model, where moderation is delegated to user space and only overtly-libelous or illegal content is censored at the admin level. If moderation is derived solely by consensus of user opinion, and if each individual user gets to decide how much moderation if any is applied to the posts they see, that would seem to avoid the original problem of Trump whining because Twitter banned him for expressing his views. However, if you ask Twitter, they'll say they banned him not because of his opinions, but because he was using their platform to illegally incite violence and undermine the democratic process. That gets to the real heart of the problem: conservatives who believe that it's OK when they do it, whatever "it" is, and who behave accordingly. No amount of tinkering with the moderation approach will solve the problem if a subset of politicians in power believe that platforms should be forced to carry speech in their favor regardless of concerns about legality. The argument regarding moderation is a red herring.

Imagine if that applied to HN. What would be the consequences?

tachyonbeam 6y ago

What do you imagine would be the consequences?

cool_dude85 6y ago
Well, would HN be allowed to moderate the comments section, maybe except to remove illegal content?
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  Probably not - but there's a pretty strong correlation between people who think social media should be federally regulated and people who feel disproportionately moderated (fair or not) on the current web, and who believe they would be happier with zero value/quality/civility-based moderation (i.e. only legality moderation, as you suggested).
- bopbeepboop 6y ago
  HN wouldn’t be allowed to remove that content — but that’s different than flagging it as inappropriate (as HN does now). My vision is having HNs flagging system where the content is hidden but available by default would be acceptable — but FB or Reddit style of actually removing the comment would not be. My long term goal in forcing content to be available is to provide more control to users — such as user side content filtering on places like HN. I’m not against filtering what users see, by the users themselves: I’m against platform using their privileged position to do that filtering, in a way that enforces their political vision.

adventured 6y ago

It would never need to apply to HN. The site would never come close to meeting the definition of market dominance that Facebook, Google and other big tech platforms do that is drawing the regulated utility comparison. The Federal Government is also not going to generally worry about applying anti-trust to the only pizza parlor in a small town or worry about forcing it to operate under competition and behavior agreements designed for giant monopolies. Properly we don't apply all competition rules and restraints on all companies/entities in the same way, as all companies are not equally powerful or capable of controlling commerce.

thereare5lights 6y ago
> The Federal Government is also not going to generally worry about applying anti-trust to the only pizza parlor in a small town or worry about forcing it to operate under competition and behavior agreements designed for giant monopolies. Reality suggests otherwise. The biggest companies have the most money to throw against enforcement and lobbying to protect themselves. It's why the IRS pretty much stopped auditing the big fish and only goes after the little fish now.

CamperBob2 6y ago

We have to remember that not everyone agrees on the problem that needs to be solved, much less how to solve it. On the surface, it may make sense to adopt a Slashdot-style moderation model, where moderation is delegated to user space and only overtly-libelous or illegal content is censored at the admin level. If moderation is derived solely by consensus of user opinion, and if each individual user gets to decide how much moderation if any is applied to the posts they see, that would seem to avoid the original problem of Trump whining because Twitter banned him for expressing his views. However, if you ask Twitter, they'll say they banned him not because of his opinions, but because he was using their platform to illegally incite violence and undermine the democratic process. That gets to the real heart of the problem: conservatives who believe that it's OK when they do it, whatever "it" is, and who behave accordingly. No amount of tinkering with the moderation approach will solve the problem if a subset of politicians in power believe that platforms should be forced to carry speech in their favor regardless of concerns about legality. The argument regarding moderation is a red herring.