6 ms·

> Imagine [a list of things that did not include the Internet itself] with no moderation. Dysfunctional to the point of being unusable indeed.

Miraste 6y ago
I'm not sure what your point is here. If everything notable on the internet is moderated, it's functionally equivalent. I don't support what Apple is doing or the increased heavy-handedness of recent years, but advocating no censorship of anything is a fantasy and a cop-out.
- skynet-9000 6y ago
  > fantasy and a cop-out And yet somehow you found this site, where you claimed the uncensored internet was a fantasy.
  - Miraste 6y ago
    ? HN is heavily moderated. Try turning on showdead in your profile and reading the trash that dang and co. delete from here. I doubt you'll come away with the conclusion that it should all be left up. This includes things like removing duplicate links and changing upvoted stories from tertiary sources to primary ones. Is it "censorship?" Yes. Does it make the site better? Yes.
- jhclouse 6y ago
  It’s not a fantasy at all. Just an ex post facto rationalization that those with authoritarian personalities tend to come up with.
  - Miraste 6y ago
    Okay, what are some examples of functioning sites or services that work with no moderation?
- jerf 6y ago
  I didn't advocate for 'no censorship'. Censorship is a continuum. It is more-or-less a fact that zeal for censorship has gone up in the HN gestalt, and I assert the HN gestalt is making the mistake of thinking they or people friendly to their views will be the ones deciding what gets censored. Increasing comfort with censorship of a larger range of views will also translate into increasing comfort with stronger measures taken, because of course if you are running around saying censorable things you should get higher interest rates or it should show up on your credit report. But... are you sure you're going to be the ones in charge of what gets censored? Because you aren't. Advocating for less censorship and less consequences for censorship, not no censorship, is a sensible Nash equilibrium to pursue for everyone. Advocating for more censorship and more comfort with censorship will empower people who will eventually censor you. Those who are using the gestalt's comfort with censorship (and equivalent comfort with censorship elsewhere) are only using the censoring of things you agree with today as a cover for the acquisition of power. Once they have it, what you want it for will not be something they're too worried about. They're going to use it for themselves. It is wiser not to give that power up just because they're promising to use it for things you like today. (Among the ways in which censorship is a continuum are the size of the community in which it is taking place (HN is fairly small), and the nature of what is being censored (most of what gets nuked from HN is for tone or outright trolling, though I do not assert all). It isn't even remotely hypocritical to be comfortable with that, which is rather minimal and functional, while being uncomfortable with the increasingly political nature of censorship being advocated for in the largest forums. I'm also on record as being skeptical as to whether something the size of "Facebook" can ever be "a community": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20146868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20146868 )
  - Miraste 6y ago
    Reasonable and well-put. I think we agree except in semantics--I see being for traditional forum-type policing as still pro-censorship on some level, and the debate as on finding what level is acceptable (e.g. more nuanced than "less"). I like your point about Facebook's size. They've been unable to define global rules in part because large segments of their user base hold directly opposite values to the point that stating their beliefs, genuinely held and of majority opinion in their communities, would be deleted under common sense trolling rules in other parts of that user base. Facebook has three options: leave everything controversial up, delete all of it, or take a side. They've done all three of these at various points and they've all been disastrous.

Miraste 6y ago

I'm not sure what your point is here. If everything notable on the internet is moderated, it's functionally equivalent. I don't support what Apple is doing or the increased heavy-handedness of recent years, but advocating no censorship of anything is a fantasy and a cop-out.

skynet-9000 6y ago
> fantasy and a cop-out And yet somehow you found this site, where you claimed the uncensored internet was a fantasy.
- Miraste 6y ago
  ? HN is heavily moderated. Try turning on showdead in your profile and reading the trash that dang and co. delete from here. I doubt you'll come away with the conclusion that it should all be left up. This includes things like removing duplicate links and changing upvoted stories from tertiary sources to primary ones. Is it "censorship?" Yes. Does it make the site better? Yes.
jhclouse 6y ago
It’s not a fantasy at all. Just an ex post facto rationalization that those with authoritarian personalities tend to come up with.
- Miraste 6y ago
  Okay, what are some examples of functioning sites or services that work with no moderation?
jerf 6y ago
I didn't advocate for 'no censorship'. Censorship is a continuum. It is more-or-less a fact that zeal for censorship has gone up in the HN gestalt, and I assert the HN gestalt is making the mistake of thinking they or people friendly to their views will be the ones deciding what gets censored. Increasing comfort with censorship of a larger range of views will also translate into increasing comfort with stronger measures taken, because of course if you are running around saying censorable things you should get higher interest rates or it should show up on your credit report. But... are you sure you're going to be the ones in charge of what gets censored? Because you aren't. Advocating for less censorship and less consequences for censorship, not no censorship, is a sensible Nash equilibrium to pursue for everyone. Advocating for more censorship and more comfort with censorship will empower people who will eventually censor you. Those who are using the gestalt's comfort with censorship (and equivalent comfort with censorship elsewhere) are only using the censoring of things you agree with today as a cover for the acquisition of power. Once they have it, what you want it for will not be something they're too worried about. They're going to use it for themselves. It is wiser not to give that power up just because they're promising to use it for things you like today. (Among the ways in which censorship is a continuum are the size of the community in which it is taking place (HN is fairly small), and the nature of what is being censored (most of what gets nuked from HN is for tone or outright trolling, though I do not assert all). It isn't even remotely hypocritical to be comfortable with that, which is rather minimal and functional, while being uncomfortable with the increasingly political nature of censorship being advocated for in the largest forums. I'm also on record as being skeptical as to whether something the size of "Facebook" can ever be "a community": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20146868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20146868 )
- Miraste 6y ago
  Reasonable and well-put. I think we agree except in semantics--I see being for traditional forum-type policing as still pro-censorship on some level, and the debate as on finding what level is acceptable (e.g. more nuanced than "less"). I like your point about Facebook's size. They've been unable to define global rules in part because large segments of their user base hold directly opposite values to the point that stating their beliefs, genuinely held and of majority opinion in their communities, would be deleted under common sense trolling rules in other parts of that user base. Facebook has three options: leave everything controversial up, delete all of it, or take a side. They've done all three of these at various points and they've all been disastrous.