7 ms·

Hear, hear! Now we just need HN to follow suit. There’s nothing wrong with editorializing comment sections. Not every comment section on the web needs to enco

Hear, hear! Now we just need HN to follow suit. There’s nothing wrong with editorializing comment sections. Not every comment section on the web needs to encourage voices from every side in the name of free speech. I think websites perhaps should start to create “comment section covenant” that outline how subjects are handled. Ie No ad hominem No misinformation No conspiracies All comments failing will be deleted Etc etc

vorpalhex 5y ago
I agree, anyone pushing against our free speech rights should be censored! Sarcasm aside, there is no man fit to play the censor. Real life is too complex to oblige by naive rules.
- crazydoggers 5y ago
  > Real life is too complex to oblige by naive rules. The comment section of a website is not real life. You don’t have “rights” here, you’re allowed to use the site according to its terms. The servers, this site are private property, and the owners get to set the rules. So it’s not playing censor, it’s editorializing. You’re free to comment other places. I can and will choose sites that moderate voices that I don’t want to deal with. You can say that, “we’ll, this will cause silos”, but this experiment of everyone making any comments they want and everyone having to listen is a failure. It has only further divided people because the internet comment section is not the place to convert and educate people, so people just get more entrenched. You’re unlikely to be swayed by this comment for example. I for one am tired of it. I want comment sections that deal with people of a certain educational level, intelligence, and point of view. I don’t want to deal with incels, psychopaths, people without formal education etc. If you think internet comments are a right and moderating them is censorship, then yes, I want your comments gone from the sites I want to use and where I go to have conversations with intelligent people.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    So you want an echo chamber? I mean, that's fine if that's your goal but at least be direct. Also realize echo chambers are bad - they reinforce opinions on an identity basis, not a truth basis. Censorship can still happen on private property. That does not, per se, determine right or wrong. Nobody objects that kids websites don't allow pornography. We can also still object to censorship, even if it's on private property. You don't have some a right to be immune to criticism.
    - crazydoggers 5y ago
      The term “echo chamber” at this point is almost meaningless. What constitutes an echo chamber. Where is the line? If you don’t allow hate speech, is that an echo chamber? If you don’t allow misinformation, or lies, or conspiracy theories, is that echo chamber? To me, avoiding those things is the basis of any positive communication. Again, the alternative: “echo free”, all points of view are equal, actually does no one any good, because comments sections aren’t a place to share and be open to points of view. Unmoderated sites, and echo free almost always end up a place for people to harass others. The internet is different than face to face. There are few to no consequences for bad behavior, and that includes spouting political, and religious ideology in settings and situations that no one wants it. If someone sat down at your table and started spouting some of the stuff that goes around comments, you’d be pretty upset. So if I get to choose a table at a nice restaurant with nice courteous people, why can’t I choose the same on a website? If I go to a science mag blog I don’t want anti science, anti vaccine, anti evolution conversations. Those are settled issues in my book. Maybe to some people, that means I’m in an “echo chamber” but honestly to me it simply means my bar for conversations is much much higher. And if someone can’t meet it they’re not invited to my table. And if a place of patronage allows anyone to come in and harass its customers, because “feee speech” and preventing “echo chambers” I go elsewhere. I’ve spent to much time on HN for instance dealing with misinformation or as you put it “non truth based” and for me that means things that are not verifiable, non factual, based primarily in prejudice. I usually come to HN to read technology and science news, and have come to expect a level of discussion that includes a certain level of intelligence. However on many occasions I end up seeing comments hashing out the same old prejudiced political view points over and over. So my use of HN has dropped and will probably continue to drop. Mostly I scan comments rather than read most of them as I used to. I’m sure at some point everyone will get tired of these echo free chambers because they are simply too draining. They lead to anger and angst when actually having to deal with other’s view points in the real world. Echo free leads to more polarization, not less. The Facebook/Twitter era has more than proved that. Edit: Another area I’m tired of dealing with in comments.l: moderation being called “censorship”. Censorship requires an authority that can prohibit behavior at a public level. Asking people to behave, act, or talk in specific ways is not “censorship”, especially when it’s done in a private sphere, as on a website’s comment section. You’re free to do or say things in your private space without my interference, but you don’t get to enforce that on my private space or a websites private space. Calling comment moderation “censorship” is so disconnected from the actual history of true censorship, it’s an insult to the word.

vorpalhex 5y ago

I agree, anyone pushing against our free speech rights should be censored! Sarcasm aside, there is no man fit to play the censor. Real life is too complex to oblige by naive rules.

crazydoggers 5y ago
> Real life is too complex to oblige by naive rules. The comment section of a website is not real life. You don’t have “rights” here, you’re allowed to use the site according to its terms. The servers, this site are private property, and the owners get to set the rules. So it’s not playing censor, it’s editorializing. You’re free to comment other places. I can and will choose sites that moderate voices that I don’t want to deal with. You can say that, “we’ll, this will cause silos”, but this experiment of everyone making any comments they want and everyone having to listen is a failure. It has only further divided people because the internet comment section is not the place to convert and educate people, so people just get more entrenched. You’re unlikely to be swayed by this comment for example. I for one am tired of it. I want comment sections that deal with people of a certain educational level, intelligence, and point of view. I don’t want to deal with incels, psychopaths, people without formal education etc. If you think internet comments are a right and moderating them is censorship, then yes, I want your comments gone from the sites I want to use and where I go to have conversations with intelligent people.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  So you want an echo chamber? I mean, that's fine if that's your goal but at least be direct. Also realize echo chambers are bad - they reinforce opinions on an identity basis, not a truth basis. Censorship can still happen on private property. That does not, per se, determine right or wrong. Nobody objects that kids websites don't allow pornography. We can also still object to censorship, even if it's on private property. You don't have some a right to be immune to criticism.
  - crazydoggers 5y ago
    The term “echo chamber” at this point is almost meaningless. What constitutes an echo chamber. Where is the line? If you don’t allow hate speech, is that an echo chamber? If you don’t allow misinformation, or lies, or conspiracy theories, is that echo chamber? To me, avoiding those things is the basis of any positive communication. Again, the alternative: “echo free”, all points of view are equal, actually does no one any good, because comments sections aren’t a place to share and be open to points of view. Unmoderated sites, and echo free almost always end up a place for people to harass others. The internet is different than face to face. There are few to no consequences for bad behavior, and that includes spouting political, and religious ideology in settings and situations that no one wants it. If someone sat down at your table and started spouting some of the stuff that goes around comments, you’d be pretty upset. So if I get to choose a table at a nice restaurant with nice courteous people, why can’t I choose the same on a website? If I go to a science mag blog I don’t want anti science, anti vaccine, anti evolution conversations. Those are settled issues in my book. Maybe to some people, that means I’m in an “echo chamber” but honestly to me it simply means my bar for conversations is much much higher. And if someone can’t meet it they’re not invited to my table. And if a place of patronage allows anyone to come in and harass its customers, because “feee speech” and preventing “echo chambers” I go elsewhere. I’ve spent to much time on HN for instance dealing with misinformation or as you put it “non truth based” and for me that means things that are not verifiable, non factual, based primarily in prejudice. I usually come to HN to read technology and science news, and have come to expect a level of discussion that includes a certain level of intelligence. However on many occasions I end up seeing comments hashing out the same old prejudiced political view points over and over. So my use of HN has dropped and will probably continue to drop. Mostly I scan comments rather than read most of them as I used to. I’m sure at some point everyone will get tired of these echo free chambers because they are simply too draining. They lead to anger and angst when actually having to deal with other’s view points in the real world. Echo free leads to more polarization, not less. The Facebook/Twitter era has more than proved that. Edit: Another area I’m tired of dealing with in comments.l: moderation being called “censorship”. Censorship requires an authority that can prohibit behavior at a public level. Asking people to behave, act, or talk in specific ways is not “censorship”, especially when it’s done in a private sphere, as on a website’s comment section. You’re free to do or say things in your private space without my interference, but you don’t get to enforce that on my private space or a websites private space. Calling comment moderation “censorship” is so disconnected from the actual history of true censorship, it’s an insult to the word.