3 ms·

I'm not 100% convinced by your assertion that censorship only favors the rich and powerful. It can and often does, but it can also help people without power or

by pfraze 5y ago

I'm not 100% convinced by your assertion that censorship only favors the rich and powerful. It can and often does, but it can also help people without power or society and large. For instance, taking down a dox for a niche YouTuber is clearly not helping a powerful person, but it's still arguably censorship. The misinformation area is somewhat stickier, but here's a decent example: if somebody decided to hurt you by spreading rumors (let's say that you watch CP) and spends time and money to get that rumor top of any SEO and forum thread, what's the right course of action? How good are you going to feel about using speech to counteract that when the result is a Google search giving your denial in spot 1 and the accusation in spot 2? We all have to grapple with power and the ability to abuse it, but I don't think it's effective to say power is fundamentally wrong. The conversation is more nuanced than that and has to be viewed as systems with checks on power, which means specific design-thinking.

throwawayboise 5y ago
> if somebody decided to hurt you by spreading rumors We have libel laws to address that. GPs point is that Google, Facebook, et. al. are premptively censoring non-mainstream content just to protect themselves. They don't really care about the public.
- toiletfuneral 5y ago
  You’re definitely right, but I was under the impression they exist to generate profit for shareholders, not act as a social service. Capitalism is a system for maximizing value extraction, not altruistic endeavors.
- BatFastard 5y ago
  Have you ever had to deal with the court system? It is VERY slow, expensive as hell, and utterly frustrating.
- NoboruWataya 5y ago
  > just to protect themselves To protect themselves from the public. Whether it's because consumers might take their business (and their data) elsewhere in disgust at what a particular platform is turning into, or because democratically elected lawmakers could start imposing sanctions or new regulations. Companies are always looking out for themselves, that's a given. But that doesn't mean their actions are completely divorced from public opinion.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  And libel laws do not stop it being n1 result on google, or random people re-posting it. Libel laws were meant to deal woth traditional media

by pfraze 5y ago

throwawayboise 5y ago

> if somebody decided to hurt you by spreading rumors We have libel laws to address that. GPs point is that Google, Facebook, et. al. are premptively censoring non-mainstream content just to protect themselves. They don't really care about the public.

toiletfuneral 5y ago
You’re definitely right, but I was under the impression they exist to generate profit for shareholders, not act as a social service. Capitalism is a system for maximizing value extraction, not altruistic endeavors.
BatFastard 5y ago
Have you ever had to deal with the court system? It is VERY slow, expensive as hell, and utterly frustrating.
NoboruWataya 5y ago
> just to protect themselves To protect themselves from the public. Whether it's because consumers might take their business (and their data) elsewhere in disgust at what a particular platform is turning into, or because democratically elected lawmakers could start imposing sanctions or new regulations. Companies are always looking out for themselves, that's a given. But that doesn't mean their actions are completely divorced from public opinion.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
And libel laws do not stop it being n1 result on google, or random people re-posting it. Libel laws were meant to deal woth traditional media