4 ms·

> The other truth is we're all outraged when these companies host some stuff that we don't like ... and get upset when they don't host the stuff we do like. Ye

> The other truth is we're all outraged when these companies host some stuff that we don't like ... and get upset when they don't host the stuff we do like. Yet it is rational to oppose distribution of what you think is wrong and promote distribution of what you think is right. You must have a hidden premise in there somewhere.

michaelpb 5y ago
That is rational, yes. I think pretty much everyone thinks this way, with differing definitions of both "promote" and "oppose", and "wrong" and "right". Though I may be misunderstanding what you are getting to here.
Broken_Hippo 5y ago
I think most religion is wrong, yet I'm not opposing that. I also think genocide is wrong, and yes, I'll oppose that. Same with anti-vax rhetoric. While religion can be a real negative, it isn't generally the goal and often, there are good intentions. Genocide hurts people, though, through its nature. Anti-vaccine propaganda hurts folks as well. You simply cannot have these movements without hurting folks.
- hanselot 5y ago
  People take the vaccine they die. They don't take it they die. Why bother taking it then? It doesn't do anything a vaccine is supposed to do. So why cal it that? Why not call it what it is? Experimental gene therapy with 0 long term studies. Why the social pressure to force others to make the same mistake you made by volunteering for use of a drug that you can't even sue the creators of if it kills you? My hat off to you for being willing to die so that others can learn from this experiment, but don't pretend you are anything more than rats in a lab.
- stevenicr 5y ago
  Some religions have hurting people codified in their main directives - so some should be stopped from being shared. Ponzi schemes? Crypto investments? Drugs? Gambling? Alcohol recipes? Sugar? i-robot protect us all with truth! (except hunter laptop, and lab leak theory - hide those haha) Actually - I am kind of okay with this new kindergarten gloves way of treating the people - let's give them the sharing a ability they deserve. California knows best what's good for everyone - just don't talk bad about beef. Well you may have to censor that in some other parts of the world. Different kindergarten for different countries? different states? Think how much better and safer this internet world is going to be without all these bad things!
psyc 5y ago
Is it rational, though? Maybe for a certain type of politically active person. But I believe in free expression (the principle kind, in addition to the 1st amendment kind), so it seems to me it is not rational for me to oppose the distribution of anything legal. Or is it irrational of me to have principles, rather than being maximally self-interested or social-utopia-utilitarian?
- michaelpb 5y ago
  The thing is you are "promoting distribution of what you think is right" literally right now. Like, with this very comment right here, you are being politically active! So, assuming you are acting rationally, you are right now promoting what you think is "right" ("anything legal", "1st amendment" eg the United States's Constitution), while countering what you think is "wrong". If you didn't believe in the promotion of what you think is right, then you wouldn't be posting to argue against what you think is wrong! You would never upvote (bias) or downvote (censorship) and so on. Sure, you could argue that your style of promotion (comments on HN), or that promoting your worldview in general is better for certain outcomes, but ultimately your still just arguing for "freedom" in your particular definition of "freedom" (still promoting or opposing distribution of right/wrong)
  - psyc 5y ago
    I think you are equivocating. I don’t oppose the distribution of any other opinion. I don’t like those opinions, but I’m not trying to make it harder for anyone to say them. And trying to change someone’s mind about it is not at all the same as “opposing distribution” regardless of whether it has the same intent or potential effect.
    - michaelpb 5y ago
      I'm not trying to equivocate here (or be combative, I hope this is an interesting discussion for both of us!). I'm being serious: I consider downvoting to be "opposing distribution" of a statement by definition, since it limits the distribution, although perhaps not very effective if done by yourself. > regardless of whether it has the same intent or potential effect. I disagree, and I think I'm in the majority to have more outcomes-based ethics [1] What I'm trying to get across is that you are "politically active", whether you think you are or not. "Activism" can literally involve just a bunch of friends on an online platform upvoting and downvoting. Even just a small group of people doing this can even be effective censorship in certain contexts, such as local elections. Sure, Google may have more cost-effective means of censorship --- larger political campaigns have to pay firms LOADS to bury stories or control online discourse without access to the power Google has --- but it's still the same result, just a matter of who calls the shots and cost-efficacy. You might argue that controlling discourse like this is not censorship or unethical based on your definition, but as you said it can have the same intent and has the same potential effect, so to another perspective, perhaps one that places less value on the USA constitution, it most certainly is. [1] About 90%, in the case of a survey question about the trolley problem - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem#Survey_data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem#Survey_data
LegitShady 5y ago
It's rational only if you don't think those powers will ever be turned against you. Once you realize what you're creating is a mechanism to censor rather than a particular instance of censorship, self interest should force you to realize that the censorship mechanism that you're supporting can be turned against you.

michaelpb 5y ago

That is rational, yes. I think pretty much everyone thinks this way, with differing definitions of both "promote" and "oppose", and "wrong" and "right". Though I may be misunderstanding what you are getting to here.

Broken_Hippo 5y ago

I think most religion is wrong, yet I'm not opposing that. I also think genocide is wrong, and yes, I'll oppose that. Same with anti-vax rhetoric. While religion can be a real negative, it isn't generally the goal and often, there are good intentions. Genocide hurts people, though, through its nature. Anti-vaccine propaganda hurts folks as well. You simply cannot have these movements without hurting folks.

hanselot 5y ago
People take the vaccine they die. They don't take it they die. Why bother taking it then? It doesn't do anything a vaccine is supposed to do. So why cal it that? Why not call it what it is? Experimental gene therapy with 0 long term studies. Why the social pressure to force others to make the same mistake you made by volunteering for use of a drug that you can't even sue the creators of if it kills you? My hat off to you for being willing to die so that others can learn from this experiment, but don't pretend you are anything more than rats in a lab.
stevenicr 5y ago
Some religions have hurting people codified in their main directives - so some should be stopped from being shared. Ponzi schemes? Crypto investments? Drugs? Gambling? Alcohol recipes? Sugar? i-robot protect us all with truth! (except hunter laptop, and lab leak theory - hide those haha) Actually - I am kind of okay with this new kindergarten gloves way of treating the people - let's give them the sharing a ability they deserve. California knows best what's good for everyone - just don't talk bad about beef. Well you may have to censor that in some other parts of the world. Different kindergarten for different countries? different states? Think how much better and safer this internet world is going to be without all these bad things!

psyc 5y ago

Is it rational, though? Maybe for a certain type of politically active person. But I believe in free expression (the principle kind, in addition to the 1st amendment kind), so it seems to me it is not rational for me to oppose the distribution of anything legal. Or is it irrational of me to have principles, rather than being maximally self-interested or social-utopia-utilitarian?

michaelpb 5y ago
The thing is you are "promoting distribution of what you think is right" literally right now. Like, with this very comment right here, you are being politically active! So, assuming you are acting rationally, you are right now promoting what you think is "right" ("anything legal", "1st amendment" eg the United States's Constitution), while countering what you think is "wrong". If you didn't believe in the promotion of what you think is right, then you wouldn't be posting to argue against what you think is wrong! You would never upvote (bias) or downvote (censorship) and so on. Sure, you could argue that your style of promotion (comments on HN), or that promoting your worldview in general is better for certain outcomes, but ultimately your still just arguing for "freedom" in your particular definition of "freedom" (still promoting or opposing distribution of right/wrong)
- psyc 5y ago
  I think you are equivocating. I don’t oppose the distribution of any other opinion. I don’t like those opinions, but I’m not trying to make it harder for anyone to say them. And trying to change someone’s mind about it is not at all the same as “opposing distribution” regardless of whether it has the same intent or potential effect.
  - michaelpb 5y ago
    I'm not trying to equivocate here (or be combative, I hope this is an interesting discussion for both of us!). I'm being serious: I consider downvoting to be "opposing distribution" of a statement by definition, since it limits the distribution, although perhaps not very effective if done by yourself. > regardless of whether it has the same intent or potential effect. I disagree, and I think I'm in the majority to have more outcomes-based ethics [1] What I'm trying to get across is that you are "politically active", whether you think you are or not. "Activism" can literally involve just a bunch of friends on an online platform upvoting and downvoting. Even just a small group of people doing this can even be effective censorship in certain contexts, such as local elections. Sure, Google may have more cost-effective means of censorship --- larger political campaigns have to pay firms LOADS to bury stories or control online discourse without access to the power Google has --- but it's still the same result, just a matter of who calls the shots and cost-efficacy. You might argue that controlling discourse like this is not censorship or unethical based on your definition, but as you said it can have the same intent and has the same potential effect, so to another perspective, perhaps one that places less value on the USA constitution, it most certainly is. [1] About 90%, in the case of a survey question about the trolley problem - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem#Survey_data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem#Survey_data

LegitShady 5y ago

It's rational only if you don't think those powers will ever be turned against you. Once you realize what you're creating is a mechanism to censor rather than a particular instance of censorship, self interest should force you to realize that the censorship mechanism that you're supporting can be turned against you.