8 ms·

> balance between free speech versus disallowing harmful ideas to propagate? There is no balance. The very fantasy of such a balance relies upon the presumpti

by nanis 5y ago

> balance between free speech versus disallowing harmful ideas to propagate? There is no balance. The very fantasy of such a balance relies upon the presumption that 1) there are harmful _ideas_; and 2) that there is an authority that can certify some ideas as _safe_ vs _harmful_. The discussion here gets overwhelmed by several generations of people who never actually understood what people had to give up for the right of everyone to speak and for the right of everyone to be able to expose themselves to any idea they themselves deem interesting or appropriate. Also, enmeshment of barons of industry with powerful political operatives to suppress competition to both is literally fascism (regardless of the historical revision of the definition 100 years after the fact).

wepple 5y ago
There are folks out there that believe some level of content moderation is useful, and I’d like to understand their argument. If my conclusion is that it’s not robust, so be it. But let’s run a thought experiment. Let’s say an idea shows up on Twitter that Asian people are ruining the US. It spreads and gains attention. People start killing, and citing the Twitter misinformation as a key motivator. Can the vast majority of society not agree that 1) this is a harmful idea and 2) reasonable people agree it is harmful. And therefore Twitter has a responsibility to remove that content?
- xqcgrek2 5y ago
  Is Twitter a publisher?
- nanis 5y ago
  That is a bogus argument. 1) Killing people is already a criminal act; 2) There are some people killing/beating people up with the slightest impetus. They will find that impetus whether Twitter allows people to discuss anything negative about the CCP; 3) Do you really want the speech of everyone to be regulated on the basis of the excuses used by psycho-killers? Do you think Jodie Foster should have been banned from appearing in movies? Update: And, just in time, this shows up[1,2]: > Tech firm LinkedIn has censored the profile of US journalist Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian[3] in China, inviting her to “update” content without specifying what triggered the block. Ah! She wrote a book about China[4]. Can't allow that! What if some random person becomes too critical of the CCP and assaults a random Asian-American in San Fransisco?[5] Let the attribution games begin! [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28694431 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28694431 [2]: https://hongkongfp.com/2021/09/29/microsofts-linkedin-censors-us-journalist-over-china-content-makes-disturbing-offer-for-reinstatement/ https://hongkongfp.com/2021/09/29/microsofts-linkedin-censor... [3]: https://www.axios.com/authors/baebrahimian/ https://www.axios.com/authors/baebrahimian/ [4]: https://twitter.com/BethanyAllenEbr/status/1443213045606588421 https://twitter.com/BethanyAllenEbr/status/14432130456065884... [5]: https://abc7news.com/pacific-heights-woman-bitten-asian-attacked-sf-dragged-runner/10938084/ https://abc7news.com/pacific-heights-woman-bitten-asian-atta...
- realreality 5y ago
  If your definition of harmful boils down to "results in people getting killed", then: ban fossil fuel advertisements; ban advertisements for the military or content that glorifies militarism; ban any content that encourages people to over-consume energy and resources. But we know this won't happen, because what we consider "harmful" is distorted by living within an inherently harmful society -- namely, a civilization based on violence, exploitation, and extraction.
  - seoaeu 5y ago
    So since we can't prevent all harm we shouldn't try to prevent any? That doesn't seem like a very compelling argument to me
    - realreality 5y ago
      I prefer if we prevent harm by addressing the underlying conditions, rather than trying to control the spread of ideas. As long as we’re in a mindset of having to destroy all contagions (whether they’re proteins or thoughts), we’re going to create more problems.
  - wepple 5y ago
    The examples you’ve provided are very complex multi-dimensional topics. The idea of harmfulness is indeed a spectrum, and my example is at one extreme end of the spectrum in order to illustrate that “content moderation should never ever occur” may not stand up to all examples. Most developed nations have banned advertisements of cigarettes, so it’s totally a thing we have done previously. Why are there no folks outraged that we can’t advertise cigarettes to children?
    - realreality 5y ago
      We ban cigarette advertisements because there was finally a social consensus that addiction to tobacco products is harmful. But it’s still completely legal to get yourself addicted. On the other hand, there’s no consensus about the harm from phone addiction. Maybe in 30 years we’ll ban iPhone advertisements. Like I said in another comment, I’d rather we deal with the underlying conditions which may lead to harm, than try to suppress ideas.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  I'd agree with "1) this is a harmful idea and 2) reasonable people agree it is harmful", but not "therefore Twitter has a responsibility to remove that content".
ncallaway 5y ago
> 1) there are harmful _ideas_ There are, though. There are ideas that are harmful. The idea that the Jewish population was responsible for the harms and ills of pre-WWII Germany was a devastatingly harmful idea. > 2) that there is an authority that can certify some ideas as _safe_ vs _harmful_. It's obvious to me that there cannot be a singular authority that makes such determinations. But it does seem totally plausible to have a distributed network of actors, each making their own determinations, and each influencing each other about which ideas are harmful, and which they will tolerate within their sphere. After all, that's the basic concept behind the "marketplace of ideas". You can sell into the marketplace, but YouTube doesn't have to buy what everyone is selling. I think it's just as totalitarian to tell a private entity that they must host content they disagree with, as it is to tell a private entity that they cannot speak about a specific topic to others. It's the antithesis of the marketplace of ideas. I think the actual underlying issue is that YouTube, and a few other select entities, have an absolutely massive spheres of influence and feel like monopolies within. That's what kills the marketplace. So, I do think private entities are completely within their rights to restrict their platforms however they see fit. I think doing so is even necessary for an effective marketplace of ideas that seeks truth. But I think we should also look at anti-trust laws that prevent individual private entities from having such a dominant position over an entire space.
- nanis 5y ago
  With an actual private, for-profit business, consumers have the power of taking their money and spending elsewhere. In this case, there is a dominant communication medium that is not subject to the discipline which the rest of us can impose on it by spending our money elsewhere because the "business" does not rely on our spending. So, bringing up the massive potential harms that can be visited on a society where the dominant communication channels all the do the bidding of political power centers is the only thing we can do. Maybe sufficient numbers of people will be convinced by this. It seems less and less likely. That is sad.
  - ncallaway 5y ago
    I mean, I agree with you. My point is that the actual harms of YouTube and others are from an anti-trust and monopoly perspective. The problem isn't a private entity moderating their platform. The problem is a private entity that has so much power that moderating their platform amounts to a society-wide stifling of speech. The solution isn't to restrict how the entities are allowed to moderate their platforms—it's to prevent and disallow them from being that powerful in the first place!

by nanis 5y ago

wepple 5y ago

There are folks out there that believe some level of content moderation is useful, and I’d like to understand their argument. If my conclusion is that it’s not robust, so be it. But let’s run a thought experiment. Let’s say an idea shows up on Twitter that Asian people are ruining the US. It spreads and gains attention. People start killing, and citing the Twitter misinformation as a key motivator. Can the vast majority of society not agree that 1) this is a harmful idea and 2) reasonable people agree it is harmful. And therefore Twitter has a responsibility to remove that content?

xqcgrek2 5y ago
Is Twitter a publisher?
nanis 5y ago
That is a bogus argument. 1) Killing people is already a criminal act; 2) There are some people killing/beating people up with the slightest impetus. They will find that impetus whether Twitter allows people to discuss anything negative about the CCP; 3) Do you really want the speech of everyone to be regulated on the basis of the excuses used by psycho-killers? Do you think Jodie Foster should have been banned from appearing in movies? Update: And, just in time, this shows up[1,2]: > Tech firm LinkedIn has censored the profile of US journalist Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian[3] in China, inviting her to “update” content without specifying what triggered the block. Ah! She wrote a book about China[4]. Can't allow that! What if some random person becomes too critical of the CCP and assaults a random Asian-American in San Fransisco?[5] Let the attribution games begin! [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28694431 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28694431 [2]: https://hongkongfp.com/2021/09/29/microsofts-linkedin-censors-us-journalist-over-china-content-makes-disturbing-offer-for-reinstatement/ https://hongkongfp.com/2021/09/29/microsofts-linkedin-censor... [3]: https://www.axios.com/authors/baebrahimian/ https://www.axios.com/authors/baebrahimian/ [4]: https://twitter.com/BethanyAllenEbr/status/1443213045606588421 https://twitter.com/BethanyAllenEbr/status/14432130456065884... [5]: https://abc7news.com/pacific-heights-woman-bitten-asian-attacked-sf-dragged-runner/10938084/ https://abc7news.com/pacific-heights-woman-bitten-asian-atta...
realreality 5y ago
If your definition of harmful boils down to "results in people getting killed", then: ban fossil fuel advertisements; ban advertisements for the military or content that glorifies militarism; ban any content that encourages people to over-consume energy and resources. But we know this won't happen, because what we consider "harmful" is distorted by living within an inherently harmful society -- namely, a civilization based on violence, exploitation, and extraction.
- seoaeu 5y ago
  So since we can't prevent all harm we shouldn't try to prevent any? That doesn't seem like a very compelling argument to me
  - realreality 5y ago
    I prefer if we prevent harm by addressing the underlying conditions, rather than trying to control the spread of ideas. As long as we’re in a mindset of having to destroy all contagions (whether they’re proteins or thoughts), we’re going to create more problems.
- wepple 5y ago
  The examples you’ve provided are very complex multi-dimensional topics. The idea of harmfulness is indeed a spectrum, and my example is at one extreme end of the spectrum in order to illustrate that “content moderation should never ever occur” may not stand up to all examples. Most developed nations have banned advertisements of cigarettes, so it’s totally a thing we have done previously. Why are there no folks outraged that we can’t advertise cigarettes to children?
  - realreality 5y ago
    We ban cigarette advertisements because there was finally a social consensus that addiction to tobacco products is harmful. But it’s still completely legal to get yourself addicted. On the other hand, there’s no consensus about the harm from phone addiction. Maybe in 30 years we’ll ban iPhone advertisements. Like I said in another comment, I’d rather we deal with the underlying conditions which may lead to harm, than try to suppress ideas.
josephcsible 5y ago
I'd agree with "1) this is a harmful idea and 2) reasonable people agree it is harmful", but not "therefore Twitter has a responsibility to remove that content".

ncallaway 5y ago

> 1) there are harmful _ideas_ There are, though. There are ideas that are harmful. The idea that the Jewish population was responsible for the harms and ills of pre-WWII Germany was a devastatingly harmful idea. > 2) that there is an authority that can certify some ideas as _safe_ vs _harmful_. It's obvious to me that there cannot be a singular authority that makes such determinations. But it does seem totally plausible to have a distributed network of actors, each making their own determinations, and each influencing each other about which ideas are harmful, and which they will tolerate within their sphere. After all, that's the basic concept behind the "marketplace of ideas". You can sell into the marketplace, but YouTube doesn't have to buy what everyone is selling. I think it's just as totalitarian to tell a private entity that they must host content they disagree with, as it is to tell a private entity that they cannot speak about a specific topic to others. It's the antithesis of the marketplace of ideas. I think the actual underlying issue is that YouTube, and a few other select entities, have an absolutely massive spheres of influence and feel like monopolies within. That's what kills the marketplace. So, I do think private entities are completely within their rights to restrict their platforms however they see fit. I think doing so is even necessary for an effective marketplace of ideas that seeks truth. But I think we should also look at anti-trust laws that prevent individual private entities from having such a dominant position over an entire space.

nanis 5y ago
With an actual private, for-profit business, consumers have the power of taking their money and spending elsewhere. In this case, there is a dominant communication medium that is not subject to the discipline which the rest of us can impose on it by spending our money elsewhere because the "business" does not rely on our spending. So, bringing up the massive potential harms that can be visited on a society where the dominant communication channels all the do the bidding of political power centers is the only thing we can do. Maybe sufficient numbers of people will be convinced by this. It seems less and less likely. That is sad.
- ncallaway 5y ago
  I mean, I agree with you. My point is that the actual harms of YouTube and others are from an anti-trust and monopoly perspective. The problem isn't a private entity moderating their platform. The problem is a private entity that has so much power that moderating their platform amounts to a society-wide stifling of speech. The solution isn't to restrict how the entities are allowed to moderate their platforms—it's to prevent and disallow them from being that powerful in the first place!