6 ms·

Apparently the 'misinformation' trope has extended into art. Many of you defending censorship in the last few years (and very much so on HN) on political groun

Apparently the 'misinformation' trope has extended into art. Many of you defending censorship in the last few years (and very much so on HN) on political grounds are going to be changing your minds in the coming years due to stuff like this.

gigatexal 5y ago
[flagged]
- ncxkvnxck 5y ago
  Should they remove all videos of cars driving over the speed limit too?
  - ChrisClark 5y ago
    Ok
- andrew_ 5y ago
  This is precisely the kind of myopic justification that the parent was speaking towards.
- kyle_martin1 5y ago
  Silencing people and pretending it’s OK is not going to work. It’s a double edge sword. Because one day they’re going to silence you. The math doesn’t work out long term.
  - tw04 5y ago
    Rewind 100 years: what was your avenue for “being heard”? The radio and newspapers had no obligation to regurgitate your thoughts. Nobody is stopping him from touring the country to spread his message. Same as it always was. I personally post 0 on Twitter or Facebook or YouTube and I manage to get by in life just fine.
    - repsilat 5y ago
      Sure, "no obligation", I think their critics agree with you there. This isn't a conversation about rights, it's a conversation about values. This action shows that Youtube doesn't strongly value being a neutral platform, and people are disappointed.
    - dolni 5y ago
      Radios and newspapers also did not present themselves as a way for the average person to make themselves heard. But you are onto something here - the problem is that there is a massive disparity in the power of an individual's discourse versus a radio or newspaper. Now look at YouTube and Twitter. They amplify the voices of many average people, but only those who tow their political line. This makes it appear as though some ideas are more widely supported than they actually are. It's the same problem as with radio and newspapers, but it is exacerbated more than 1000 fold.
  - repsilat 5y ago
    I don't know. I agree that refusing to do business with someone is a finite source of political power, but the cost is short-lived. The video gets taken down, but once the news cycle completes the creator will upload to Youtube next time around, and the positive economies to scale (network effects) make limited, repeated application of this power sustainable. I think it's counter-productive because of my politics, but I don't think it's ineffective or futile.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - roenxi 5y ago
    > It’s a double edge sword. Because one day they’re going to silence you. This is true, but it is an important topic so here is another angle to consider: YouTube doesn't have any tools to sift right from wrong that we don't already have, and their censors are probably only marginally more intelligent than average. They are going to get stuff really wrong from time to time, and eventually are going to censor important information - if they haven't already, it is hard to tell. Case in point, censors generally aren't bought in to hit stuff that is obviously wrong. Everyone knows that sort of content is garbage and only watches it for a laugh (think flat earthers). They are coming in for stuff where the available evidence makes it difficult to tell what is true or not (eg, ivermectin). They're going to make some horrible mistakes playing at that game, because by nature of what they are targeting, some of it is going to be factual content.
    - kyle_martin1 5y ago
      Deciding what is right or wrong is the issue. YouTube isn’t transparent nor consistent about this. Social Media are publications due to their extreme efforts in curating content and speech topics. They need to be regulated as such.
    - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
      > YouTube doesn't have any tools to sift right from wrong that we don't already have, and their censors are probably only marginally more intelligent than average. I thought Facebook & Google were outsourcing the censoring to low budget contracting firms in poorer states, so they could keep the spend at a minimum?
  - zuminator 5y ago
    Deplatforming isn't the same as silencing. At no point in history before the 21st century did the average person think that they had a right to have their speech carried to the entire human race. We have a basic right to generally not be prevented from speaking, yes. (A right which does not extend to defamation, fraud, violent threats and other grossly harmful things) But have we ever had a basic human right to oblige any information channel of our choosing to carry our speech? Regardless of the import of our words? No. And -- if I am similarly deplatformed for harmful speech, that's a good thing. Bad personal consequences are a just outcome of bad personal behavior, made more just if the same applies to everyone, friends and foes alike. It's an intrinsic aspect of the social contract. As always, I invite people to look at Usenet as an example of what happens when a platform carries everything. People stopped going there because after the advent of bots, it was completely overrun with V1AGR4 ads. Try getting your speech heard when there's 99.999% noise to signal. It's silencing of a different sort.
    - kyle_martin1 5y ago
      "Deplatforming" is just a roundabout way of saying "you're not welcome here because we don't agree with your speech". YouTube's criteria of what is and is not harmful is the issue.
  - Abroszka 5y ago
    In Europe, in many places it's illegal to deny the holocaust. Sometimes it's more important to remember what happened than our right to free speech.
  - robbrown451 5y ago
    Well we have some serious short term issues. To me, the internet is to the First Amendment as nuclear weapons are to the Second. Neither were anticipated when the Bill of Rights was written. In the 18th century, no one knew people might invent weapons that could kill on such a scale and at such distance. No one knew people could make a beheading video and instantly share it with millions. No one anticipated algorithms that could amplify the worst human impulses to such a degree. I'd love to see these problems solved in a better way. Here at Hacker New we have a half decent algorithm for promoting quality content based on upvotes and downvotes and flags and karma and such. When that fails, we have Dang's good judgement as a backup. That's censorship too, and it makes this a better place. It's not perfect, but if you were to take the approach of "any censorship is wrong" approach, Hacker News wouldn't be very pleasant. YouTube is at a much larger scale, but they have a right to do something. Presumably you are ok with them disallowing beheading videos. What about videos encouraging suicide and providing "help"? What about videos telling people how to make chemical weapons? What about videos planning government overthrows? Where do you draw the line? I don't necessarily have a long term solution, but I support them taking some short term measures.
- gfodor 5y ago
  And they say satire is dead.
- bserge 5y ago
  They also take down content of people who threaten to kill themselves. Out of sight, out of mind, amirite? When they come for your honest thoughts, no one will be there to save you. Platforms should be neutral. But it's kinda nice they aren't. Fuck them, hopefully new ones will gain traction thanks to their actions.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- seaman1921 5y ago
  ironic that people are silencing your comment by downvoting it, haha
  - antihipocrat 5y ago
    It would be ironic if it were deleted by HN. The comment is still there and is generating a lot of healthy debate. I've listened to the song and it's primary (only?) message is to call out a blatant lie from the news media and that we should all be critical consumers of that media.
- paulpauper 5y ago
  how about removing videos showing people smoking, because that too is bad for health
  - robbrown451 5y ago
    If it is a medical doctor saying that there is science that says that smoking is good for you.... I'm taking a wild guess here, but I'm pretty sure that's getting taken down. At least if it starts getting lots of views. Because it would be a dangerous lie.
    - caddemon 5y ago
      We are talking about the music video for a rap song, not anybody claiming to give legitimate medical advice. The song is pretty dumb IMO, but I do not like to see tech companies deplatforming art because of "misinformation". Who the hell gets their information from rap music?
- _fat_santa 5y ago
  I'm not sure if you're being hyperbolic or not, but the post/video does not mention anything about the vaccine. That's the whole point.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  > YouTube has no obligation to be a champion of free speech. Unless we decide that they do, notwithstanding your declaration. I understand that you like censorship that you agree with, so it would probably be better to ask you about this when they start censoring things that state legislatures interpret as "critical race theory," or for claiming that a government official is being dishonest.
  - krapp 5y ago
    >Unless we decide that they do, notwithstanding your declaration. No, they're a private company. "We" don't get to decide what their obligations are.
    - kyle_martin1 5y ago
      Oh yes we do. We are the People. Legislation for social media is eventually going to happen.
      - krapp 5y ago
        Sorry... I thought property rights, freedom of speech and freedom of association were inalienable, or at least important. My mistake. I keep forgetting to read the room. Let me rephrase.. we shouldn't if we care about our principles. But I agree with you, inevitably we will abandon those principles, repeal the First Amendment (which is what such legislation would amount to) and cut off our nose to spite our face. The momentum and fury behind this new Red Scare is just too great to stop at this point. But, after the dust has settled, the ashes of social media have cooled, the government regulates all speech on the web the way the FCC does television, and you need the resources of a corporation with a legal team just to handle the liability risk of publishing anything, I think we'll live to regret it.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- BTCOG 5y ago
  Sure... keeping all the rap that promotes murder, gang membership, robbery, crack and heroin dealing literally numbering into the hundreds of thousands of tracks on Youtube, and millions of other videos promoting the same and worse are totally fine to stay up there and this censoring totally has nothing at all to do with politics, right? I'm not for censoring any of the available music on Youtube but you cannot try and sit here and tell anyone that removing a track like this one, has anything to do with "reducing harm." This is silencing political free speech and I'd bet a ton of money the United States government has a line of communication with, and has told Google to remove content like this. "HackerNews" should consider changing the site name to something more along the lines of "LiberalGroupthinkingProgrammerNews" /kill fake hackers.
csours 5y ago
We're in the baby years of social media. I have some hope that humanity will figure some it out. I also have a great deal of dread that we will not. We are not guaranteed to have nice things, and a few bad actors can do quite a lot of harm.
bserge 5y ago
This better not get to hosting providers or it all goes to shit. Sure, big platforms censoring stuff is bad, but people still have the choice of renting a server and hosting whatever they want. If your website, hosted on a dedicated machine that you rent from OVH or whatever (and probably Amazon, but I wouldn't trust them) or co-locate in a datacenter, can be taken down on claims of misinformation, that's it, RIP free Internet. It was nice knowing you.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  Isn't that exactly what Amazon did to Parler already?
  - bserge 5y ago
    Yeah, like I said, wouldn't trust them. Why Parler didn't use a "normal" hosting provider, I don't know.
- Levitz 5y ago
  What about GoDaddy? https://gizmodo.com/godaddy-is-giving-texas-abortion-snitching-site-the-boo-1847616447 https://gizmodo.com/godaddy-is-giving-texas-abortion-snitchi...
  - bserge 5y ago
    You got me with this one. Actually threatening someone directly is worse than being an antivaxxer... Guess that's my cutoff point? Just shoot me in the head, I'm sick of this world.
    - intricatedetail 5y ago
      People can't have too much freedom and these big corporations do the bidding for ruling political class. They are deep in tax avoidance and they don't want government to order IRS to start looking.
psyc 5y ago
I don’t expect many minds to change. I predict the “‘private’ [misnomer] companies can do what they want [broadly false]” crowd to dig in and rationalize why art is not a special case. My own hypothesis is they personally identify with the corporations, e.g. they are entrepreneurs or might want to become entrepreneurs someday.
- __blockcipher__ 5y ago
  Honestly I don't think it's that they identify as entrepreneurs or business owners, I think it's just that they identify as progressives, and there is an incredibly prominent pro-censorship current in modern progressive ideology. I say this because I've definitely interacted with many people in real life who are not the "entrepreneur" or "pro corporate" types yet happily cheer on the censorship being practiced by big tech and the like
  - glogla 5y ago
    Progressives are not necessarily for censorship (though some are). But this "private censorship" is a consequence of not regulating new media industries. So seeing some people complain about censorship after being against regulation has very much "you wanted this, serves you right" vibe.
    - wholinator2 5y ago
      I agree but would like to posit that that attitude is yet another issue of the current political landscape. The "your previous idea has turned out poorly, both this is your fault and I can now justify slightly this bad thing because it's happening to you" I probably phrased that poorly but I see lots of people who are against things, no longer being so strongly against that thing when it starts to hurt their 'enemies'. It's like a rule change in sport, I'm against it until it starts to give me a competitive advantage. Which really just goes back to the two party, my enemy or my friend trope. Tribalism etc.
- intricatedetail 5y ago
  > My own hypothesis is they personally identify with the corporations, I used to be like that and I remember defending YT censorship as I thought I would probably wanted to be able to do the same had my project took off. It took me a long time to realise I was wrong.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
TameAntelope 5y ago
Censorship, to me, would be the government forcing these platforms to host content that isn't in their business interests, because it would be compelling speech. That's a much worse problem, in my mind, than private organizations removing content from their platforms. I would rather live in this world than the alternative.
benatkin 5y ago
> Many of you defending censorship in the last few years It's beyond parody. If this was twitter, I'd be bringing out the clown emoji.

gigatexal 5y ago

[flagged]

ncxkvnxck 5y ago
Should they remove all videos of cars driving over the speed limit too?
- ChrisClark 5y ago
  Ok
andrew_ 5y ago
This is precisely the kind of myopic justification that the parent was speaking towards.
kyle_martin1 5y ago
Silencing people and pretending it’s OK is not going to work. It’s a double edge sword. Because one day they’re going to silence you. The math doesn’t work out long term.
- tw04 5y ago
  Rewind 100 years: what was your avenue for “being heard”? The radio and newspapers had no obligation to regurgitate your thoughts. Nobody is stopping him from touring the country to spread his message. Same as it always was. I personally post 0 on Twitter or Facebook or YouTube and I manage to get by in life just fine.
  - repsilat 5y ago
    Sure, "no obligation", I think their critics agree with you there. This isn't a conversation about rights, it's a conversation about values. This action shows that Youtube doesn't strongly value being a neutral platform, and people are disappointed.
  - dolni 5y ago
    Radios and newspapers also did not present themselves as a way for the average person to make themselves heard. But you are onto something here - the problem is that there is a massive disparity in the power of an individual's discourse versus a radio or newspaper. Now look at YouTube and Twitter. They amplify the voices of many average people, but only those who tow their political line. This makes it appear as though some ideas are more widely supported than they actually are. It's the same problem as with radio and newspapers, but it is exacerbated more than 1000 fold.
- repsilat 5y ago
  I don't know. I agree that refusing to do business with someone is a finite source of political power, but the cost is short-lived. The video gets taken down, but once the news cycle completes the creator will upload to Youtube next time around, and the positive economies to scale (network effects) make limited, repeated application of this power sustainable. I think it's counter-productive because of my politics, but I don't think it's ineffective or futile.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- roenxi 5y ago
  > It’s a double edge sword. Because one day they’re going to silence you. This is true, but it is an important topic so here is another angle to consider: YouTube doesn't have any tools to sift right from wrong that we don't already have, and their censors are probably only marginally more intelligent than average. They are going to get stuff really wrong from time to time, and eventually are going to censor important information - if they haven't already, it is hard to tell. Case in point, censors generally aren't bought in to hit stuff that is obviously wrong. Everyone knows that sort of content is garbage and only watches it for a laugh (think flat earthers). They are coming in for stuff where the available evidence makes it difficult to tell what is true or not (eg, ivermectin). They're going to make some horrible mistakes playing at that game, because by nature of what they are targeting, some of it is going to be factual content.
  - kyle_martin1 5y ago
    Deciding what is right or wrong is the issue. YouTube isn’t transparent nor consistent about this. Social Media are publications due to their extreme efforts in curating content and speech topics. They need to be regulated as such.
  - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
    > YouTube doesn't have any tools to sift right from wrong that we don't already have, and their censors are probably only marginally more intelligent than average. I thought Facebook & Google were outsourcing the censoring to low budget contracting firms in poorer states, so they could keep the spend at a minimum?
- zuminator 5y ago
  Deplatforming isn't the same as silencing. At no point in history before the 21st century did the average person think that they had a right to have their speech carried to the entire human race. We have a basic right to generally not be prevented from speaking, yes. (A right which does not extend to defamation, fraud, violent threats and other grossly harmful things) But have we ever had a basic human right to oblige any information channel of our choosing to carry our speech? Regardless of the import of our words? No. And -- if I am similarly deplatformed for harmful speech, that's a good thing. Bad personal consequences are a just outcome of bad personal behavior, made more just if the same applies to everyone, friends and foes alike. It's an intrinsic aspect of the social contract. As always, I invite people to look at Usenet as an example of what happens when a platform carries everything. People stopped going there because after the advent of bots, it was completely overrun with V1AGR4 ads. Try getting your speech heard when there's 99.999% noise to signal. It's silencing of a different sort.
  - kyle_martin1 5y ago
    "Deplatforming" is just a roundabout way of saying "you're not welcome here because we don't agree with your speech". YouTube's criteria of what is and is not harmful is the issue.
- Abroszka 5y ago
  In Europe, in many places it's illegal to deny the holocaust. Sometimes it's more important to remember what happened than our right to free speech.
- robbrown451 5y ago
  Well we have some serious short term issues. To me, the internet is to the First Amendment as nuclear weapons are to the Second. Neither were anticipated when the Bill of Rights was written. In the 18th century, no one knew people might invent weapons that could kill on such a scale and at such distance. No one knew people could make a beheading video and instantly share it with millions. No one anticipated algorithms that could amplify the worst human impulses to such a degree. I'd love to see these problems solved in a better way. Here at Hacker New we have a half decent algorithm for promoting quality content based on upvotes and downvotes and flags and karma and such. When that fails, we have Dang's good judgement as a backup. That's censorship too, and it makes this a better place. It's not perfect, but if you were to take the approach of "any censorship is wrong" approach, Hacker News wouldn't be very pleasant. YouTube is at a much larger scale, but they have a right to do something. Presumably you are ok with them disallowing beheading videos. What about videos encouraging suicide and providing "help"? What about videos telling people how to make chemical weapons? What about videos planning government overthrows? Where do you draw the line? I don't necessarily have a long term solution, but I support them taking some short term measures.
gfodor 5y ago
And they say satire is dead.
bserge 5y ago
They also take down content of people who threaten to kill themselves. Out of sight, out of mind, amirite? When they come for your honest thoughts, no one will be there to save you. Platforms should be neutral. But it's kinda nice they aren't. Fuck them, hopefully new ones will gain traction thanks to their actions.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
seaman1921 5y ago
ironic that people are silencing your comment by downvoting it, haha
- antihipocrat 5y ago
  It would be ironic if it were deleted by HN. The comment is still there and is generating a lot of healthy debate. I've listened to the song and it's primary (only?) message is to call out a blatant lie from the news media and that we should all be critical consumers of that media.
paulpauper 5y ago
how about removing videos showing people smoking, because that too is bad for health
- robbrown451 5y ago
  If it is a medical doctor saying that there is science that says that smoking is good for you.... I'm taking a wild guess here, but I'm pretty sure that's getting taken down. At least if it starts getting lots of views. Because it would be a dangerous lie.
  - caddemon 5y ago
    We are talking about the music video for a rap song, not anybody claiming to give legitimate medical advice. The song is pretty dumb IMO, but I do not like to see tech companies deplatforming art because of "misinformation". Who the hell gets their information from rap music?
_fat_santa 5y ago
I'm not sure if you're being hyperbolic or not, but the post/video does not mention anything about the vaccine. That's the whole point.
pessimizer 5y ago
> YouTube has no obligation to be a champion of free speech. Unless we decide that they do, notwithstanding your declaration. I understand that you like censorship that you agree with, so it would probably be better to ask you about this when they start censoring things that state legislatures interpret as "critical race theory," or for claiming that a government official is being dishonest.
- krapp 5y ago
  >Unless we decide that they do, notwithstanding your declaration. No, they're a private company. "We" don't get to decide what their obligations are.
  - kyle_martin1 5y ago
    Oh yes we do. We are the People. Legislation for social media is eventually going to happen.
    - krapp 5y ago
      Sorry... I thought property rights, freedom of speech and freedom of association were inalienable, or at least important. My mistake. I keep forgetting to read the room. Let me rephrase.. we shouldn't if we care about our principles. But I agree with you, inevitably we will abandon those principles, repeal the First Amendment (which is what such legislation would amount to) and cut off our nose to spite our face. The momentum and fury behind this new Red Scare is just too great to stop at this point. But, after the dust has settled, the ashes of social media have cooled, the government regulates all speech on the web the way the FCC does television, and you need the resources of a corporation with a legal team just to handle the liability risk of publishing anything, I think we'll live to regret it.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
BTCOG 5y ago
Sure... keeping all the rap that promotes murder, gang membership, robbery, crack and heroin dealing literally numbering into the hundreds of thousands of tracks on Youtube, and millions of other videos promoting the same and worse are totally fine to stay up there and this censoring totally has nothing at all to do with politics, right? I'm not for censoring any of the available music on Youtube but you cannot try and sit here and tell anyone that removing a track like this one, has anything to do with "reducing harm." This is silencing political free speech and I'd bet a ton of money the United States government has a line of communication with, and has told Google to remove content like this. "HackerNews" should consider changing the site name to something more along the lines of "LiberalGroupthinkingProgrammerNews" /kill fake hackers.

csours 5y ago

We're in the baby years of social media. I have some hope that humanity will figure some it out. I also have a great deal of dread that we will not. We are not guaranteed to have nice things, and a few bad actors can do quite a lot of harm.

bserge 5y ago

This better not get to hosting providers or it all goes to shit. Sure, big platforms censoring stuff is bad, but people still have the choice of renting a server and hosting whatever they want. If your website, hosted on a dedicated machine that you rent from OVH or whatever (and probably Amazon, but I wouldn't trust them) or co-locate in a datacenter, can be taken down on claims of misinformation, that's it, RIP free Internet. It was nice knowing you.

josephcsible 5y ago
Isn't that exactly what Amazon did to Parler already?
- bserge 5y ago
  Yeah, like I said, wouldn't trust them. Why Parler didn't use a "normal" hosting provider, I don't know.
Levitz 5y ago
What about GoDaddy? https://gizmodo.com/godaddy-is-giving-texas-abortion-snitching-site-the-boo-1847616447 https://gizmodo.com/godaddy-is-giving-texas-abortion-snitchi...
- bserge 5y ago
  You got me with this one. Actually threatening someone directly is worse than being an antivaxxer... Guess that's my cutoff point? Just shoot me in the head, I'm sick of this world.
  - intricatedetail 5y ago
    People can't have too much freedom and these big corporations do the bidding for ruling political class. They are deep in tax avoidance and they don't want government to order IRS to start looking.

psyc 5y ago

I don’t expect many minds to change. I predict the “‘private’ [misnomer] companies can do what they want [broadly false]” crowd to dig in and rationalize why art is not a special case. My own hypothesis is they personally identify with the corporations, e.g. they are entrepreneurs or might want to become entrepreneurs someday.

__blockcipher__ 5y ago
Honestly I don't think it's that they identify as entrepreneurs or business owners, I think it's just that they identify as progressives, and there is an incredibly prominent pro-censorship current in modern progressive ideology. I say this because I've definitely interacted with many people in real life who are not the "entrepreneur" or "pro corporate" types yet happily cheer on the censorship being practiced by big tech and the like
- glogla 5y ago
  Progressives are not necessarily for censorship (though some are). But this "private censorship" is a consequence of not regulating new media industries. So seeing some people complain about censorship after being against regulation has very much "you wanted this, serves you right" vibe.
  - wholinator2 5y ago
    I agree but would like to posit that that attitude is yet another issue of the current political landscape. The "your previous idea has turned out poorly, both this is your fault and I can now justify slightly this bad thing because it's happening to you" I probably phrased that poorly but I see lots of people who are against things, no longer being so strongly against that thing when it starts to hurt their 'enemies'. It's like a rule change in sport, I'm against it until it starts to give me a competitive advantage. Which really just goes back to the two party, my enemy or my friend trope. Tribalism etc.
intricatedetail 5y ago
> My own hypothesis is they personally identify with the corporations, I used to be like that and I remember defending YT censorship as I thought I would probably wanted to be able to do the same had my project took off. It took me a long time to realise I was wrong.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

TameAntelope 5y ago

Censorship, to me, would be the government forcing these platforms to host content that isn't in their business interests, because it would be compelling speech. That's a much worse problem, in my mind, than private organizations removing content from their platforms. I would rather live in this world than the alternative.

benatkin 5y ago

> Many of you defending censorship in the last few years It's beyond parody. If this was twitter, I'd be bringing out the clown emoji.