4 ms·

While I think that everybody should be treated with respect, policing this via censorship is dangerous. You can't legislate away hate, as I found out when I rea

While I think that everybody should be treated with respect, policing this via censorship is dangerous. You can't legislate away hate, as I found out when I realised that the USA is still a racist in many, many places even though the Civil Rights Act was passed over 50 years ago.

sudosysgen 5y ago
This isn't legislation, though. It's a private company deciding they don't want to facilitate some speech. Now I agree that there should be some level of compelled speech from private platforms, but I don't think we need to force them to amplify such things.
- selfhoster11 5y ago
  I'm personally of the opinion that if a private social platform bills itself as a digital town square and has ambitions of becoming a monopoly (or a part of an oligopoly), then it should be treated exactly as if it was state-owned. If 20% of your potential audience can be taken away by the flip of a switch (or worse, an automated algorithm with no real oversight), then it really doesn't matter who's doing the taking away. The harm is the same.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Does tiktok even bill itself as a digital town square? Also, if you've ever had the misfortune of helping run a forum, you would know that this isn't really workable. Without proactive moderation that goes above and beyond the bare legal minimum, a tiny minority of individuals will just take over the space and completely ruin it for everyone. There has to be some moderation beyond that the government does to public spaces. At the same time, I don't want people to be functionally excluded from society purely for their political opinions not least of which because I believe people can change. There has to be an equilibrium, and I think that purposefully harassing minorities should be outside of that equilibrium.
    - selfhoster11 5y ago
      > Also, if you've ever had the misfortune of helping run a forum, you would know that this isn't really workable. (...) a tiny minority of individuals will just take over the space and completely ruin it for everyone. I've seen this happen, but forums never had the universal user base that modern social media companies do. If you get banned from a forum, you get cut off from maybe 500 members of your target audience. If the same happens with a social media platform, you lose access to hundreds of thousands or even millions of members. The impact of the ban is disproportionate, except in the cases of the most extreme speech (like calling for literal heads to roll, for instance).
  - klyrs 5y ago
    Kicking off 20% of your userbase doesn't sound like a terribly effective strategy to attaining a monopoly. But, I'm interested in this notion that it should be "treated exactly as if it was state-owned." For HN, this sounds like a bracingly anticapitalist stance. Should companies beyond a certain size be subject to imminent domain? Do we seize Bezos's stock?
    - selfhoster11 5y ago
      Apologies, I should have qualified this as "treated exactly as if state-owned for the purposes of establishing what kinds of speech should be allowed". I am not advocating for nationalisation of private enterprise, but merely for ensuring that they are bound by the same standards when they reach the same size.
      - klyrs 5y ago
        You can still get kicked out of a public library for yelling at other patrons. Or, say, following people around and muttering racial slurs. Should we treat it like the postal service, where breaking the rules is a felony?
- rkk3 5y ago
  > It's a private company deciding they don't want to facilitate some speech. Is it a private company? How much control does the CCP need to have over it before it's recognized as an arm of the state.
- he0001 5y ago
  Even this platform there are policies on what to do/write and how to behave. Up/downvoting is a way of policy management.
klyrs 5y ago
Neither policing nor legislation, if you don't like it, you can join one of several social media platforms that allows all this stuff.
- selfhoster11 5y ago
  Right, like Parler or 4chan.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Yes, that's what invariably happens when your standard for moderation is bare legality.
    - iszomer 5y ago
      I think it's more about the pseudonymity of internet culture and the interactions it tends to fosters. eg: I am responding to you without knowing you personally and the only relationship I have with you is your username and the broader HN message board; the freedom to be critical without human 1:1 feedback.
    - selfhoster11 5y ago
      There is a lot of space in between Tiktok's current policy and allowing literally anything that's legal. It doesn't have to be a binary choice between chaos and strict policing.
  - anaisbetts 5y ago
    Ironically, Parler is extremely heavily censored, far more than Twitter - it is verbatim the censorship regime that conservatives pretend exists elsewhere, only actually existing yet in their favor
  - x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
    When someone/something gets associated with Parler, 4chan or Gab, it loses a lot of legitimacy with the mainstream. That's why conservatives are fighting to not be relegated to such corners of the internet, but instead allow to eat off the legitimacy and reach of mainstream platforms like TikTok and Youtube.
dTal 5y ago
"You can't legislate away hate" does not imply "you shouldn't try". The Civil Rights Act was a positive development, despite failing to "solve" racism.
- xhkkffbf 5y ago
dragonwriter 5y ago
> While I think that everybody should be treated with respect, policing this via censorship is dangerous. You can't legislate away hate Private actors implementing policies for what they will use their resources to relay isn't legislation, so what you can and cannot legislate is immaterial (except as indication that to succeed, non-legislative approaches like this are necessary.) Nor is it necessarily targeting (at least as the immediate goal, though for some actors it might be part of a broader strategy with that as the ultimate goal) eliminating hate, it is targeting not being (or, more cynically, not being seen as) an active collaborator in it.

sudosysgen 5y ago

This isn't legislation, though. It's a private company deciding they don't want to facilitate some speech. Now I agree that there should be some level of compelled speech from private platforms, but I don't think we need to force them to amplify such things.

selfhoster11 5y ago
I'm personally of the opinion that if a private social platform bills itself as a digital town square and has ambitions of becoming a monopoly (or a part of an oligopoly), then it should be treated exactly as if it was state-owned. If 20% of your potential audience can be taken away by the flip of a switch (or worse, an automated algorithm with no real oversight), then it really doesn't matter who's doing the taking away. The harm is the same.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Does tiktok even bill itself as a digital town square? Also, if you've ever had the misfortune of helping run a forum, you would know that this isn't really workable. Without proactive moderation that goes above and beyond the bare legal minimum, a tiny minority of individuals will just take over the space and completely ruin it for everyone. There has to be some moderation beyond that the government does to public spaces. At the same time, I don't want people to be functionally excluded from society purely for their political opinions not least of which because I believe people can change. There has to be an equilibrium, and I think that purposefully harassing minorities should be outside of that equilibrium.
  - selfhoster11 5y ago
    > Also, if you've ever had the misfortune of helping run a forum, you would know that this isn't really workable. (...) a tiny minority of individuals will just take over the space and completely ruin it for everyone. I've seen this happen, but forums never had the universal user base that modern social media companies do. If you get banned from a forum, you get cut off from maybe 500 members of your target audience. If the same happens with a social media platform, you lose access to hundreds of thousands or even millions of members. The impact of the ban is disproportionate, except in the cases of the most extreme speech (like calling for literal heads to roll, for instance).
- klyrs 5y ago
  Kicking off 20% of your userbase doesn't sound like a terribly effective strategy to attaining a monopoly. But, I'm interested in this notion that it should be "treated exactly as if it was state-owned." For HN, this sounds like a bracingly anticapitalist stance. Should companies beyond a certain size be subject to imminent domain? Do we seize Bezos's stock?
  - selfhoster11 5y ago
    Apologies, I should have qualified this as "treated exactly as if state-owned for the purposes of establishing what kinds of speech should be allowed". I am not advocating for nationalisation of private enterprise, but merely for ensuring that they are bound by the same standards when they reach the same size.
    - klyrs 5y ago
      You can still get kicked out of a public library for yelling at other patrons. Or, say, following people around and muttering racial slurs. Should we treat it like the postal service, where breaking the rules is a felony?
rkk3 5y ago
> It's a private company deciding they don't want to facilitate some speech. Is it a private company? How much control does the CCP need to have over it before it's recognized as an arm of the state.
he0001 5y ago
Even this platform there are policies on what to do/write and how to behave. Up/downvoting is a way of policy management.

klyrs 5y ago

Neither policing nor legislation, if you don't like it, you can join one of several social media platforms that allows all this stuff.

selfhoster11 5y ago
Right, like Parler or 4chan.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Yes, that's what invariably happens when your standard for moderation is bare legality.
  - iszomer 5y ago
    I think it's more about the pseudonymity of internet culture and the interactions it tends to fosters. eg: I am responding to you without knowing you personally and the only relationship I have with you is your username and the broader HN message board; the freedom to be critical without human 1:1 feedback.
  - selfhoster11 5y ago
    There is a lot of space in between Tiktok's current policy and allowing literally anything that's legal. It doesn't have to be a binary choice between chaos and strict policing.
- anaisbetts 5y ago
  Ironically, Parler is extremely heavily censored, far more than Twitter - it is verbatim the censorship regime that conservatives pretend exists elsewhere, only actually existing yet in their favor
- x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
  When someone/something gets associated with Parler, 4chan or Gab, it loses a lot of legitimacy with the mainstream. That's why conservatives are fighting to not be relegated to such corners of the internet, but instead allow to eat off the legitimacy and reach of mainstream platforms like TikTok and Youtube.

dTal 5y ago

"You can't legislate away hate" does not imply "you shouldn't try". The Civil Rights Act was a positive development, despite failing to "solve" racism.

xhkkffbf 5y ago

dragonwriter 5y ago

> While I think that everybody should be treated with respect, policing this via censorship is dangerous. You can't legislate away hate Private actors implementing policies for what they will use their resources to relay isn't legislation, so what you can and cannot legislate is immaterial (except as indication that to succeed, non-legislative approaches like this are necessary.) Nor is it necessarily targeting (at least as the immediate goal, though for some actors it might be part of a broader strategy with that as the ultimate goal) eliminating hate, it is targeting not being (or, more cynically, not being seen as) an active collaborator in it.