6 ms·

People have to understand that by accepting the concept of "platforming," they're joining the anti-free speech camp. The whole idea of "platforming" is that the

by slibhb 5y ago

People have to understand that by accepting the concept of "platforming," they're joining the anti-free speech camp. The whole idea of "platforming" is that there should be no obligation to allow opinions with which the "platform" disagrees. Disagreement occurs whenever the least tolerant, most militant group of employees says so. Contrary to this, we should have a free speech culture where the norm is that people can say what they want. Moderation is necessary but it should always be an exception. > Note that you’re choosing to spend your time on HN (a relatively strongly moderated forum) instead of a less moderated forum like 8chan’s /b/. Moderation on HN is based on tone and quality, not content. This distinguishes it from almost everywhere else on the internet.

the_doctah 5y ago
"Platforming" is just weasel wording by people who want to justify censorship. Just like "misinformation" has become a blanket justification to censor. Once you have human arbiters determining what is and what is not "good" information, and censoring based on it, you are acting in bad faith against free speech.
- smachiz 5y ago
  Do you think they just let anyone publish in a newspaper? Outside of cable access, you couldn't just hop on TV previously either. This is entirely a social media age problem. This isn't "OMG, we're censoring" it's "we're applying the same limitations that have always existed on a new medium" - which is people deciding on what is in good taste (to them) and appropriate for their platform (to them).
  - slibhb 5y ago
    They don't let "just anyone" publish in a newspaper but almost all major newspapers allow voices across the political spectrum in the form of letters and op-eds. That's what free speech culture is about. It's the idea that "everyone gets their say" and by disagreeing and arguing, we get closer to the truth. It's sad that more and more people are taking your view, which is that people can publish contrary opinions but there's no reason in particular to do so.
    - smachiz 5y ago
      >They don't let "just anyone" publish in a newspaper but almost all major newspapers allow voices across the political spectrum in the form of letters and op-eds. Yes... that are heavily curated by the Editors. They don't publish every OpEd, nor every Letter to the Editor they get. Yes, they post dissenting viewpoints constantly - that is the function. But that isn't free speech at all in the context of social media and what you're describing. >That's what free speech culture is about. It's the idea that "everyone gets their say" Again, not everyone - not even most people get their say. Certainly none of the rantings and ravings get published. Solid, cogent, fair or interesting letters get published in credible platforms (i.e. newspapers and TV) - as determined by the Editors or the OpEd review boards depending on the governance of the particular platform. > and by disagreeing and arguing, we get closer to the truth. Agreed - but that has nothing to do with allowing all view points and anyone with an idea, no matter how dangerous or how bad. Hell, even in full page advertisements, Newspapers can and will choose not to take your money if it's something that they think is harmful or antithetical to their platform. And they always have. This isn't new or unique. >It's sad that more and more people are taking your view, which is that people can publish contrary opinions but there's no reason in particular to do so. What I'm trying to share with you is that you are the outlier here. What everyone is describing is more or less status quo prior to social media taking an "anything goes" stance. That has never been the reality prior to that.
      - slibhb 5y ago
        > Yes... that are heavily curated by the Editors. They don't publish every OpEd, nor every Letter to the Editor they get. Yes, they post dissenting viewpoints constantly - that is the function. But that isn't free speech at all in the context of social media and what you're describing. It's exactly free speech in the context I'm describing; the idea that dissent is good and everyone gets their say. Social media is free and open so it's quite clear that the bar for curation is going to be lower than a newspaper with finite space. > Again, not everyone - not even most people get their say. Certainly none of the rantings and ravings get published. They sure did on Twitter. Virtually everyone should get their say. The bar for censorship should be extremely high. > Agreed - but that has nothing to do with allowing all view points and anyone with an idea, no matter how dangerous or how bad. Yes it does. How could it not? And who determines what is "dangerous or bad"? > What I'm trying to share with you is that you are the outlier here. What everyone is describing is more or less status quo prior to social media taking an "anything goes" stance. That has never been the reality prior to that. It used to be the case that most speech was in-person and local. Most people were relatively tolerant and there wasn't a lot of curation. There was a consolidation in the 20th century, which is what you're referring to. Now things are opening back up.
  - the_doctah 5y ago
    Twitter is only barely comparable to a newspaper, and only in the ways that fit your narrative. It's almost like new technologies force us into new ways of thinking about things.
jcranmer 5y ago
> Moderation on HN is based on tone and quality, not content. ... That is still content-based moderation, since it's based on the actual text being written and not the circumstances (time, place, manner) of its writing.
- slibhb 5y ago
  Content may have been a poor word choice. What I meant is that comments here are rarely moderated because the message in the comment is deemed wrong by the moderators.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Sure they are. Broad classes of messages are forbidden on HN. No matter what tone you use, you can't disparage nationalities, genders, or races here, or make arguments that would tend to have that effect; you can't attempt to psychiatrically diagnose other commenters; you can't question the good faith of a commenter here, or suggest that they're shills; you can't collect personal facts about other commenters and marshal them as arguments; the list goes on. These aren't tonal issues, they're substantive. What might set them apart is how sweeping they are.

by slibhb 5y ago

the_doctah 5y ago

"Platforming" is just weasel wording by people who want to justify censorship. Just like "misinformation" has become a blanket justification to censor. Once you have human arbiters determining what is and what is not "good" information, and censoring based on it, you are acting in bad faith against free speech.

smachiz 5y ago
Do you think they just let anyone publish in a newspaper? Outside of cable access, you couldn't just hop on TV previously either. This is entirely a social media age problem. This isn't "OMG, we're censoring" it's "we're applying the same limitations that have always existed on a new medium" - which is people deciding on what is in good taste (to them) and appropriate for their platform (to them).
- slibhb 5y ago
  They don't let "just anyone" publish in a newspaper but almost all major newspapers allow voices across the political spectrum in the form of letters and op-eds. That's what free speech culture is about. It's the idea that "everyone gets their say" and by disagreeing and arguing, we get closer to the truth. It's sad that more and more people are taking your view, which is that people can publish contrary opinions but there's no reason in particular to do so.
  - smachiz 5y ago
    >They don't let "just anyone" publish in a newspaper but almost all major newspapers allow voices across the political spectrum in the form of letters and op-eds. Yes... that are heavily curated by the Editors. They don't publish every OpEd, nor every Letter to the Editor they get. Yes, they post dissenting viewpoints constantly - that is the function. But that isn't free speech at all in the context of social media and what you're describing. >That's what free speech culture is about. It's the idea that "everyone gets their say" Again, not everyone - not even most people get their say. Certainly none of the rantings and ravings get published. Solid, cogent, fair or interesting letters get published in credible platforms (i.e. newspapers and TV) - as determined by the Editors or the OpEd review boards depending on the governance of the particular platform. > and by disagreeing and arguing, we get closer to the truth. Agreed - but that has nothing to do with allowing all view points and anyone with an idea, no matter how dangerous or how bad. Hell, even in full page advertisements, Newspapers can and will choose not to take your money if it's something that they think is harmful or antithetical to their platform. And they always have. This isn't new or unique. >It's sad that more and more people are taking your view, which is that people can publish contrary opinions but there's no reason in particular to do so. What I'm trying to share with you is that you are the outlier here. What everyone is describing is more or less status quo prior to social media taking an "anything goes" stance. That has never been the reality prior to that.
    - slibhb 5y ago
      > Yes... that are heavily curated by the Editors. They don't publish every OpEd, nor every Letter to the Editor they get. Yes, they post dissenting viewpoints constantly - that is the function. But that isn't free speech at all in the context of social media and what you're describing. It's exactly free speech in the context I'm describing; the idea that dissent is good and everyone gets their say. Social media is free and open so it's quite clear that the bar for curation is going to be lower than a newspaper with finite space. > Again, not everyone - not even most people get their say. Certainly none of the rantings and ravings get published. They sure did on Twitter. Virtually everyone should get their say. The bar for censorship should be extremely high. > Agreed - but that has nothing to do with allowing all view points and anyone with an idea, no matter how dangerous or how bad. Yes it does. How could it not? And who determines what is "dangerous or bad"? > What I'm trying to share with you is that you are the outlier here. What everyone is describing is more or less status quo prior to social media taking an "anything goes" stance. That has never been the reality prior to that. It used to be the case that most speech was in-person and local. Most people were relatively tolerant and there wasn't a lot of curation. There was a consolidation in the 20th century, which is what you're referring to. Now things are opening back up.
- the_doctah 5y ago
  Twitter is only barely comparable to a newspaper, and only in the ways that fit your narrative. It's almost like new technologies force us into new ways of thinking about things.

jcranmer 5y ago

> Moderation on HN is based on tone and quality, not content. ... That is still content-based moderation, since it's based on the actual text being written and not the circumstances (time, place, manner) of its writing.

slibhb 5y ago
Content may have been a poor word choice. What I meant is that comments here are rarely moderated because the message in the comment is deemed wrong by the moderators.
- tptacek 5y ago
  Sure they are. Broad classes of messages are forbidden on HN. No matter what tone you use, you can't disparage nationalities, genders, or races here, or make arguments that would tend to have that effect; you can't attempt to psychiatrically diagnose other commenters; you can't question the good faith of a commenter here, or suggest that they're shills; you can't collect personal facts about other commenters and marshal them as arguments; the list goes on. These aren't tonal issues, they're substantive. What might set them apart is how sweeping they are.