3 ms·

There already is their own youtube. Gab hasn't taken over. Parler hasn't taken over. Truth hasn't taken over. Banning extreme bigots from major content generati

There already is their own youtube. Gab hasn't taken over. Parler hasn't taken over. Truth hasn't taken over. Banning extreme bigots from major content generation platforms hasn't actually led to the terrible outcomes people predict.

sph 4y ago
> hasn't actually led to the terrible outcomes people predict I guess censorship is perfectly fine for most people, and that's the scariest outcome. "Too bad for them, they should have been thinking like us." No wonder we descent into authoritarianism. Thanks to well meaning crowds of well mannered citizens cheering because the big bad got ousted. https://youtu.be/BiqDZlAZygU https://youtu.be/BiqDZlAZygU
- powerhour 4y ago
  I would say that authoritarianism could work two ways: a content platform revoking someone's permission to participate (by choice) or a content platform being forced (by governments) to host content despite rules violations. I think the former is clearly preferable.
  - sph 4y ago
    Yes and no, I don't think it's quite so simple. A private company can do whatever they want and ban whoever from their platform. But can a private company that's used by 99% of the population do the same? I think there's an unexplored grey area there. If HN bans me that's not necessarily censorship, but if Twitter does so, there's an argument it could be. Censorship is not a function of who does it, it's function of scale. The bigger the audience, the more important it is that free speech is upheld. Our free speech laws have to be updated for the information and Internet era, and the era of mega corporations monopolising a huge chunk of the public space. Of course none of this would happen if open and decentralised standards were used, but that's a discussion for another time.
    - powerhour 4y ago
      If a platform is too large to be allowed to self-regulate, maybe it should just be nationalized and the suggestion algorithms deleted. That'd free the platform owners from the personal responsibility of hosting objectionable content (as is the case here) and ensure the government isn't abusing its platform to elevate some speech above others. I can't see any way to justify requiring Facebook et al to host misogynistic content at the barrel of a metaphorical gun.
    - krapp 4y ago
      > But can a private company that's used by 99% of the population do the same? Yes, because that's how rights work. The rights being debated here are freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, be careful where you draw the line in the sand and decide those rights end, because lines in the sand can be redrawn. Plus, Twitter isn't used by anywhere near 99% of the population. It isn't, despite what many people say, a primary means of discourse, communication, broadcast media or politics. It's popular but it isn't infrastructure. It isn't the public commons, it isn't a utility. It really isn't worth burning the Constitution over.
      - apostacy 4y ago
        Telegraph companies, electric companies, bus companies, and airlines had far less of a monopoly than these tech platforms. Forcing them to respect 1st amendment values is the only reasonable thing to do.
        krapp 4y ago
        The values of the First Amendment are explicitly that Congress cannot do the thing you're arguing is the only reasonable thing to do. If you want the government to take over social media and coerce speech, fine, but accept that that position is explicitly the opposite of what the First Amendment stands for.
        apostacy 4y ago
        No it isn't. Freedom of speech is an essential American principle. The First Amendment is an instantiation of that. Congress should force big tech monopolies to reflect our core values. Essentially, the first amendment is the floor, not the ceiling. People who want to minimize freedom of speech will point to the first amendment and say that restricting congress from restricting our speech is all we should have. Big tech companies should be forced to enshrine freedom of speech into their platforms, or face still government sanctions.
  - mrcheesebreeze 4y ago
    I disagree, I would rather the second option. In my opinion its far more damaging to allow sites like youtube to become so influencial in public life yet wield the power to censor anyone they don't like. I believe that social media should be tightly bound by the constitution so that they may not overstep the rights of the people. They shouldn't be allowed to ban viewpoints they don't like. They shouldn't be allowed to unreasonably collect and use data, nor come up with agreements that allow the use of important data. Quite simply I would rather trust a government that at occasionally follows the rules than near despot oligarchs who never do.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  Not only do I not believe that Tate's banning represents authoritarianism, I don't believe that preventing Tate's banning would achieve even the smallest iota against actual authoritarianism. "Hey, we kept that bigot you like so much on YouTube" won't convince a fascist who has a gun pointed at me not to shoot.
- bdcravens 4y ago
  Every platform has the ability to ban users, including HN, Stack Overflow, Slashdot, Github, etc. As do the alt sites like Truth etc. As have mailing lists and other platforms since the earliest days of the (popular) Internet.

sph 4y ago

> hasn't actually led to the terrible outcomes people predict I guess censorship is perfectly fine for most people, and that's the scariest outcome. "Too bad for them, they should have been thinking like us." No wonder we descent into authoritarianism. Thanks to well meaning crowds of well mannered citizens cheering because the big bad got ousted. https://youtu.be/BiqDZlAZygU https://youtu.be/BiqDZlAZygU

powerhour 4y ago
I would say that authoritarianism could work two ways: a content platform revoking someone's permission to participate (by choice) or a content platform being forced (by governments) to host content despite rules violations. I think the former is clearly preferable.
- sph 4y ago
  Yes and no, I don't think it's quite so simple. A private company can do whatever they want and ban whoever from their platform. But can a private company that's used by 99% of the population do the same? I think there's an unexplored grey area there. If HN bans me that's not necessarily censorship, but if Twitter does so, there's an argument it could be. Censorship is not a function of who does it, it's function of scale. The bigger the audience, the more important it is that free speech is upheld. Our free speech laws have to be updated for the information and Internet era, and the era of mega corporations monopolising a huge chunk of the public space. Of course none of this would happen if open and decentralised standards were used, but that's a discussion for another time.
  - powerhour 4y ago
    If a platform is too large to be allowed to self-regulate, maybe it should just be nationalized and the suggestion algorithms deleted. That'd free the platform owners from the personal responsibility of hosting objectionable content (as is the case here) and ensure the government isn't abusing its platform to elevate some speech above others. I can't see any way to justify requiring Facebook et al to host misogynistic content at the barrel of a metaphorical gun.
  - krapp 4y ago
    > But can a private company that's used by 99% of the population do the same? Yes, because that's how rights work. The rights being debated here are freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, be careful where you draw the line in the sand and decide those rights end, because lines in the sand can be redrawn. Plus, Twitter isn't used by anywhere near 99% of the population. It isn't, despite what many people say, a primary means of discourse, communication, broadcast media or politics. It's popular but it isn't infrastructure. It isn't the public commons, it isn't a utility. It really isn't worth burning the Constitution over.
    - apostacy 4y ago
      Telegraph companies, electric companies, bus companies, and airlines had far less of a monopoly than these tech platforms. Forcing them to respect 1st amendment values is the only reasonable thing to do.
      - krapp 4y ago
        The values of the First Amendment are explicitly that Congress cannot do the thing you're arguing is the only reasonable thing to do. If you want the government to take over social media and coerce speech, fine, but accept that that position is explicitly the opposite of what the First Amendment stands for.
        apostacy 4y ago
        No it isn't. Freedom of speech is an essential American principle. The First Amendment is an instantiation of that. Congress should force big tech monopolies to reflect our core values. Essentially, the first amendment is the floor, not the ceiling. People who want to minimize freedom of speech will point to the first amendment and say that restricting congress from restricting our speech is all we should have. Big tech companies should be forced to enshrine freedom of speech into their platforms, or face still government sanctions.
- mrcheesebreeze 4y ago
  I disagree, I would rather the second option. In my opinion its far more damaging to allow sites like youtube to become so influencial in public life yet wield the power to censor anyone they don't like. I believe that social media should be tightly bound by the constitution so that they may not overstep the rights of the people. They shouldn't be allowed to ban viewpoints they don't like. They shouldn't be allowed to unreasonably collect and use data, nor come up with agreements that allow the use of important data. Quite simply I would rather trust a government that at occasionally follows the rules than near despot oligarchs who never do.
UncleMeat 4y ago
Not only do I not believe that Tate's banning represents authoritarianism, I don't believe that preventing Tate's banning would achieve even the smallest iota against actual authoritarianism. "Hey, we kept that bigot you like so much on YouTube" won't convince a fascist who has a gun pointed at me not to shoot.
bdcravens 4y ago
Every platform has the ability to ban users, including HN, Stack Overflow, Slashdot, Github, etc. As do the alt sites like Truth etc. As have mailing lists and other platforms since the earliest days of the (popular) Internet.