3 ms·

HN has a human moderator who decides what is and isn't in alignment with the HN community. His action to remove posts he finds egregious is his personal express

HN has a human moderator who decides what is and isn't in alignment with the HN community. His action to remove posts he finds egregious is his personal expression of speech - he very frequently writes comments explaining why he chose to remove a comment. The act of removing content is itself an expressive act which deserves government protection.

radford-neal 4y ago
But "acts" that aren't obviously speech acts are not generally regarded as speech. For example, you have the freedom to say, "nobody should be allowed to paint their house pink", but you don't have the freedom to act on this view, by over-painting someone else's pink house. Similarly, free speech gives one the right to say, "this post ought to be removed", but it does not follow that the right to free speech allows one to actually remove the post. Of course, it might be that there are other reasons why one has the right to remove the post, but arguments about "free speech" or "compelled speech" seem to miss the point.
- kevinmchugh 4y ago
  If someone paints my house pink without my authorization, we call that graffiti. If someone spams a site I own, surely that is also graffiti then?
  - radford-neal 4y ago
    If someone paints your house pink without your authorization, you do indeed have cause for legal complaint. But one would not usually say that your free speech rights have been violated (unless in painting it, they covered up some speech of yours).
    - Volundr 4y ago
      I'd say my free speech was violated if I wasn't allowed to remove their graffiti from my house, which is what is being discussed here.
      - radford-neal 4y ago
        If someone put legible graffiti on your house, and you weren't allowed to remove it, and it thus appeared that you endorse whatever the graffiti is saying (not to mention having to encounter it yourself all day), then that would indeed be compelled speech. But we're not really talking about that. A site not removing a post is not an endorsement of the post, especially if they are legally required to not remove the post. I'm not saying that prohibiting removal of posts is necessarily a good idea. It can certainly be argued that the company providing the forum ought to be allowed to do whatever they want. But, for better or worse, "people/companies should be able to do whatever they want" is not a principle of US law. As far as I know, US states can make it illegal for anyone to cook hot dogs after 3pm on Wednesdays. If challenged in court, I think they don't even have to provide any rationale for this - it's enough that it is a law properly passed by the legislature. And of course US states have numerous less nonsensical laws regulating businesses, including things like prohibiting businesses from engaging in racial discrimination, or listening in on telephone conversations.
treis 4y ago
This is a double edged sword. If we consider this moderation as speech then dang becomes liable for it. The section 230 protection is: >No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. A separate concept of speech by moderation isn't covered by this. At least not obviously and clearly as if we treat posts as speech by the user alone.
bsdetector 4y ago
Dang publishing a moderation list is clearly freedom of speech, dang moderating is clearly censorship (even if legal and you like the result). The speech/censorship dichotomy could be solved by users choosing what moderation they want. Just like with adblockers you can add custom rules and choose between UBlock list, EasyList, and so on, but most people just go with the default. It's the same idea as showdead, with users choosing for themselves what speech to hear or ignore. Pretty much everybody will use "dang's list" and get the same HN as they have today - unless the valuable conversations start being visible on another, more competitive moderation list. If somebody is unhappy with the result they can make their own moderation list, and choose to publish it or not.
- Volundr 4y ago
  The content I choose to allow on my platform is an inherent part of my free speech. The government forcing me to carry content I don't want to on my platform is a violation of my free speech. There is no getting around that.
  - bsdetector 4y ago
    The government is not forcing you to carry or not carry content, they're forcing you to take responsibility for what you selectively publish ("allow" as you put it) and not for content you simply repeat without looking at. It's the same principle as in other areas like when you know or should have known about a hazard on your property you become liable for it. In the case of a forum, moderation implies that you should have known what the content was and so are liable for it. If I was running a forum I'd certainly want a Chinese wall between hosting and moderation, and a record of all comments moderators actually viewed (from reports and through normal use) to use as an affirmative defense should 230 be interpreted as in this ruling.
- kevinmchugh 4y ago
  It's certainly technically possible to build a site with moderation like that. It might be preferable for many consumers. There's no obligation that all forums must work that way.

radford-neal 4y ago

But "acts" that aren't obviously speech acts are not generally regarded as speech. For example, you have the freedom to say, "nobody should be allowed to paint their house pink", but you don't have the freedom to act on this view, by over-painting someone else's pink house. Similarly, free speech gives one the right to say, "this post ought to be removed", but it does not follow that the right to free speech allows one to actually remove the post. Of course, it might be that there are other reasons why one has the right to remove the post, but arguments about "free speech" or "compelled speech" seem to miss the point.

kevinmchugh 4y ago
If someone paints my house pink without my authorization, we call that graffiti. If someone spams a site I own, surely that is also graffiti then?
- radford-neal 4y ago
  If someone paints your house pink without your authorization, you do indeed have cause for legal complaint. But one would not usually say that your free speech rights have been violated (unless in painting it, they covered up some speech of yours).
  - Volundr 4y ago
    I'd say my free speech was violated if I wasn't allowed to remove their graffiti from my house, which is what is being discussed here.
    - radford-neal 4y ago
      If someone put legible graffiti on your house, and you weren't allowed to remove it, and it thus appeared that you endorse whatever the graffiti is saying (not to mention having to encounter it yourself all day), then that would indeed be compelled speech. But we're not really talking about that. A site not removing a post is not an endorsement of the post, especially if they are legally required to not remove the post. I'm not saying that prohibiting removal of posts is necessarily a good idea. It can certainly be argued that the company providing the forum ought to be allowed to do whatever they want. But, for better or worse, "people/companies should be able to do whatever they want" is not a principle of US law. As far as I know, US states can make it illegal for anyone to cook hot dogs after 3pm on Wednesdays. If challenged in court, I think they don't even have to provide any rationale for this - it's enough that it is a law properly passed by the legislature. And of course US states have numerous less nonsensical laws regulating businesses, including things like prohibiting businesses from engaging in racial discrimination, or listening in on telephone conversations.

treis 4y ago

This is a double edged sword. If we consider this moderation as speech then dang becomes liable for it. The section 230 protection is: >No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. A separate concept of speech by moderation isn't covered by this. At least not obviously and clearly as if we treat posts as speech by the user alone.

bsdetector 4y ago

Dang publishing a moderation list is clearly freedom of speech, dang moderating is clearly censorship (even if legal and you like the result). The speech/censorship dichotomy could be solved by users choosing what moderation they want. Just like with adblockers you can add custom rules and choose between UBlock list, EasyList, and so on, but most people just go with the default. It's the same idea as showdead, with users choosing for themselves what speech to hear or ignore. Pretty much everybody will use "dang's list" and get the same HN as they have today - unless the valuable conversations start being visible on another, more competitive moderation list. If somebody is unhappy with the result they can make their own moderation list, and choose to publish it or not.

Volundr 4y ago
The content I choose to allow on my platform is an inherent part of my free speech. The government forcing me to carry content I don't want to on my platform is a violation of my free speech. There is no getting around that.
- bsdetector 4y ago
  The government is not forcing you to carry or not carry content, they're forcing you to take responsibility for what you selectively publish ("allow" as you put it) and not for content you simply repeat without looking at. It's the same principle as in other areas like when you know or should have known about a hazard on your property you become liable for it. In the case of a forum, moderation implies that you should have known what the content was and so are liable for it. If I was running a forum I'd certainly want a Chinese wall between hosting and moderation, and a record of all comments moderators actually viewed (from reports and through normal use) to use as an affirmative defense should 230 be interpreted as in this ruling.
kevinmchugh 4y ago
It's certainly technically possible to build a site with moderation like that. It might be preferable for many consumers. There's no obligation that all forums must work that way.