5 ms·

The irony is that this is being posted in a heavily moderated forum. The rule of BBS, forums, newsgroups, chat rooms, etc has always been and will always be th

The irony is that this is being posted in a heavily moderated forum. The rule of BBS, forums, newsgroups, chat rooms, etc has always been and will always be that quality is proportional to the willingness of the mods to wield that ban hammer. As for the free speech absolutists they are perfectly free to go post whatever nonsense they want on 4chan, 8kun, or Truth Social (heh). The rest of us are free to not go visit those places, and advertisers are free to not run ads there and have their ads associated with content that will tarnish their brand image.

zaroth 4y ago
The issue here actually has nothing to do with private moderation. It has to do with the USG lying to platforms that unflattering stories are “Russian disinformation” to get them taken down, or telling platforms they are responsible for killing people for carrying informed scientific debate that goes against the USG approved viewpoint. The platforms did not want to censor these accounts, they even told the owners they would not be. But then the Whitehouse came in and said they needed to do more about these specific people, and Biden went on TV and said socials were killing people by carrying these messages.
commandlinefan 4y ago
But in this case we're not talking about shutting down trolls - we're talking about excluding political opponents, by actual elected politicians.
- Covzire 4y ago
  - tohnjitor 4y ago
    Some of us were already apprehensive about going to the doctor before the pandemic.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    Which intervention did they shut down discussion of, and how many lives would have been saved if the public had heard about it?
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    > they ended up killing a lot more people than they saved. That's a strong claim in need of support.
- itsoktocry 4y ago
  >we're not talking about shutting down trolls - we're talking about excluding political opponents, by actual elected politicians. "shutting down trolls" is precisely the language used when shutting down wrongthink, though. Everyone is a "paid Russian troll" or a "paid shortseller troll".
giantg2 4y ago
"The irony is that this is being posted in a heavily moderated forum." I don't think there's any irony in this. The moderation decision has traditionally been up to those mods. What is fundamentally different with this (edit: "this" as in topic of the government forcing moderation through proposed legislation) is how it is now government mandated. Personally, I feel that government mandates of censorship actually compells "speech" on the part of the mods/platform. This violates free speech principles, albeit from a different part than most talk about (suppressing speech vs compelling it).
- socialismisok 4y ago
  Was it government mandated? I could see someone making the case that the government "sure would appreciate if someone removed this meddlesome priest", but I don't see a mandate anywhere.
  - r3trohack3r 4y ago
    The article covers this and precedent.
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      The article does not suggest there was a mandate. It implies there was maybe a mandate but mostly just Biden saying things and the companies listening.
      - r3trohack3r 4y ago
        > As the Supreme Court has long recognized and Justice Thomas explained in a concurring opinion just last year, “[t]he government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.” > In 1963, the Supreme Court, deciding Bantam Books v. Sullivan, held that “public officers’ thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against” booksellers who carried materials containing obscenity could constitute a First Amendment violation. The same reasoning should apply to the Biden administration campaign to pressure tech companies into enforcing its preferred viewpoints. > It remains to be seen whether Bhattacharya and Kulldorff will be able to show that Fauci and Collins explicitly ordered tech companies to censor them and their Great Barrington Declaration. Fair - I’m overstating.
junofan 4y ago
I think the article is about jawboning. Any thoughts there?
peteradio 4y ago
> The irony is that this is being posted in a heavily moderated forum. How is that ironic? Irony would be this post getting flagged and removed.
refurb 4y ago
Are you saying HN is moderating content on this website at the direction of the government? Because that’s what the article is about.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jonhohle 4y ago
The issue linked isn’t about mods enforcing community rules - it’s about the government pressuring (under cover of law) communities to censor content that the government doesn’t like. Regarding COVID, we know that much of what the government was disseminating was as much misinformation as that coming from Drs. that were saying the opposite. They were not trying to suppress information because they had any scientific authority, but because it ran counter to their strategy. Having a government attempt to squash public scientific debate is very concerning and completely different from mods booting belligerent or abrasive users.
RichardCNormos 4y ago
Freedom to moderate one's platform is not freedom from consequences for doing so. There will be regulatory, legal, and investigative punishment for Big Tech within the next 10 years, as a direct consequence of their style of moderation. It would be more understandable if social media, for example, advertised "only opinions consistent with current left-wing ideology are welcome here", then proceeded to ban anyone presenting right-wing content. But they don't do this. There was a time when Twitter called itself "the free speech wing of the free speech party". In less than ten years, they became a mouthpiece for the government, banning any countervailing thought. People like me will gleefully vote for any politician who promises to punish Big Tech for this doublespeak. And there are way more of me than you would like to believe.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  And ironically, such punishment may chip away at the First Amendment also, because the power to punish Big Tech for how it mediates communication is more power in the government's hands to curtail private rights. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but such power has unintended consequences and must be ceded very thoughtfully. We are forever charting a course between a Brave New World and a 1984 future.
  - staticman2 4y ago
    The previous president called the news media the enemies of the people and said he wanted to open up libel laws so he can sue the news media and win. A plan to "increase free speech" which actually reduces it would not necessarily be an unintended consequence.
r3trohack3r 4y ago
This is the same copy-pasta posted to every submission about big tech censorship. > The irony is that this is being posted in a heavily moderated forum. Unless you’re implying that the U.S. government is involved in moderating legal speech on this forum - I do believe you are missing the point.
crisdux 4y ago
I don't think moderation automatically means censorship. In my opinion, HN mainly tries to enforce a productive decorum, which makes this board better than others. Most people who are concerned about government censorship are not free speech absolutists. You are invoking the logical fallacy of appeal to extremes.
naasking 4y ago
Talk about missing the point.

zaroth 4y ago

The issue here actually has nothing to do with private moderation. It has to do with the USG lying to platforms that unflattering stories are “Russian disinformation” to get them taken down, or telling platforms they are responsible for killing people for carrying informed scientific debate that goes against the USG approved viewpoint. The platforms did not want to censor these accounts, they even told the owners they would not be. But then the Whitehouse came in and said they needed to do more about these specific people, and Biden went on TV and said socials were killing people by carrying these messages.

commandlinefan 4y ago

But in this case we're not talking about shutting down trolls - we're talking about excluding political opponents, by actual elected politicians.

Covzire 4y ago
- tohnjitor 4y ago
  Some of us were already apprehensive about going to the doctor before the pandemic.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  Which intervention did they shut down discussion of, and how many lives would have been saved if the public had heard about it?
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  > they ended up killing a lot more people than they saved. That's a strong claim in need of support.
itsoktocry 4y ago
>we're not talking about shutting down trolls - we're talking about excluding political opponents, by actual elected politicians. "shutting down trolls" is precisely the language used when shutting down wrongthink, though. Everyone is a "paid Russian troll" or a "paid shortseller troll".

giantg2 4y ago

"The irony is that this is being posted in a heavily moderated forum." I don't think there's any irony in this. The moderation decision has traditionally been up to those mods. What is fundamentally different with this (edit: "this" as in topic of the government forcing moderation through proposed legislation) is how it is now government mandated. Personally, I feel that government mandates of censorship actually compells "speech" on the part of the mods/platform. This violates free speech principles, albeit from a different part than most talk about (suppressing speech vs compelling it).

socialismisok 4y ago
Was it government mandated? I could see someone making the case that the government "sure would appreciate if someone removed this meddlesome priest", but I don't see a mandate anywhere.
- r3trohack3r 4y ago
  The article covers this and precedent.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    The article does not suggest there was a mandate. It implies there was maybe a mandate but mostly just Biden saying things and the companies listening.
    - r3trohack3r 4y ago
      > As the Supreme Court has long recognized and Justice Thomas explained in a concurring opinion just last year, “[t]he government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.” > In 1963, the Supreme Court, deciding Bantam Books v. Sullivan, held that “public officers’ thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against” booksellers who carried materials containing obscenity could constitute a First Amendment violation. The same reasoning should apply to the Biden administration campaign to pressure tech companies into enforcing its preferred viewpoints. > It remains to be seen whether Bhattacharya and Kulldorff will be able to show that Fauci and Collins explicitly ordered tech companies to censor them and their Great Barrington Declaration. Fair - I’m overstating.

junofan 4y ago

I think the article is about jawboning. Any thoughts there?

peteradio 4y ago

> The irony is that this is being posted in a heavily moderated forum. How is that ironic? Irony would be this post getting flagged and removed.

refurb 4y ago

Are you saying HN is moderating content on this website at the direction of the government? Because that’s what the article is about.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jonhohle 4y ago

The issue linked isn’t about mods enforcing community rules - it’s about the government pressuring (under cover of law) communities to censor content that the government doesn’t like. Regarding COVID, we know that much of what the government was disseminating was as much misinformation as that coming from Drs. that were saying the opposite. They were not trying to suppress information because they had any scientific authority, but because it ran counter to their strategy. Having a government attempt to squash public scientific debate is very concerning and completely different from mods booting belligerent or abrasive users.

RichardCNormos 4y ago

Freedom to moderate one's platform is not freedom from consequences for doing so. There will be regulatory, legal, and investigative punishment for Big Tech within the next 10 years, as a direct consequence of their style of moderation. It would be more understandable if social media, for example, advertised "only opinions consistent with current left-wing ideology are welcome here", then proceeded to ban anyone presenting right-wing content. But they don't do this. There was a time when Twitter called itself "the free speech wing of the free speech party". In less than ten years, they became a mouthpiece for the government, banning any countervailing thought. People like me will gleefully vote for any politician who promises to punish Big Tech for this doublespeak. And there are way more of me than you would like to believe.

shadowgovt 4y ago
And ironically, such punishment may chip away at the First Amendment also, because the power to punish Big Tech for how it mediates communication is more power in the government's hands to curtail private rights. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but such power has unintended consequences and must be ceded very thoughtfully. We are forever charting a course between a Brave New World and a 1984 future.
- staticman2 4y ago
  The previous president called the news media the enemies of the people and said he wanted to open up libel laws so he can sue the news media and win. A plan to "increase free speech" which actually reduces it would not necessarily be an unintended consequence.

r3trohack3r 4y ago

This is the same copy-pasta posted to every submission about big tech censorship. > The irony is that this is being posted in a heavily moderated forum. Unless you’re implying that the U.S. government is involved in moderating legal speech on this forum - I do believe you are missing the point.

crisdux 4y ago

I don't think moderation automatically means censorship. In my opinion, HN mainly tries to enforce a productive decorum, which makes this board better than others. Most people who are concerned about government censorship are not free speech absolutists. You are invoking the logical fallacy of appeal to extremes.

naasking 4y ago

Talk about missing the point.