5 ms·

Censorship is when the government tells you what you can and can't publish on your platform.

commandlinefan 4y ago
No, government censorship is when the government tells you what you can and can't publish. "Private" censorship isn't prohibited by the first amendment (in the United States), but it's still censorship. Still, there's more and more evidence that the U.S. government has been behind the latest private organization censorship push.
- pstuart 4y ago
  Should misinformation be amplified?
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    The problem is who is going to determine what is misinformation and what percentage of accurate information will be classified as misinformation.
    - commandlinefan 4y ago
      > who is going to determine what is misinformation Furthermore... if your main concern about Musk taking over Twitter is that certain information (of any kind) is going to be shared, then you're concerned about the existence of the unregulated internet in general. Not only does the "they're a private company, they can censor whatever they want" not apply here, it's turned on its head.
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        I think you are reading into my comment more than you should. I don't really have concerns over Musk taking over. I think Musk is less likely to ban what some people call misinformation than the current Twitter leadership and I think, at least in the current climate, that it is better to allow misinformation then it is to ban it.
        pstuart 4y ago
        My concern is that Musk will open it back up to anybody, including the former president. I take no pleasure in that ban but it is unfortunately appropriate.
        _-david-_ 4y ago
        Did you read Twitter's post explaining which of his tweets were inciting violence? There were 2 tweets >The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” And >“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” There is no way any reasonable and objective person could come to the conclusion that either of those are inciting violence. Perhaps you think Trump deserves a ban, but Twitter's reasoning is wrong.
        pstuart 4y ago
        This is dangerous territory for dialog but I'm going to give it a go the best I can. I have no desire to demonize "the other side" but want to point out observations: The followers of Trump seems like a cult. He was shockingly prescient in his statement about being able to shoot someone on 5th Ave and not lose a vote. Stochastic terrorism is a real thing, and he's not afraid to engage in it (see his comments about Mitch McConnell and his wife, re: death threats). His Big Lie has eroded trust in our electoral process and has emboldened a movement to seize control of the process to subvert democracy in the future. I could go on and on, but Trump engages in dangerous speech which should not be amplified, let alone celebrated. This is a cherry on top of the right wing movement to demonize the opposition and further ensure the political divide we have today will not heal. I expect plenty of downvotes and hate for this comment (should it be noticed), but we're in new territory here. Free speech used to comprise public protest, letters to the editor, publishing books, etc. Now we have the digital equivalent of IV drug consumption and the corresponding danger of what that brings. I do believe in the value of having a marketplace of ideas, but I also believe that markets are well-served by proper regulation.
    - pstuart 4y ago
      That is indeed a problem, but it doesn't address the question. Does there exist speech that should not be amplified? Is HN depriving you of your rights if @dang deletes your comments or posts that do not follow the community guidelines (aka Terms Of Service)?
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        The question was specifically misinformation: >Should misinformation be amplified? Obviously (almost) everybody agrees that there should be some speech that should not just not be amplified but banned. Child porn is an example.

No, government censorship is when the government tells you what you can and can't publish. "Private" censorship isn't prohibited by the first amendment (in the United States), but it's still censorship. Still, there's more and more evidence that the U.S. government has been behind the latest private organization censorship push.

pstuart 4y ago
Should misinformation be amplified?
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  The problem is who is going to determine what is misinformation and what percentage of accurate information will be classified as misinformation.
  - commandlinefan 4y ago
    > who is going to determine what is misinformation Furthermore... if your main concern about Musk taking over Twitter is that certain information (of any kind) is going to be shared, then you're concerned about the existence of the unregulated internet in general. Not only does the "they're a private company, they can censor whatever they want" not apply here, it's turned on its head.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      I think you are reading into my comment more than you should. I don't really have concerns over Musk taking over. I think Musk is less likely to ban what some people call misinformation than the current Twitter leadership and I think, at least in the current climate, that it is better to allow misinformation then it is to ban it.
      - pstuart 4y ago
        My concern is that Musk will open it back up to anybody, including the former president. I take no pleasure in that ban but it is unfortunately appropriate.
        _-david-_ 4y ago
        Did you read Twitter's post explaining which of his tweets were inciting violence? There were 2 tweets >The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” And >“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” There is no way any reasonable and objective person could come to the conclusion that either of those are inciting violence. Perhaps you think Trump deserves a ban, but Twitter's reasoning is wrong.
        pstuart 4y ago
        This is dangerous territory for dialog but I'm going to give it a go the best I can. I have no desire to demonize "the other side" but want to point out observations: The followers of Trump seems like a cult. He was shockingly prescient in his statement about being able to shoot someone on 5th Ave and not lose a vote. Stochastic terrorism is a real thing, and he's not afraid to engage in it (see his comments about Mitch McConnell and his wife, re: death threats). His Big Lie has eroded trust in our electoral process and has emboldened a movement to seize control of the process to subvert democracy in the future. I could go on and on, but Trump engages in dangerous speech which should not be amplified, let alone celebrated. This is a cherry on top of the right wing movement to demonize the opposition and further ensure the political divide we have today will not heal. I expect plenty of downvotes and hate for this comment (should it be noticed), but we're in new territory here. Free speech used to comprise public protest, letters to the editor, publishing books, etc. Now we have the digital equivalent of IV drug consumption and the corresponding danger of what that brings. I do believe in the value of having a marketplace of ideas, but I also believe that markets are well-served by proper regulation.
  - pstuart 4y ago
    That is indeed a problem, but it doesn't address the question. Does there exist speech that should not be amplified? Is HN depriving you of your rights if @dang deletes your comments or posts that do not follow the community guidelines (aka Terms Of Service)?
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      The question was specifically misinformation: >Should misinformation be amplified? Obviously (almost) everybody agrees that there should be some speech that should not just not be amplified but banned. Child porn is an example.