4 ms·

> so HN wants Twitter moderation and censorship but a country censoring videos and text books is a big no no. I have no big problems with websites limiting wha

> so HN wants Twitter moderation and censorship but a country censoring videos and text books is a big no no. I have no big problems with websites limiting what users can post (HN is also ding this!), but I have big problems with politicians having ability to for example take down content criticizing them. Content that should be made illegal to post anywhere at all is in my opinion extremely rare, and basically all censorship system should censor less. Sadly, some things needs to be blocked and once system exists it inevitably gets misused. Not sure what the proper solution is.

EdwardDiego 4y ago
> I have big problems with politicians having ability to for example take down content criticizing them Is this a hypothetical? Because plenty of content on FB criticising New Zealand's politicians.
- matkoniecz 4y ago
  > Is this a hypothetical? depends on a country > Because plenty of content on FB criticising New Zealand's politicians. This does not mean that no content was taken down solely for criticizing politicians.
  - EdwardDiego 4y ago
    Considering I can't prove a negative, are you able to prove a positive? Because trust me, New Zealand's opposition parties, social media, and the real media, would be on that like flies on shit if there was even a hint that it had happened. All it would take is someone saying "Wtf, my FB post calling Jacinda Ardern a pretty communist was mysteriously deleted." I guess it's good to live in a nation where corruption is low, and the rule of law applies to all, the media is free, and who deliberates on questions of law isn't decided by politicians. Because I know that any of the behaviour you posit would be absolutely called out. Like the time a New Zealand Prime Minister sent the Police in to find an investigative journalist's sources, because it embarrassed him and his government. Or the time that the New Zealand Defence Force sicced the internal intelligence service on the same journalist to find his sources because he embarrassed them... https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/104638742/police-apologise-to-nicky-hager-over-dirty-politics-raid-as-part-of-settlement https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/104638742/police-apo... https://i.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130640313/the-dirty-politics-behind-the-sis-apology-to-nicky-hager https://i.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130640313/the-dirty-politics-b... The fact that a) these things happened concerns me but b) that it was exposed to the light heartens me. So yeah, if you've got evidence of what you posit actually occurring, please share it.
    - matkoniecz 4y ago
      > Considering I can't prove a negative, are you able to prove a positive? Yes. In communist Poland "You submit the content for classification. With documentation. And they send it back with a detailed report of what needs to be censored" was used and designed to keep criticism of ruling class and ruling system out of public view. ---------------------------- Note that I am not claiming that NZ is currently abusing this system, or that NZ system is intended to provide such use. I was responding to > Because plenty of content on FB criticising New Zealand's politicians. that is not really indicating anything, except lack of USSR-level censorship. Maybe confusion was caused because I responded to > But that sort of censorship is fine. You submit the content for classification. With documentation. And they send it back with a detailed report of what needs to be censored and why. treating is a claim in general, not specifically about NZ (I do not want to claim anything about NZ as I am not familiar with it)
    - BurningFrog 4y ago
      > All it would take is someone saying "Wtf, my FB post calling Jacinda Ardern a pretty communist was mysteriously deleted." The post saying that would also be deleted in that scenario.
      - quinndexter 4y ago
        No one cares if one domino falls over. But a whole bunch in a row is quite a spectacle.
      - EdwardDiego 4y ago
        Good thing there's more than one social network then.
  - quixoticelixer- 4y ago
    No content was taken down solely for criticising politicians
disordinary 4y ago
New Zealand has very strong separation between policy makers (the government) and the agencies that enforce policies. The government can't tell the police what to do, they can't tell treasury what to do, they can't tell defence what to do, etc. All they can do is write policy, approve funding, and request help. Therefore, they'll help set policy for what needs to be taken down, but a politician will not be able to take down content, they may request the censor office does this, but they won't be able to force them or do it themselves. NZ is an outlier in the world, but it is a very strong liberal democracy. It has very low levels of corruption, very high levels of public confidence in government, very transparent ways of operating, and very strong media and public participation to hold the public sector to account. Other countries might abuse this system, but I doubt New Zealand is.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > they can't tell defence what to do The Prime Minister can only exercise control over the military by policy? They have no input to operations at all? Seems extraordinary. Wikipedia says that ministers exercise authority.
  - cormacrelf 4y ago
    Yes, it's a bit of a stretch. The whole idea is that ministers do in fact make decisions so that somebody can be held democratically accountable for them. But sometimes we limit their decisions to appointments, i.e. choosing who to delegate power to. If that person messes up then we hold the minister accountable for putting their faith in the wrong person. The comment was pushing back on the idea that politicians are the ones doing the censoring. In that sense they are largely correct -- censorship is one of those powers you do not want to give directly to the politicians. And you can set it up so they don't get it. That's all.
- osigurdson 4y ago
  Do Ardern’s political opponents feel the same way?
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
williamcotton 4y ago
The solution is for us Kiwis to decide. You can worry about your own government.

EdwardDiego 4y ago

> I have big problems with politicians having ability to for example take down content criticizing them Is this a hypothetical? Because plenty of content on FB criticising New Zealand's politicians.

matkoniecz 4y ago
> Is this a hypothetical? depends on a country > Because plenty of content on FB criticising New Zealand's politicians. This does not mean that no content was taken down solely for criticizing politicians.
- EdwardDiego 4y ago
  Considering I can't prove a negative, are you able to prove a positive? Because trust me, New Zealand's opposition parties, social media, and the real media, would be on that like flies on shit if there was even a hint that it had happened. All it would take is someone saying "Wtf, my FB post calling Jacinda Ardern a pretty communist was mysteriously deleted." I guess it's good to live in a nation where corruption is low, and the rule of law applies to all, the media is free, and who deliberates on questions of law isn't decided by politicians. Because I know that any of the behaviour you posit would be absolutely called out. Like the time a New Zealand Prime Minister sent the Police in to find an investigative journalist's sources, because it embarrassed him and his government. Or the time that the New Zealand Defence Force sicced the internal intelligence service on the same journalist to find his sources because he embarrassed them... https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/104638742/police-apologise-to-nicky-hager-over-dirty-politics-raid-as-part-of-settlement https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/104638742/police-apo... https://i.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130640313/the-dirty-politics-behind-the-sis-apology-to-nicky-hager https://i.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130640313/the-dirty-politics-b... The fact that a) these things happened concerns me but b) that it was exposed to the light heartens me. So yeah, if you've got evidence of what you posit actually occurring, please share it.
  - matkoniecz 4y ago
    > Considering I can't prove a negative, are you able to prove a positive? Yes. In communist Poland "You submit the content for classification. With documentation. And they send it back with a detailed report of what needs to be censored" was used and designed to keep criticism of ruling class and ruling system out of public view. ---------------------------- Note that I am not claiming that NZ is currently abusing this system, or that NZ system is intended to provide such use. I was responding to > Because plenty of content on FB criticising New Zealand's politicians. that is not really indicating anything, except lack of USSR-level censorship. Maybe confusion was caused because I responded to > But that sort of censorship is fine. You submit the content for classification. With documentation. And they send it back with a detailed report of what needs to be censored and why. treating is a claim in general, not specifically about NZ (I do not want to claim anything about NZ as I am not familiar with it)
  - BurningFrog 4y ago
    > All it would take is someone saying "Wtf, my FB post calling Jacinda Ardern a pretty communist was mysteriously deleted." The post saying that would also be deleted in that scenario.
    - quinndexter 4y ago
      No one cares if one domino falls over. But a whole bunch in a row is quite a spectacle.
    - EdwardDiego 4y ago
      Good thing there's more than one social network then.
- quixoticelixer- 4y ago
  No content was taken down solely for criticising politicians

disordinary 4y ago

New Zealand has very strong separation between policy makers (the government) and the agencies that enforce policies. The government can't tell the police what to do, they can't tell treasury what to do, they can't tell defence what to do, etc. All they can do is write policy, approve funding, and request help. Therefore, they'll help set policy for what needs to be taken down, but a politician will not be able to take down content, they may request the censor office does this, but they won't be able to force them or do it themselves. NZ is an outlier in the world, but it is a very strong liberal democracy. It has very low levels of corruption, very high levels of public confidence in government, very transparent ways of operating, and very strong media and public participation to hold the public sector to account. Other countries might abuse this system, but I doubt New Zealand is.

chrisseaton 4y ago
> they can't tell defence what to do The Prime Minister can only exercise control over the military by policy? They have no input to operations at all? Seems extraordinary. Wikipedia says that ministers exercise authority.
- cormacrelf 4y ago
  Yes, it's a bit of a stretch. The whole idea is that ministers do in fact make decisions so that somebody can be held democratically accountable for them. But sometimes we limit their decisions to appointments, i.e. choosing who to delegate power to. If that person messes up then we hold the minister accountable for putting their faith in the wrong person. The comment was pushing back on the idea that politicians are the ones doing the censoring. In that sense they are largely correct -- censorship is one of those powers you do not want to give directly to the politicians. And you can set it up so they don't get it. That's all.
osigurdson 4y ago
Do Ardern’s political opponents feel the same way?
RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago

williamcotton 4y ago

The solution is for us Kiwis to decide. You can worry about your own government.