4 ms·
It continues to amaze me how many people, even here on HN, just parrot various (factually incorrect) talking points from various groups. Others pick a single d
by LatteLazy 4y ago
It continues to amaze me how many people, even here on HN, just parrot various (factually incorrect) talking points from various groups. Others pick a single desired outcome (less moderation) and refuse to address any of the resulting outcomes (Nazi and Terrorist propaganda on all major sites for instance).
- untech 4y agoI think the terms “Nazi”, “terrorist” and “propaganda” won’t help you, if you want to have a complex view of the world.
- LatteLazy 4y agoI really just mean actual self-described neo-nazis...
- untech 4y agoWell, for the audience of Russian highly regulated TV, news sites and social networks, the invasion of Ukraine was necessary because the poor neighbour was suffering under a regime of “actual self-described Neo-Nazis”. Russian Ministry of Defence even reports its daily results in terms of ”Neo-Nazis eliminated“. My parents are consumers of Russian media, and it is impossible to discuss the war with them, because they talk and think with these flexible terms like “Nazi”, “terrorist” and “propaganda”. And they are not unintelligent people. I wish citizens of the free world would be more careful with their freedoms. Democracy and autocracy is a spectrum, and the slide towards dictatorship, from my experience, could be gradual and subtle.
- LatteLazy 4y agoI am a little confused by your point. I don't disagree, I just don't see it as dictatorial for people to be allowed to decide what happens in their communities. In fact, I think they only way any community can actually function is to have the right to exclude bad content and bad actors. That's true for a church or a book club or hacker news or facebook or anyone else.
- untech 4y agoWell, I agree that moderation is useful for communities. I disagree that moderation standards should be defined by a regulator. On reddit, different communities have different moderation policies. Same for various chat groups. And there are resources with no moderation, like anonymous boards. This is fine. If you don’t like moderation policy of your community, argue for a change or create a fork. But don’t involve the government in it.
- LatteLazy 4y agoI don't think the regulator should define moderation standards. I am not sure what gave you that idea? That is not the current system OR the result of removing s.230. Though removing s230 would mean courts were much much more involved and moderations was much much heavier (or non-existent al-la 4Chan etc).
- x86_64Ubuntu 4y agoThey aren't refusing to address it as much as they want that outcome. The Right in the US is tired of being hamstrung with fact-checkers when spreading dubious claims, so the only remaining avenue is to remove moderation altogether. If sites die because they become a Nazi and spam cesspool, then so be it.