6 ms·

I'm having trouble even understanding the question, because I think your usage of "free speech" means something different than is normally intended. Free expres

I'm having trouble even understanding the question, because I think your usage of "free speech" means something different than is normally intended. Free expression and free will always have an implied caveat, like "free will except where it impedes that of another". Free speech is always going to have a Venn diagram with "behavior", some of which is illegal. So if you're asking where you can go do illegal stuff, that's one question. If you're asking where you can talk about legal stuff and do legal stuff, but where you don't feel able to right now, that's more interesting.

fileeditview 2y ago
The problem is that what is legal should not be decided by social media platforms or their users but by the law & the courts. But most often this is not the case.. maybe the OP is addressing this issue.
- davidham 2y ago
  The platforms don't decide what is legal, but they do have the right, and in many cases the obligation, to moderate their platforms. They can be held liable for allowing CSAM for example. And these platforms have business goals that can be in conflict with, say, allowing anti-LGBTQ or Nazi content.
  - diggan 2y ago
    Sounds like the problem (for a platform like this) is that they have "business goals" in the first place. Freedom of speech shouldn't be up for sale, especially when it comes to discussing sensitive topics and creating a for-profit business around that would do just that.
    - text0404 2y ago
      so people shouldn't create apps/tools/sites where others can communicate with each other unless they're willing to forgo any moderation? how does that work?
      - diggan 2y ago
        Not every service with user-generated content need to try to cater to maximum freedom of expression, so it first of all doesn't apply to any service with user-generated content. Secondly, my point is that if you do have a service that is trying to optimize for freedom of expression, mixing in needing to earn money on top of that, is bound to leave you almost penny-less, as advertisers don't like an environment like that and people needing to be anonymous aren't as happy to donate.
- kypro 2y ago
  This is basically X's position – they will enforce countries speech laws, no more, no less. But OP says: > Other places such as x/twitter, has some liberty but not very much. Real subjects are not getting through. So I'm not sure if they're saying that isn't what X is doing, or that they're criticising X for not going beyond the law (illegally), or that perhaps they feel that some legal speech is not treated equally?
  - cassianoleal 2y ago
    > This is basically X's position – they will enforce countries speech laws, no more, no less. It may be their stated position, but not their practice, as has been recently demonstrated in Brazil.
  - yqtjnvou 2y ago
    > So I'm not sure if they're saying that isn't what X is doing, or that they're criticising X for not going beyond the law (illegally), or that perhaps they feel that some legal speech is not treated equally? I'm saying that posts get removed if they contain certain subjects. Nothing offensive is in them but only facts.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  Social media companies are private companies. You can set up your own servers and no government will interfere with you as long as you aren’t doing something illegal If I start spewing political speech on HN, you will soon be banned and dang and company have every right to do so.
  - diggan 2y ago
    > You can set up your own servers and no government will interfere with you as long as you aren’t doing something illegal Might have been true in the past but no longer. Once your platform gets a large enough audience, governments will try to artificially sway public opinion on the platform. This has been true for every single large social platform so far.
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      Government always tries to sway opinion. They are made of politicians. I’m not in love with Musk by any means. But do you think the Biden administration could have convinced Musk to change his moderation policy! unless they are some local jack booted thugs… https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/13/marion-county-police-newspaper-raid-charges https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/13/mari...
    - text0404 2y ago
      then don't make it a platform, just a self-hosted blog. then you can say anything you want.
- RajT88 2y ago
  The law is clear in the US: with a few carved out exemptions, the government cannot penalize you for what you say. Private platforms and citizens can do what they want. I am sure a forum where any and all speech is tolerated quickly turns to 4chan but with all kinds of extreme porn. I am sure those places exist on ToR. I do not know why you would want to go there. Ironically, a lot of the forums which value free speech will kick you out for even sounding like you have the wrong opinions.
BobaFloutist 2y ago
They also as much as said "There's places where you can do this but they're cesspools" which almost makes me feel like the real question is "Is there any way I can have the experience of moderated discussion without any risk of me being moderated?" to which the answer is 100% "Yes, your own forum, but don't be surprised if other people aren't sold on the value proposition."
- davidham 2y ago
  This is the X model. Nobody moderates Musk!
  - tmaly 2y ago
    I have friends that till get censored on X, it is free speech for some but not for others.
    - davidham 2y ago
      Yes, that's my point: it's the X model because Musk bought the platform so he can amplify himself and censor whomever he likes.
- diggan 2y ago
  > Is there any way I can have the experience of moderated discussion without any risk of me being moderated? Another answer to this is "Yes, with proper rules and moderation, you can keep your cake and eat it too". First off, have a rule that every created thread in this forum need to have some sort of "basis for discussion". Any thread that doesn't, gets closed. Secondly, have a rule that states that any posts in the threads need to be at least somehow related to the topic, and posts that are not nonsense or off-topic. Thirdly, have a moderation team that is well aligned, and favors quality posts, removing the rest of the shit. The end result is a forum where you can discuss any topic, as long as your own posts also add to the conversation, not just try to shut others down or post off-topic/nonsense. Sure, it will contain opinions you disagree with, but it won't be a cesspool of just casual racism. (These ideas are all based on a real forum online today where essentially any topic can be discussed without fear of facing real-life consequence for the opinions you hold, assuming your anonymous)
disambiguation 2y ago
It's pretty clear what he means by free speech here. In the grey area between legal and illegal are the topics we consider taboo. Many platforms simply censor these subjects, OP wants to understand why. The simplest answer is that content moderation is an unsolved problem and certain topics are expensive to moderate. Freedom of speech matters but so does the culture of conduct. Further, as a site owner you risk your reputation by the activity you permit, and taboo subjects can attract folks you don't want on your site. Hence why they end up in the cesspool.
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  Not all sites end up like that. HN is friendly to freedom of speech because the site probably doesn't attract people that are easy to act out when offended or those that like to report people whose content they do not like. Or because of the occasional comment that refocuses a discussion again. I would even argue that some more strongly moderated sites can often even be larger cesspools. You can go to Instagram and say something negative about the next random pop start or influencer and people are going to get extremely vicious. Far more so than a message board with only anonymous users. Also the amount of taboos seem to correlate with hostility for some reason.
  - yqtjnvou 2y ago
    > HN is friendly to freedom of speech because the site probably doesn't attract people that are easy to act out when offended or those that like to report people whose content they do not like. Or because of the occasional comment that refocuses a discussion again. In other words, we're dealing with over-sensitive people on the internet? Children, because those are the only ones that cannot accept the truth. And, since everyone is so easily offended, they have to be protected by content editing? No one in their right minds would spend a dime for an easily offended person. If this done, there are things at play here. > Also the amount of taboos seem to correlate with hostility for some reason. I noticed that too.
  - asdf1145 2y ago
    HN censors anything they don't like specially about their related startups/companies and is also biased to the left politically speaking

fileeditview 2y ago

The problem is that what is legal should not be decided by social media platforms or their users but by the law & the courts. But most often this is not the case.. maybe the OP is addressing this issue.

davidham 2y ago
The platforms don't decide what is legal, but they do have the right, and in many cases the obligation, to moderate their platforms. They can be held liable for allowing CSAM for example. And these platforms have business goals that can be in conflict with, say, allowing anti-LGBTQ or Nazi content.
- diggan 2y ago
  Sounds like the problem (for a platform like this) is that they have "business goals" in the first place. Freedom of speech shouldn't be up for sale, especially when it comes to discussing sensitive topics and creating a for-profit business around that would do just that.
  - text0404 2y ago
    so people shouldn't create apps/tools/sites where others can communicate with each other unless they're willing to forgo any moderation? how does that work?
    - diggan 2y ago
      Not every service with user-generated content need to try to cater to maximum freedom of expression, so it first of all doesn't apply to any service with user-generated content. Secondly, my point is that if you do have a service that is trying to optimize for freedom of expression, mixing in needing to earn money on top of that, is bound to leave you almost penny-less, as advertisers don't like an environment like that and people needing to be anonymous aren't as happy to donate.
kypro 2y ago
This is basically X's position – they will enforce countries speech laws, no more, no less. But OP says: > Other places such as x/twitter, has some liberty but not very much. Real subjects are not getting through. So I'm not sure if they're saying that isn't what X is doing, or that they're criticising X for not going beyond the law (illegally), or that perhaps they feel that some legal speech is not treated equally?
- cassianoleal 2y ago
  > This is basically X's position – they will enforce countries speech laws, no more, no less. It may be their stated position, but not their practice, as has been recently demonstrated in Brazil.
- yqtjnvou 2y ago
  > So I'm not sure if they're saying that isn't what X is doing, or that they're criticising X for not going beyond the law (illegally), or that perhaps they feel that some legal speech is not treated equally? I'm saying that posts get removed if they contain certain subjects. Nothing offensive is in them but only facts.
scarface_74 2y ago
Social media companies are private companies. You can set up your own servers and no government will interfere with you as long as you aren’t doing something illegal If I start spewing political speech on HN, you will soon be banned and dang and company have every right to do so.
- diggan 2y ago
  > You can set up your own servers and no government will interfere with you as long as you aren’t doing something illegal Might have been true in the past but no longer. Once your platform gets a large enough audience, governments will try to artificially sway public opinion on the platform. This has been true for every single large social platform so far.
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    Government always tries to sway opinion. They are made of politicians. I’m not in love with Musk by any means. But do you think the Biden administration could have convinced Musk to change his moderation policy! unless they are some local jack booted thugs… https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/13/marion-county-police-newspaper-raid-charges https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/13/mari...
  - text0404 2y ago
    then don't make it a platform, just a self-hosted blog. then you can say anything you want.
RajT88 2y ago
The law is clear in the US: with a few carved out exemptions, the government cannot penalize you for what you say. Private platforms and citizens can do what they want. I am sure a forum where any and all speech is tolerated quickly turns to 4chan but with all kinds of extreme porn. I am sure those places exist on ToR. I do not know why you would want to go there. Ironically, a lot of the forums which value free speech will kick you out for even sounding like you have the wrong opinions.

BobaFloutist 2y ago

They also as much as said "There's places where you can do this but they're cesspools" which almost makes me feel like the real question is "Is there any way I can have the experience of moderated discussion without any risk of me being moderated?" to which the answer is 100% "Yes, your own forum, but don't be surprised if other people aren't sold on the value proposition."

davidham 2y ago
This is the X model. Nobody moderates Musk!
- tmaly 2y ago
  I have friends that till get censored on X, it is free speech for some but not for others.
  - davidham 2y ago
    Yes, that's my point: it's the X model because Musk bought the platform so he can amplify himself and censor whomever he likes.
diggan 2y ago
> Is there any way I can have the experience of moderated discussion without any risk of me being moderated? Another answer to this is "Yes, with proper rules and moderation, you can keep your cake and eat it too". First off, have a rule that every created thread in this forum need to have some sort of "basis for discussion". Any thread that doesn't, gets closed. Secondly, have a rule that states that any posts in the threads need to be at least somehow related to the topic, and posts that are not nonsense or off-topic. Thirdly, have a moderation team that is well aligned, and favors quality posts, removing the rest of the shit. The end result is a forum where you can discuss any topic, as long as your own posts also add to the conversation, not just try to shut others down or post off-topic/nonsense. Sure, it will contain opinions you disagree with, but it won't be a cesspool of just casual racism. (These ideas are all based on a real forum online today where essentially any topic can be discussed without fear of facing real-life consequence for the opinions you hold, assuming your anonymous)

disambiguation 2y ago

It's pretty clear what he means by free speech here. In the grey area between legal and illegal are the topics we consider taboo. Many platforms simply censor these subjects, OP wants to understand why. The simplest answer is that content moderation is an unsolved problem and certain topics are expensive to moderate. Freedom of speech matters but so does the culture of conduct. Further, as a site owner you risk your reputation by the activity you permit, and taboo subjects can attract folks you don't want on your site. Hence why they end up in the cesspool.

raxxorraxor 2y ago
Not all sites end up like that. HN is friendly to freedom of speech because the site probably doesn't attract people that are easy to act out when offended or those that like to report people whose content they do not like. Or because of the occasional comment that refocuses a discussion again. I would even argue that some more strongly moderated sites can often even be larger cesspools. You can go to Instagram and say something negative about the next random pop start or influencer and people are going to get extremely vicious. Far more so than a message board with only anonymous users. Also the amount of taboos seem to correlate with hostility for some reason.
- yqtjnvou 2y ago
  > HN is friendly to freedom of speech because the site probably doesn't attract people that are easy to act out when offended or those that like to report people whose content they do not like. Or because of the occasional comment that refocuses a discussion again. In other words, we're dealing with over-sensitive people on the internet? Children, because those are the only ones that cannot accept the truth. And, since everyone is so easily offended, they have to be protected by content editing? No one in their right minds would spend a dime for an easily offended person. If this done, there are things at play here. > Also the amount of taboos seem to correlate with hostility for some reason. I noticed that too.
- asdf1145 2y ago
  HN censors anything they don't like specially about their related startups/companies and is also biased to the left politically speaking