4 ms·

Moderation is orthogonal to free speech. They are separate concerns.

zeroonetwothree 2y ago
How does that make any sense? More moderation clearly means speech is less free, in that you are blocking some of it (whether for good reason or not)
- jp_nc 2y ago
  I do not have a right to put signs promoting my beliefs in your front yard. Preventing me from doing that is not a prohibition of free speech. What’s going to slay me is that the group that bitched and moaned about twitter preventing free speech have turned it into a hellhole nobody wants to be in. Now they will come over and say the same about Blue Sky??? Guys - you can post your ridiculous nonsense on X… nobody is infringing on your right to free speech.
  - anon291 2y ago
    If you live in California, you have every right to say what you want even in privately owned spaces so long as they're regularly opened to the public. More states should be like this and enforce it
    - hn_acker 2y ago
      Such a law doesn't apply to a social media site [1]. [1] Supreme Court Signals Loud And Clear That Social Media Sites Are Not Public Forums That Have To Allow All Speech: https://www.techdirt.com/2019/06/18/supreme-court-signals-loud-clear-that-social-media-sites-are-not-public-forums-that-have-to-allow-all-speech/ https://www.techdirt.com/2019/06/18/supreme-court-signals-lo...
- paxys 2y ago
  It isn't that clear cut. If you are trying to say something on a forum and a bot farm immediately gives you a thousand downvotes, will banning those bots increase or decrease free speech on that forum?
- ranger_danger 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
jrvarela56 2y ago
No it’s not. More moderation, more false positives, less free speech. Just having ‘moderation’ means the speech is not ‘free’.
- linotype 2y ago
  Most people would be OK with suppressing CSAM. At least I hope most people are.
  - erulabs 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - DrillShopper 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - erulabs 2y ago
        Naive? Or a liar?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - almatabata 2y ago
      > I am very okay with not seeing CSAM, but your argument doesn’t hold water. By this you mean that its very easy to define a clear set of rules for moderation?
      - erulabs 2y ago
        In the case of CSAM, yes. In the case of other material? No. Again, I side heavily on the side of freedom of speech, but the argument that limiting speech and limiting some specific kinds of widely condemned speech are orthogonal does not stand up to the most basic scrutiny.
      - 2y ago
l33t7332273 2y ago
Unless you’re taking the stance that free speech as a concept applies only to the government, then it’s definitely not orthogonal. Almost all moderation concerns are obviously restrictions on free speech, it’s just that for several reasons people have started to shrink “speech” into “political speech within some Overton window” For some obvious examples of typical moderation that conflicts with pure free speech , consider amoral speech like abuse material, violent speech like threats, and economically harmful speech like fraudulent advertising or copyright violations. Extending these to things like hate speech, bigotry, pornography, etc are all moderation choices that are not orthogonal to free speech.
- thaw24612107 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - DrillShopper 2y ago
    Yes there is, and it's not on the tolerant to tolerate the intolerant.
    - bigstrat2003 2y ago
      It actually is, insofar as the tolerant expect to get kudos for being tolerant. In practice, "the intolerant" lines up exactly with "my outgroup that I dislike", and that is exactly who you get points for tolerating. Now if tolerance isn't supposed to be a virtue and you aren't supposed to get brownie points for being tolerant, then fine whatever. But that isn't how people act when they misuse the paradox of tolerance, they are still looking to get brownie points while just hating on their enemies just as humans have for millennia.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        >It actually is, insofar as the tolerant expect to get kudos for being tolerant. You're arguing with a strawman. I just want to have a civil discussion without it degrading into racial slurs as the bare minimum. Personal attacks in general should be discoraged, but I've been around a while and my standards are low. The psychological question of morals and tolerance doesn't seem to amount to much. I don't think anyone would ever claim the internet is full of moral actors. but sure. The ability to accept and consider multiple viewpoints is a good moral to strive to. Hence, the paradox of tolerance: in that you must reject concepts that overall limit your ability to empathize and expand your viewpoints. dismissing information because of superficial physical features of the speaker is simply ignorant.
cpseethe88 2y ago
[dead]
- DrillShopper 2y ago
  No you get flagged and banned for breaking the rules. The fact you can't comprehend this is on you.
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    If only that were true. See another comment in this very thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42159992 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42159992. This comment isn't breaking rules, it is simply someone attempting to argue his point of view. I think it's a foolish point of view, but that's his right and he is arguing it civilly enough. Yet he got flagged into oblivion and will almost certainly remain so - not because he broke the rules, but because he expressed a view which is unpopular. I would like it to be the case that people only flag posts which they think violate the rules, but that unfortunately isn't so. People on this site (just as with other sites) treat moderator reporting as a "super fuck this guy" button quite frequently.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      >I think it's a foolish point of view, but that's his right and he is arguing it civilly enough. The bigger the claim the bigger the burden of justifying yourself. Like, I can't just stroll in and say "but Blacks being mentally inferior doesn't mean they're dumb" and leave it at that. There's been enough dogwhistles like that over the decades that that sort of driveby "well, maybe hating people is good" isn't worth entertaining without a signifigant amount of explanation. This is the spirit of the rule behind: >Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. So there is something flag worthy if you're this deep into a conversation then simply say "but bigotry isn't inherently bad". Now if you do all that: will you still get down-voted for you explanation, yes. You may or may not get flagged depending on the crowd. You probably won't be banned unless you're repeatedly obsesses with this topic to no effect. P.S. you can (perhaps invisibly) lose your flagging priveledges if you abuse those as well. flagging is not simply disagreement. It is basically saying "@ dang this is a comment you need to check out". You are wasting resources by using it willy nilly.
jabroni_salad 2y ago
As a booru and ao3 enjoyer I can promise you that a tag based system works perfectly if posters are good about applying consistent agreed-upon tags and users are good about subscribing to tags they like and putting tags they dont like on their PBL. I dont think mega-big 'public square' type platforms will ever achieve this since growth requires chasing the most passive types of consumers who need everything done for them.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
There is no such thing as true "free speech". If only because you need some regulation to keep others from infringing on your free speech. Lest the concept simply becomes meaningless. Even the US has limits. You cannot post a naked kid online, you cannot incite violence or panic (yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre). Many states won't let you post revenge porn.

How does that make any sense? More moderation clearly means speech is less free, in that you are blocking some of it (whether for good reason or not)

jp_nc 2y ago
I do not have a right to put signs promoting my beliefs in your front yard. Preventing me from doing that is not a prohibition of free speech. What’s going to slay me is that the group that bitched and moaned about twitter preventing free speech have turned it into a hellhole nobody wants to be in. Now they will come over and say the same about Blue Sky??? Guys - you can post your ridiculous nonsense on X… nobody is infringing on your right to free speech.
- anon291 2y ago
  If you live in California, you have every right to say what you want even in privately owned spaces so long as they're regularly opened to the public. More states should be like this and enforce it
  - hn_acker 2y ago
    Such a law doesn't apply to a social media site [1]. [1] Supreme Court Signals Loud And Clear That Social Media Sites Are Not Public Forums That Have To Allow All Speech: https://www.techdirt.com/2019/06/18/supreme-court-signals-loud-clear-that-social-media-sites-are-not-public-forums-that-have-to-allow-all-speech/ https://www.techdirt.com/2019/06/18/supreme-court-signals-lo...
paxys 2y ago
It isn't that clear cut. If you are trying to say something on a forum and a bot farm immediately gives you a thousand downvotes, will banning those bots increase or decrease free speech on that forum?
ranger_danger 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

jrvarela56 2y ago

No it’s not. More moderation, more false positives, less free speech. Just having ‘moderation’ means the speech is not ‘free’.

linotype 2y ago
Most people would be OK with suppressing CSAM. At least I hope most people are.
- erulabs 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - DrillShopper 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - erulabs 2y ago
      Naive? Or a liar?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - almatabata 2y ago
    > I am very okay with not seeing CSAM, but your argument doesn’t hold water. By this you mean that its very easy to define a clear set of rules for moderation?
    - erulabs 2y ago
      In the case of CSAM, yes. In the case of other material? No. Again, I side heavily on the side of freedom of speech, but the argument that limiting speech and limiting some specific kinds of widely condemned speech are orthogonal does not stand up to the most basic scrutiny.
    - 2y ago

l33t7332273 2y ago

Unless you’re taking the stance that free speech as a concept applies only to the government, then it’s definitely not orthogonal. Almost all moderation concerns are obviously restrictions on free speech, it’s just that for several reasons people have started to shrink “speech” into “political speech within some Overton window” For some obvious examples of typical moderation that conflicts with pure free speech , consider amoral speech like abuse material, violent speech like threats, and economically harmful speech like fraudulent advertising or copyright violations. Extending these to things like hate speech, bigotry, pornography, etc are all moderation choices that are not orthogonal to free speech.

thaw24612107 2y ago
[flagged]
- DrillShopper 2y ago
  Yes there is, and it's not on the tolerant to tolerate the intolerant.
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    It actually is, insofar as the tolerant expect to get kudos for being tolerant. In practice, "the intolerant" lines up exactly with "my outgroup that I dislike", and that is exactly who you get points for tolerating. Now if tolerance isn't supposed to be a virtue and you aren't supposed to get brownie points for being tolerant, then fine whatever. But that isn't how people act when they misuse the paradox of tolerance, they are still looking to get brownie points while just hating on their enemies just as humans have for millennia.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      >It actually is, insofar as the tolerant expect to get kudos for being tolerant. You're arguing with a strawman. I just want to have a civil discussion without it degrading into racial slurs as the bare minimum. Personal attacks in general should be discoraged, but I've been around a while and my standards are low. The psychological question of morals and tolerance doesn't seem to amount to much. I don't think anyone would ever claim the internet is full of moral actors. but sure. The ability to accept and consider multiple viewpoints is a good moral to strive to. Hence, the paradox of tolerance: in that you must reject concepts that overall limit your ability to empathize and expand your viewpoints. dismissing information because of superficial physical features of the speaker is simply ignorant.

cpseethe88 2y ago

[dead]

DrillShopper 2y ago
No you get flagged and banned for breaking the rules. The fact you can't comprehend this is on you.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  If only that were true. See another comment in this very thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42159992 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42159992. This comment isn't breaking rules, it is simply someone attempting to argue his point of view. I think it's a foolish point of view, but that's his right and he is arguing it civilly enough. Yet he got flagged into oblivion and will almost certainly remain so - not because he broke the rules, but because he expressed a view which is unpopular. I would like it to be the case that people only flag posts which they think violate the rules, but that unfortunately isn't so. People on this site (just as with other sites) treat moderator reporting as a "super fuck this guy" button quite frequently.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    >I think it's a foolish point of view, but that's his right and he is arguing it civilly enough. The bigger the claim the bigger the burden of justifying yourself. Like, I can't just stroll in and say "but Blacks being mentally inferior doesn't mean they're dumb" and leave it at that. There's been enough dogwhistles like that over the decades that that sort of driveby "well, maybe hating people is good" isn't worth entertaining without a signifigant amount of explanation. This is the spirit of the rule behind: >Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. So there is something flag worthy if you're this deep into a conversation then simply say "but bigotry isn't inherently bad". Now if you do all that: will you still get down-voted for you explanation, yes. You may or may not get flagged depending on the crowd. You probably won't be banned unless you're repeatedly obsesses with this topic to no effect. P.S. you can (perhaps invisibly) lose your flagging priveledges if you abuse those as well. flagging is not simply disagreement. It is basically saying "@ dang this is a comment you need to check out". You are wasting resources by using it willy nilly.

jabroni_salad 2y ago

As a booru and ao3 enjoyer I can promise you that a tag based system works perfectly if posters are good about applying consistent agreed-upon tags and users are good about subscribing to tags they like and putting tags they dont like on their PBL. I dont think mega-big 'public square' type platforms will ever achieve this since growth requires chasing the most passive types of consumers who need everything done for them.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

There is no such thing as true "free speech". If only because you need some regulation to keep others from infringing on your free speech. Lest the concept simply becomes meaningless. Even the US has limits. You cannot post a naked kid online, you cannot incite violence or panic (yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre). Many states won't let you post revenge porn.