6 ms·

I think it’s easy to implement this, but the flip side of making platforms responsible is that they become much more restrictive in what’s allowed to be discuss

I think it’s easy to implement this, but the flip side of making platforms responsible is that they become much more restrictive in what’s allowed to be discussed. They start banning topics preemptively, just to limit their exposure. And if you’re thinking “good”, it will make the public discourse sterile. Then the same companies will be penalised in other jurisdictions for being overly censorious. There’s no way to simultaneously follow all the rules. And if you’re thinking “good, I just want to see those companies fined”, that’s fine too. But then that’s just about feeling good, rather than setting good rules for discourse.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> if you’re thinking “good”, it will make the public discourse sterile Maybe those topics shouldn't be discussed on general-purpose online forums?
- nindalf 1y ago
  Even today YouTubers and TikTokers go out of their way not to use certain words that lead to being demonetised or having their reach limited. They use euphemisms like unalive or grape instead of suicide and rape. These are terrible things which we'd like to see less of, but we can't discuss how to make things better without discussing them at all. If we force videos to avoid mentioning that could offend anyone anywhere, we're not going to be able to discuss very much at all.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > YouTubers and TikTokers go out of their way not to use certain words that lead to being demonetised or having their reach limited. They use euphemisms like unalive or grape instead of suicide and rape. I'm with you on finding this personally annoying. But the question is whether a dedicated forum for discussing suicide or rape, one where the incentives of an unqualified influencer paid by views and product endorsements are better considered, is superior for these matters. We don't, by analogy, randomly launch into suicide and rape in the middle of a cocktail party. Instead, we naturally seclude ourselves with the people we want to discuss it with, people we tend to have chosen thoughtfully, and usually with some warning that what we want to discuss is weighty. Not doing any of that online strikes me as, if not a problem, a legitimate concern.
    - nindalf 1y ago
      Who is going to join a forum dedicated to discussing rape? Absolute weirdos, that's who. But you're not going to enact any kind of broad societal change by talking only to those weirdos. You need to reach a broad audience and convince them this is a problem worth tackling.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Who is going to join a forum dedicated to discussing rape? Absolute weirdos The folks who go to these [1] and these [2]. We are way into that at least I am not knowledgeable about. I’d be curious about an expert’s take on the value of unmoderated YouTube and TikTok content on this issue. [1] https://www.nationalsexualassaultconference.org/ https://www.nationalsexualassaultconference.org/ [2] https://www.survivorsofsexualassaultanonymous.com/ https://www.survivorsofsexualassaultanonymous.com/
        nindalf 1y ago
        These guys are fine, but they can’t drive broader societal change if the words “sexual assault” or “rape” is scrubbed from mainstream discourse. Imagine if HN autodeleted any comment with these words, we couldn’t even have this conversation.
ryandrake 1y ago
We have the postal system and telephone system, which are in theory (and I think most of us believe) content-neutral. You can say whatever you want over these channels, and, as far as we know, the USPS and phone company don't investigate the content and block naughty thoughts, nor are they held liable if we say naughty things or conspire to commit a crime over their channels. Newspapers, magazines, and TV are at the other end: If they publish naughty stuff, they're going to be held accountable, and therefore they exercise editorial moderation and selection over what they publish. Social Media and Internet forums are in this weird separate bucket that was simply conjured up by Section 230. They get to have their cake and eat it too. They can both 1. editorialize and moderate their users' content but 2. dodge liability over what they publish. What a great deal! I think whether you are liable for what your users post -should- come down to whether or not you editorialize and put your thumb on the scale of what gets posted and shown. If you're truly a "dumb pipe" that allows everything, then you should not be liable for what your users send over the dumb pipe. But the minute you exercise any moderation or curation, you are effectively endorsing what you are publishing, and should share liability over it.
- ty6853 1y ago
  The USPS does investigate content. You can draw a swastika and a machinegun for sale on your regular mail envelope and it will show up in informed delivery, but as black and white. If you try to get it displayed more prominently in an advertising campaign, it violates their second set of 'guidelines' that stop what you can put in the more prominent colored advertising image. They use this mechanism in a matter different than most social media curation, but it's still a form of curation, and favoring the particular kinds of speech they like, using two different sets of guidelines -- one guideline for de minimis B&W presentation and a second set of 'guidelines' (which even at USPS are a bit vague) about whether you can get the pretty color image in informed delivery.
  - ryandrake 1y ago
    Surely this curation by the USPS doesn't extend to content inside of envelopes, though! I guess my overall point is that Social Media and forums are "opening the envelope" and making moderation decisions based on what they find inside.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> if you’re thinking “good”, it will make the public discourse sterile Maybe those topics shouldn't be discussed on general-purpose online forums?

nindalf 1y ago
Even today YouTubers and TikTokers go out of their way not to use certain words that lead to being demonetised or having their reach limited. They use euphemisms like unalive or grape instead of suicide and rape. These are terrible things which we'd like to see less of, but we can't discuss how to make things better without discussing them at all. If we force videos to avoid mentioning that could offend anyone anywhere, we're not going to be able to discuss very much at all.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > YouTubers and TikTokers go out of their way not to use certain words that lead to being demonetised or having their reach limited. They use euphemisms like unalive or grape instead of suicide and rape. I'm with you on finding this personally annoying. But the question is whether a dedicated forum for discussing suicide or rape, one where the incentives of an unqualified influencer paid by views and product endorsements are better considered, is superior for these matters. We don't, by analogy, randomly launch into suicide and rape in the middle of a cocktail party. Instead, we naturally seclude ourselves with the people we want to discuss it with, people we tend to have chosen thoughtfully, and usually with some warning that what we want to discuss is weighty. Not doing any of that online strikes me as, if not a problem, a legitimate concern.
  - nindalf 1y ago
    Who is going to join a forum dedicated to discussing rape? Absolute weirdos, that's who. But you're not going to enact any kind of broad societal change by talking only to those weirdos. You need to reach a broad audience and convince them this is a problem worth tackling.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Who is going to join a forum dedicated to discussing rape? Absolute weirdos The folks who go to these [1] and these [2]. We are way into that at least I am not knowledgeable about. I’d be curious about an expert’s take on the value of unmoderated YouTube and TikTok content on this issue. [1] https://www.nationalsexualassaultconference.org/ https://www.nationalsexualassaultconference.org/ [2] https://www.survivorsofsexualassaultanonymous.com/ https://www.survivorsofsexualassaultanonymous.com/
      - nindalf 1y ago
        These guys are fine, but they can’t drive broader societal change if the words “sexual assault” or “rape” is scrubbed from mainstream discourse. Imagine if HN autodeleted any comment with these words, we couldn’t even have this conversation.

ryandrake 1y ago

We have the postal system and telephone system, which are in theory (and I think most of us believe) content-neutral. You can say whatever you want over these channels, and, as far as we know, the USPS and phone company don't investigate the content and block naughty thoughts, nor are they held liable if we say naughty things or conspire to commit a crime over their channels. Newspapers, magazines, and TV are at the other end: If they publish naughty stuff, they're going to be held accountable, and therefore they exercise editorial moderation and selection over what they publish. Social Media and Internet forums are in this weird separate bucket that was simply conjured up by Section 230. They get to have their cake and eat it too. They can both 1. editorialize and moderate their users' content but 2. dodge liability over what they publish. What a great deal! I think whether you are liable for what your users post -should- come down to whether or not you editorialize and put your thumb on the scale of what gets posted and shown. If you're truly a "dumb pipe" that allows everything, then you should not be liable for what your users send over the dumb pipe. But the minute you exercise any moderation or curation, you are effectively endorsing what you are publishing, and should share liability over it.

ty6853 1y ago
The USPS does investigate content. You can draw a swastika and a machinegun for sale on your regular mail envelope and it will show up in informed delivery, but as black and white. If you try to get it displayed more prominently in an advertising campaign, it violates their second set of 'guidelines' that stop what you can put in the more prominent colored advertising image. They use this mechanism in a matter different than most social media curation, but it's still a form of curation, and favoring the particular kinds of speech they like, using two different sets of guidelines -- one guideline for de minimis B&W presentation and a second set of 'guidelines' (which even at USPS are a bit vague) about whether you can get the pretty color image in informed delivery.
- ryandrake 1y ago
  Surely this curation by the USPS doesn't extend to content inside of envelopes, though! I guess my overall point is that Social Media and forums are "opening the envelope" and making moderation decisions based on what they find inside.