6 ms·

As long as you support social media companies censoring people you don't like, you're in a weaker position arguing against their censorship of people you do lik

As long as you support social media companies censoring people you don't like, you're in a weaker position arguing against their censorship of people you do like. There should be a strong social objection to all such censorship, but I don't know how we get there from here. All the justifications for censorship during Covid were corrosive, "The 1st amendment only protects you from _government_ censorship, etc." At this point, nobody trusts the other side to "play fair" and reciprocate, which makes standing on principle feel like a loss. If all sides stood up just a little bit for the principle of "I don't agree with that person, but I defend his right to voice himself", we'd all be better off.

ImPostingOnHN 10mo ago
There's a difference between, say, restricting posting of targeted harassing hate speech, or incorrect medical advice that can harm people, versus restricting people from posting about themselves, if it mentions things they can't change (their race, disability, sexual orientation, etc.) Indeed, the two are so different that being in favor of the former doesn't at all weaken the argument against doing the latter. It turns out there's a middle ground between "no content moderation" and "restrict people for discussing some innocent physiological aspect of themselves they can't change", and that middle ground can be totally ok Just like there's a totally-ok middle ground between libertarians who oppose any regulation at all, and authoritarians who want to control literally everything
- quantummagic 10mo ago
  That's just another way of saying "my opinion is acceptable, and theirs isn't". The thing is, everybody draws that line in a different place. And it's just too easy to cast everything you don't like as "medical harm". It wasn't just people playing doctor who got censored for instance, it was also people just stating what decision they were making for themselves, not advocating anything for anyone else. And on the flipside, it's pretty easy for assholes on the other side to claim that they're "protecting children from medical harm (transgender operations, etc) from the LGBT community. The only way this works, is if we become more accepting of opinions we fundamentally truly disagree with. Anything short of that, and you're always going to run into people who draw the line in a way you find harmful.
  - ImPostingOnHN 10mo ago
    > That's just another way of saying "my opinion is acceptable, and theirs isn't". Is it? According to who? After all, anybody can say "A is just another way of saying B" (especially if they ignore the differences), but it doesn't make it true. To wit: the differences I cited prove that there are differences. > The only way this works, is if we become more accepting of opinions we fundamentally truly disagree with. Historically speaking, accepting violence against minorities, and the rhetoric which fosters it, has not "worked" for the minorities.
    - belorn 10mo ago
      > Is it? According to who? Medical advice was quite different between nations. Doctors and chief epidemiologists gave their advice, sometimes opposite advice to others, grounded in scientific beliefs that the individual held at the time. One of the biggest controversy and debates was the effectiveness of non-N95 surgical mask against airborne virus particles. Different studies gave different results, and depending on which culture, country and professional you asked you got different medical advice. It only got more muddled when it came to outdoor vs indoor. That is just one example. It is well known in medical research that culture has a major impact on research findings and should not be overlooked. What is correct or incorrect is not obvious in a international context, and what help people in one place can be directly harmful in an other.
  - fzeroracer 10mo ago
    > The only way this works, is if we become more accepting of opinions we fundamentally truly disagree with. Anything short of that, and you're always going to run into people who draw the line in a way you find harmful. We've tried this. This is what lead to Florida removing the vaccine mandate, something that is going to cause real harm because people have bought into a shared delusion. This tolerance of fundamental disagreements has metastasized into people committing real harm using the power of the state rather than any sort of centrist utopia.
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
sambuccid 10mo ago
I agree, we should play fair and form opinions using principles more, but I think there is a caveat to that. If what you are defending actually causes a considerate amount of harm or violence then I think you need to start to think in a more nuanced way and weighting the pro and cons
hamdingers 10mo ago
Hacker News discovers the paradox of tolerance (again)
beej71 10mo ago
> All the justifications for censorship during Covid were corrosive, "The 1st amendment only protects you from _government_ censorship, etc. Does the First Amendment not also give you editorial control over your websites, including which third-party content you host?
- quantummagic 10mo ago
  Yes. But it cuts both ways. People are complaining about content that they value, being censored by Meta; but it's of course, legal. The point is that the line should not be drawn at legal. There should be a strong impulse in society towards letting people speak, and letting other people hear, things we disagree with. So that means, letting LGBTQ+ say their piece, but it also means letting people who have "bad medical advice" blather on as well. And if you think the world is better off by censoring either of those groups, don't be surprised when they're both censored (and a lot of other people too). Once the cultural norm is suppression and censorship, there's no end of places where people will want it applied.
  - beej71 10mo ago
    I'm definitely against the government censoring any of those groups. But I don't see how the First Amendment allows Congress to pass a law telling web sites what they must publish.

ImPostingOnHN 10mo ago

There's a difference between, say, restricting posting of targeted harassing hate speech, or incorrect medical advice that can harm people, versus restricting people from posting about themselves, if it mentions things they can't change (their race, disability, sexual orientation, etc.) Indeed, the two are so different that being in favor of the former doesn't at all weaken the argument against doing the latter. It turns out there's a middle ground between "no content moderation" and "restrict people for discussing some innocent physiological aspect of themselves they can't change", and that middle ground can be totally ok Just like there's a totally-ok middle ground between libertarians who oppose any regulation at all, and authoritarians who want to control literally everything

quantummagic 10mo ago
That's just another way of saying "my opinion is acceptable, and theirs isn't". The thing is, everybody draws that line in a different place. And it's just too easy to cast everything you don't like as "medical harm". It wasn't just people playing doctor who got censored for instance, it was also people just stating what decision they were making for themselves, not advocating anything for anyone else. And on the flipside, it's pretty easy for assholes on the other side to claim that they're "protecting children from medical harm (transgender operations, etc) from the LGBT community. The only way this works, is if we become more accepting of opinions we fundamentally truly disagree with. Anything short of that, and you're always going to run into people who draw the line in a way you find harmful.
- ImPostingOnHN 10mo ago
  > That's just another way of saying "my opinion is acceptable, and theirs isn't". Is it? According to who? After all, anybody can say "A is just another way of saying B" (especially if they ignore the differences), but it doesn't make it true. To wit: the differences I cited prove that there are differences. > The only way this works, is if we become more accepting of opinions we fundamentally truly disagree with. Historically speaking, accepting violence against minorities, and the rhetoric which fosters it, has not "worked" for the minorities.
  - belorn 10mo ago
    > Is it? According to who? Medical advice was quite different between nations. Doctors and chief epidemiologists gave their advice, sometimes opposite advice to others, grounded in scientific beliefs that the individual held at the time. One of the biggest controversy and debates was the effectiveness of non-N95 surgical mask against airborne virus particles. Different studies gave different results, and depending on which culture, country and professional you asked you got different medical advice. It only got more muddled when it came to outdoor vs indoor. That is just one example. It is well known in medical research that culture has a major impact on research findings and should not be overlooked. What is correct or incorrect is not obvious in a international context, and what help people in one place can be directly harmful in an other.
- fzeroracer 10mo ago
  > The only way this works, is if we become more accepting of opinions we fundamentally truly disagree with. Anything short of that, and you're always going to run into people who draw the line in a way you find harmful. We've tried this. This is what lead to Florida removing the vaccine mandate, something that is going to cause real harm because people have bought into a shared delusion. This tolerance of fundamental disagreements has metastasized into people committing real harm using the power of the state rather than any sort of centrist utopia.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]

sambuccid 10mo ago

I agree, we should play fair and form opinions using principles more, but I think there is a caveat to that. If what you are defending actually causes a considerate amount of harm or violence then I think you need to start to think in a more nuanced way and weighting the pro and cons

hamdingers 10mo ago

Hacker News discovers the paradox of tolerance (again)

beej71 10mo ago

> All the justifications for censorship during Covid were corrosive, "The 1st amendment only protects you from _government_ censorship, etc. Does the First Amendment not also give you editorial control over your websites, including which third-party content you host?

quantummagic 10mo ago
Yes. But it cuts both ways. People are complaining about content that they value, being censored by Meta; but it's of course, legal. The point is that the line should not be drawn at legal. There should be a strong impulse in society towards letting people speak, and letting other people hear, things we disagree with. So that means, letting LGBTQ+ say their piece, but it also means letting people who have "bad medical advice" blather on as well. And if you think the world is better off by censoring either of those groups, don't be surprised when they're both censored (and a lot of other people too). Once the cultural norm is suppression and censorship, there's no end of places where people will want it applied.
- beej71 10mo ago
  I'm definitely against the government censoring any of those groups. But I don't see how the First Amendment allows Congress to pass a law telling web sites what they must publish.