4 ms·

Hmm. I'd wager the vast majority of internet censorship is within platform, like that done by Reddit mods. The most egregious example I've seen in my lifetime

Hmm. I'd wager the vast majority of internet censorship is within platform, like that done by Reddit mods. The most egregious example I've seen in my lifetime was when old Twitter decided to censor a NYPost article, down to blocking sharing in DMs. It seems that type of example is entirely missed here. Is there any attempt to capture that signal?

bluebic 7d ago
[dead]
Bluestein 8d ago
As a thought exercise, could it be captured?
- howunfortunate 8d ago
  Depends on the platform. On Reddit, definitely yes, as almost all censorship is "deletion style" where the target post or comment is initially visible until the mods suppress it. But your point is well taken, it's definitely more challenging and expensive than what's being done here.
  - Bluestein 8d ago
    It would be one heck of a challenge, but, almost by definition "impossible" - as a naive guess, perhaps (for those platforms that have opened code) characterize some statistical signatures that "arbitrary data" ran through it (simulating user activity) would show ... ... and then check for those (or, counterexamples) in the wild.-
  - mitxela 8d ago
    That used to be the case on Reddit, not any more as about half of all accounts start off shadowbanned and mods approve their posts.
- goatsi 8d ago
  Join the referral program for a low cost online pharmacy. Post a link on each platform informing the users about the availability of male health products. Measure if it gets removed.
eigenspace 8d ago
If you count platform moderation as 'censorship' then there's practically no uncensored public spaces on the internet. Literally even 4chan has moderation. Nobody, not even 4chan users, want an actually unmoderated space.
- like_any_other 8d ago
  You still want to know the extent of that 'moderation' that is totally not censorship. E.g. Facebook and Instagram ban white nationalism, and Youtube has banned American Renaissance, meaning we can infer Google bans white nationalism too, as American Renaissance is guilty of nothing else. You may agree or disagree with the ban, but surely you agree that we should be aware of such Overton window enforcement?
- zrobotics 8d ago
  4chan users might want that, but even for the types of people willing to operate a site like that they don't want to be liable for the amount of CSAM, piracy, and other legally objectionable material that would end up on a fully unmoderated site.
  - eigenspace 8d ago
    Deciding what is spam and blocking it is moderation or "censorship". If 4chan didnt have spam filters, the users would be begging for it almost immediately because the website would become unusable.
    - zrobotics 8d ago
      We might be talking past each other a bit. I agree that without any sort of spam filter a comment site would become unusable. What I was trying to point out is that there are a lot of users of these 'edgy' sites that would like to post content that the site owners don't want them posting. So the site owner censors and removes CSAM and piracy so that the site isn't immediately in a legal black hole. The site owners remove content that at least some of the users would want be a use they find it morally or legally objectionable. Spam is kinda orthogonal to that point, since neither the site owner or the users want to see it.
urbnspacecowboy 8d ago
> old Twitter decided to censor a NYPost article Which article, about what subject?
- thenayr 8d ago
  [dead]
- howunfortunate 8d ago
  Are there NYPost articles you feel people should be prevented from DMing? Or posting, for that matter?
  - qerghnui 8d ago
    [flagged]
    - nixon_why69 8d ago
      Your phone relaying your voice to someone isn't compelled speech on the part of the telecoms. There's an argument that when a platform is big enough, it's a common carrier.
- ThePinion 8d ago
  They censored the Hunter Biden laptop story weeks before the election.
thenayr 8d ago
[dead]
thewanderer1983 8d ago
Not just reddit mods. Google 2013 Eglin Air Force Base incident reddit.
urbnspacecowboy 6d ago
> old Twitter decided to censor a NYPost article Again, which article, about what subject? howunfortunate didn't answer, just deflected: > Are there NYPost articles you feel people should be prevented from DMing? Or posting, for that matter? qerghnui's reply was flagged to death: > Why do you refuse to answer the question? > The story you are referring to involved the New York Post or its affiliates breaking in to Hunter Biden's laptop (a felony) and publishing his personal correspondence, complete with unredacted phone numbers and email addresses. This violated Twitter's policies against doxxing and dissemination of hacked materials. Characterizing this as censorship is misleading; the story contained no newsworthy information and its publication violated longstanding Twitter policy. It's hard to imagine Twitter functioning without such a policy. I don't see any reason the New York Post should get away with violating it just because it claims to be a newspaper. > The Wall Street Journal, a Murdoch rag like the Post and hardly known for its liberal bias, declined to publish this information, which is why it wound up in the disreputable Post instead. Respectable journalists have ethical standards. Act like thugs, get treated like thugs. > P.S. Twitter is free to make whatever editorial decisions it pleases. Trying to make them publish something they don't want to publish is compelled speech. Compelling speech in the name of freedom of speech is hypocritical.

bluebic 7d ago

[dead]

Bluestein 8d ago

As a thought exercise, could it be captured?

howunfortunate 8d ago
Depends on the platform. On Reddit, definitely yes, as almost all censorship is "deletion style" where the target post or comment is initially visible until the mods suppress it. But your point is well taken, it's definitely more challenging and expensive than what's being done here.
- Bluestein 8d ago
  It would be one heck of a challenge, but, almost by definition "impossible" - as a naive guess, perhaps (for those platforms that have opened code) characterize some statistical signatures that "arbitrary data" ran through it (simulating user activity) would show ... ... and then check for those (or, counterexamples) in the wild.-
- mitxela 8d ago
  That used to be the case on Reddit, not any more as about half of all accounts start off shadowbanned and mods approve their posts.
goatsi 8d ago
Join the referral program for a low cost online pharmacy. Post a link on each platform informing the users about the availability of male health products. Measure if it gets removed.

eigenspace 8d ago

If you count platform moderation as 'censorship' then there's practically no uncensored public spaces on the internet. Literally even 4chan has moderation. Nobody, not even 4chan users, want an actually unmoderated space.

like_any_other 8d ago
You still want to know the extent of that 'moderation' that is totally not censorship. E.g. Facebook and Instagram ban white nationalism, and Youtube has banned American Renaissance, meaning we can infer Google bans white nationalism too, as American Renaissance is guilty of nothing else. You may agree or disagree with the ban, but surely you agree that we should be aware of such Overton window enforcement?
zrobotics 8d ago
4chan users might want that, but even for the types of people willing to operate a site like that they don't want to be liable for the amount of CSAM, piracy, and other legally objectionable material that would end up on a fully unmoderated site.
- eigenspace 8d ago
  Deciding what is spam and blocking it is moderation or "censorship". If 4chan didnt have spam filters, the users would be begging for it almost immediately because the website would become unusable.
  - zrobotics 8d ago
    We might be talking past each other a bit. I agree that without any sort of spam filter a comment site would become unusable. What I was trying to point out is that there are a lot of users of these 'edgy' sites that would like to post content that the site owners don't want them posting. So the site owner censors and removes CSAM and piracy so that the site isn't immediately in a legal black hole. The site owners remove content that at least some of the users would want be a use they find it morally or legally objectionable. Spam is kinda orthogonal to that point, since neither the site owner or the users want to see it.

urbnspacecowboy 8d ago

> old Twitter decided to censor a NYPost article Which article, about what subject?

thenayr 8d ago
[dead]
howunfortunate 8d ago
Are there NYPost articles you feel people should be prevented from DMing? Or posting, for that matter?
- qerghnui 8d ago
  [flagged]
  - nixon_why69 8d ago
    Your phone relaying your voice to someone isn't compelled speech on the part of the telecoms. There's an argument that when a platform is big enough, it's a common carrier.
ThePinion 8d ago
They censored the Hunter Biden laptop story weeks before the election.

thenayr 8d ago

[dead]

thewanderer1983 8d ago

Not just reddit mods. Google 2013 Eglin Air Force Base incident reddit.

urbnspacecowboy 6d ago

> old Twitter decided to censor a NYPost article Again, which article, about what subject? howunfortunate didn't answer, just deflected: > Are there NYPost articles you feel people should be prevented from DMing? Or posting, for that matter? qerghnui's reply was flagged to death: > Why do you refuse to answer the question? > The story you are referring to involved the New York Post or its affiliates breaking in to Hunter Biden's laptop (a felony) and publishing his personal correspondence, complete with unredacted phone numbers and email addresses. This violated Twitter's policies against doxxing and dissemination of hacked materials. Characterizing this as censorship is misleading; the story contained no newsworthy information and its publication violated longstanding Twitter policy. It's hard to imagine Twitter functioning without such a policy. I don't see any reason the New York Post should get away with violating it just because it claims to be a newspaper. > The Wall Street Journal, a Murdoch rag like the Post and hardly known for its liberal bias, declined to publish this information, which is why it wound up in the disreputable Post instead. Respectable journalists have ethical standards. Act like thugs, get treated like thugs. > P.S. Twitter is free to make whatever editorial decisions it pleases. Trying to make them publish something they don't want to publish is compelled speech. Compelling speech in the name of freedom of speech is hypocritical.