Hacker News Reader

Comment by lewisflude | Hacker News Reader

I feel like this corporate censorship is awful for free speech. Specifically, because dividing people by beliefs/demographics increases tribalistic behaviour and the spread of misinformation.

I foresee a situation where we have multiple social networks, each with radically different social/political slants. Similar to what we've seen with things like Reddit and Voat.

View on HN

Free speech on the internet is a dream. Look at what happened while Reddit tried to advocate it - shitholes like coontown, dead girl fetishes, and a lot of other shit. That's "free speech" too. Everyone has their own standards at what is acceptable in online communities.

I agree completely! I don't expect free speech as a must for online communities. When it comes down to it, these are private companies, and not public services.

Most of the time when I see people advocating for free speech, it's to be allowed to give controversial opinions, or say things that would otherwise be seen as totally unacceptable.

Any social media site that I'd personally like to be a part of would ideally be "intolerant to intolerance, although I cannot stress enough how I think that people with intolerant opinions shouldn't be restricted from voicing their opinion. At least not at a political level.

It seems like this is the first time non millennials had to deal with 'shitty mods'.

They are new and don't understand- Its time to move off facebook.

Same reason I'm here instead of reddit.

HN is great partly because it has excellent mods, and removes quite a lot of stuff between moderation and flagging. Perhaps a bit overzealous on flagging sometimes though.

Shitty mods have existed far longer than millenials.

I think the fact that I've not encountered an "evergreen" community (i.e. one that doesn't go the way of Digg, Reddit eventually) gives me a lot of anxiety with regards to my day to day online community usage.

Online communities often feel ephemeral, but maybe that's healthy in the grand scheme of the internet?

I'm really thankful that we have good mods here on HN.

Metafilter has been around for almost 20 years with a small, stable, gatekept community.

I think a certain amount of churn is unavoidable in this accelerated 21st century life, sadly.

How is that different than news papers or long-form magazines deciding what to report and what op-eds to publish?

I don't think it is! Major social networks behave more similarly to magazines, newspapers, publishing networks than they do communication protocols that put you directly in touch with someone else (email, phone, letters).

I think a lot of people hold this philosophical belief that social networks have some sort of responsibility to be fair on everyone all of the time, but I don't really see how companies are incentivised towards that in any way.

There is a sort of ethical question, that in the same way that in theory news organisations should be honest, diligent and accurate that social networks do have some sort of responsibility to be fair on everyone.

It's just not enforceable currently, and I feel like trying to force that sort of integrity onto social networks isn't currently viable.

Because news papers and magazines review all their content by hand (and usually make that content themselves). The comparison you're making is like seeing a weekly neighborhood get together where everyone joins in except the black family which is excluded and saying "Well what about all the other private homes that black people never enter?". Those other homes aren't having a neighborhood get together, it's a different thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com