Comment by Pharmakon | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Pharmakon | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I’m at the point where dishonest discussions about “free speech” online are a non-starter (Having had an illuminating exchange on this very site two days ago). It’s not as though these anonymous chats matter in the slightest, they’re had in bad faith and most of all are intellectually stultifying. The only winning move is not to play. You won’t convince anyone of your position who has made the conscious choice to adopt a dynamic series of positions to support their unstated agenda. It’s like arguing with creationists, the best you can hope for is changing their declared position of the day. Meanwhile they win just by having an audience and the semblance of legitimacy, not to mention dominating and railroading ever comment section they can to quash reasonable debate.

This is setting aside issues with bots, trolls, and brigades. In real life with people you know and can talk to there can be value in these discussions, but never anonymously and never online. It’s pseudointellectual wank dressed up as reasonable talk. There is nothing wrong with simply saying, “I’m not interested in having this conversation with you, sorry.” and moving on.

In regards to free-speech you might be right, but I actually feel like HN is somewhat of an outlier with online debate/discussion, because I actually have changed my mind on things based on peoples' posts here (not even terribly long ago).

Do you really not accept that some people (many) may just actually believe in free speech and not be arguing in bad faith, be a bot, brigade...?

That was a pretty normal position to hold on the US until about 5 years ago and I’d say it still is.

The two posters before this are exactly why people are so riled up about censorship (calling it what it is. Just cuz someone dislikes the speech doesn't warrant removal of the right to speak.)

Basically you have people that demand others be censored. That they don't deserve to speak freely. And they'll come up with all these mental gymnastics as to why other people's speech isn't acceptable. And for most of us we understand that the first amendment is the most important and that's not acceptable.

Just look thru the last 2 years of left leaning websites. Anyone who claimed trump was innocent (clearly...) was a "bot, troll or brigader" and ought to be censored because it was "hate speech".

A world where we censor is a dark world. There's a reason free speech was right number one in this country.

Editorial discretion has always been a thing - you should absolutely be able to publish your own speech on your own terms, but I'm not convinced you should be able to force other private companies to host your content. The ability to publish widely is relatively new, before if you sent some long screed to the new york times they just wouldn't publish it (you could publish it yourself, but likely wouldn't have a huge audience).

This gets tricky though when you're talking about things like being blocked by a domain name registrar or something.

Even with speech you publish yourself there are some existing restrictions (libel laws, hate speech targeting individuals, etc.)

Moderation is also what allows communities like HN to exist and remain interesting places - I'd definitely prefer it to every website turning into 4chan.

The infringement of speech is only prevented for the federal government. The internet doesn't count. The internet is not beholden to physical barriers and there is more than enough room to start your own website. You have a right to speech, you don't have a right to a privately owned platform that isn't yours..

Furthermore, deplatforming has always been a thing. It basically happened to the dixie chicks after they spoke out against the Iraq war and GWB in England way back in the early 2000's. I don't think they have ever been on fox or a sinclair broadcasting station ever again.

No one is saying proclaiming trumps innocence is hate speech, that is an absurd claim, where are you getting that nonsense?

Nobody is talking about free speech as a matter of constitutional law in these instances (although even that applies to more than the federal government, i.e. state and local governments.) People are making a normative claim that it’s better for institutions like YouTube to have liberal speech policies than restrictive ones. If you want an example with opposite political valence think of NFL players kneeling during the national anthem. The NFL can legally punish players for exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights, but it nevertheless has a chilling effect.

I would submit that there is a difference between hosting speech, and amplifying it with your recommendation engine. If your recommendation engine does not promote something, I don't think that is the same as censorship.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com