Hacker News Reader

Comment by pmlnr | Hacker News Reader

Are these regulation dangerous? Yes, they are. They can easily be bent to censor, to cover up nearly anything.

But are these regulation useful? Yes, they are.

When I was a teenager online - early 2000s - extreme violence was hidden behind obscure websites, not even indexed by search engines. I had friends who had "shocking videos" - think videos of actual killings - and I really tried to stay as far as I could.

In the past few years articles and publications regularly emerge that these topics and videos are now basically mainstream. After deep diving into instagram, tumblr, or twitter, to see if these claims are real, I'm going to say, they are, and this is very far from healthy.

We need some regulations; I'm only afraid they will be an overshoot, for what the chances are too high.

View on HN

> When I was a teenager online - early 2000s - extreme violence was hidden behind obscure websites, not even indexed by search engines. I had friends who had "shocking videos" - think videos of actual killings - and I really tried to stay as far as I could.

And having access to them caused them any kind of incurable psychological damage or something? Because most of the time I doubt the usefulness of any of those "we need to protect the children at all costs" regulations.

Not arguing one way or the other for these regulations, but I think dismissing the negative effects of this type of online content is a huge mistake, as it does cause real, sizable problems. ISIS probably wouldn't have been able to exist without their propaganda videos. Multiple mass shootings had direct connections to the perpetrators' radicalization in online forums. Fake, foreign-state-sponsored news had an impact in democratic elections from the 2016 US presidential election to Brexit.

It's one thing to argue these regulations will have negative (unintended or otherwise) consequences, but it's quite another to just pretend the porblem doesn't exist.

ISIS probably wouldn't have been able to exist without ___:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/aramroston/blowback-isi...

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-15/weapons-went-cia-i...

ISIS and other “bad things” you’re probably right to some extent, but what about all the good things that wouldn’t exist either? Awareness of police brutality, corporate corruption, country wide revolutions, marginalized people’s rights, an individual blossoming in an online community. The list goes on, there is much debate to the point that this type of regulation will cause “takedown by default” for all content and push the good and bad to the fringe.

I absolutely agree, but as you point out you need to honestly look at both sides of the coin, not pretend that one side of the coin has no negatives at all.

It's extraordinarily difficult to argue both ways: that free speech is crucial to liberal democracy and that hate speech / propaganda / disinformation / advertising have no results or consequences.

And yet that seems to be much of the anti-regulation debate position, including as I read, yours.

My view is that speech is consequential, and that we should, with extreme care, be prepared for some regulation.

> In the past few years articles and publications regularly emerge that these topics and videos are now basically mainstream. After deep diving into instagram, tumblr, or twitter, to see if these claims are real, I'm going to say, they are, and this is very far from healthy.

If articles and publications on these topics are basically mainstream, I imagine you wouldn't have to do a deep dive to find them.

IMO the fear that videos of extreme violence is just a rehash of the 1990s culture wars on violent video games and movies. There is no rise in violence or extreme acts around the globe despite availability. Certainly not enough to justify a ham-fisted centralized censorship attempt.

While violence or extreme acts may not be on the rise, what about depression and anxiety? The victim may be the person exposed to the content, not who they in turn harm.

If you're making a claim that availability of extreme content on the internet is leading to depression and anxiety, please provide a source.

I'm not making the claim, I'm offering the question whether more research is needed to determine if the exposure of extreme material increases the level of depression and anxiety a subject may experience.

I am simply responding to your statement which seemed to conclude that only violence and extreme acts are the only measure to determine if something has a negative or positive impact on society. I do not believe it is the only measure, so I posed the question.

That's not the point he's making. There are other consequences than 1:1 repetition.

> We need some regulations;

But the regulations are already in place. In the UK especially there are very strict and broad-range hate-speech laws. And most of the content referred to as problematic already breaches the ToS for the platforms mentioned. And evidence suggests those companies have already been pouring resources into trust and safety teams to detect and stop such content.

Getting rid of "problematic" user content on social networks for the masses is a very hard game of whack-a-mole as people quickly adapt their way of sharing content when it's being blocked. Ultimately you'd have to destroy the value of the social network altogether to ensure you block all of it.

This is just going to give legal power for government PR campaigns whenever a particular "problematic" opinion gains too much traction, since it's so vaguely defined that any website with user content could be penalized at any time at an official's discretion regardless of context and whether it's true hate speech or not. All the actual problematic crap (real hate speech, actual abuse/mutilation videos, etc.) will never gain that kind of spotlight and will continue to find new ways to circulate faster than it's stopped.

Where to start is with advertising content regulations. Not just what is shown, but how often. Prevent ad-stalking from following people everywhere they go.

Also, the categorization of people through these platforms is a mass psychological experiment and maybe it should be treated as such.

Finding what pushes people to engage in a topic is often the same as finding their fears. Feeding them with a barrage of imagery and headline that provoke and prod these fears is a recipe for disaster. AI has proven exceptionally good at that.

Profiting from all of this is morally bankrupt.

The saddest part for me is that these platforms are useful but easily replaceable. They are optional tools in our lives but are treated as societal infrastructure. I deleted social media over 2 years ago and I don’t see what all the fuss is.

Why ban them though? We could just tag them instead, prevent people who don't want to see them from seeing them.

AFAIK there are reddits like (I'm making this up but it's probably something similar) r/PhotosOfDeadPeople and r/gore - but come on, you don't visit such a place accidentially.

This move is pure government censorship and/or security theater (the politicians want to be seen as doing something).

I agree and what I think (optimistically) could come from regulation. Surely by making these views and opinions less discoverable will help them become less mainstream?

In the early 2000s, extreme violence was indexed on search engines. You just had to actively search for it.

The fact that you had to "deep dive" shows that you have to actively search for it so there goes your argument for more regulation.

Also, there is a difference between regulating and banning. Why are you conflating regulation with censorship? Those are two different things.

And why is showing real violence "far from healthy"? One of the reasons why I didn't join the military was seeing what actual violence. I think it is healthy to show what is really happening.

Maybe if we showed everyone the truth rather than PR packaged fake propaganda, we'd be less inclined to support wars ( territorial, drug, etc ).

If your logic is applied, then everything from porn to rap music to movies and literature needs to be banned.

Why do you and a few members of the british government decide what people can or cannot see based solely on your subjective opinions?

[edited for tone]

The proposition that something requiring a "deep dive" is now "mainstream" seems internally inconsistent. Also the proposition that offensive content being available on the internet following such a deep dive is "very far from healthy" needs a citation.

"deep diving" - my term for stepping out of the "AI" preferred content social media would normally show to me. Check trending topics, follow them deep down into popular groups, hashtags, etc.

> > and this is very far from healthy.

> Citation needed.

I still believe in that bright future pre-cyberpunk science fiction was promising us. Citation enough?

> I still believe in that bright future pre-cyberpunk science fiction was promising us. Citation enough?

Not to impose your will against free speech, no.

Free speech doesn't mean you can literally say anything...

It does.

Until you start redefining "free" with State power, that is.

Either way, you're never conceptually "free" from consequence, official or otherwise.

Depends, personal freedom or more of an ethical freedom?

At some point, unlimited personal freedom begins to look like taking away the freedoms of those you're targeting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com