Hacker News Reader

Comment by CPLX | Hacker News Reader

I mean I’m as much a fan of free speech as the next guy, but there are some pretty key differences between the concepts of “free speech in the culture” and “a giant collection of unmoderated user generated internet content”.

I mean actual free speech would just be an endless collection of penis videos. Nobody is actually advocating for free speech.

I don’t think every app has to be about political issues. Where did that premise come from, just because it has Chinese origins?

It’s ok for there to be an app for kids to make dance videos, and to keep it light and positive.

View on HN

You have a darker view of human nature than most.

I mean, unmoderated, anonymous contents might have more penis vids than you want, but it doesn't mean that you have to watch them; a user sponsored moderation / rating would ensure that.

If that wasn't possible, who would use the app except for penis enthusiasts?

That is how Chatroulette died.

Well, that's what inspired Evan Spiegel to start Snapchat.

..cos he couldn't receive dp's anymore ?

> You have a darker view of human nature than most.

Nah I’ve just been hanging around the internet a lot longer than most people.

I can’t take credit for the concept of infinite penises though, that honor goes to my friend Pud:

https://askpud.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/pageviews-and-unique...

Vine was mostly penis videos at the beginning. I think its original growth was due to the random clips of nudity until Twitter decided they needed to clean it up.

> ... a user sponsored moderation / rating would ensure that.

I think that would be good, as long as nobody is forced to use it who does not want to use it. Other things also help such as categorization, meta-moderation, etc, but all such things should be ignorable by users who do not want it.

>I mean actual free speech would just be an endless collection of penis videos. Nobody is actually advocating for free speech.

I disagree.

*chans are some of the best places for discussion, especially regarding unpopular topics, as the posters reputation isn't on the line when expressing an opinion, and (I think more importantly) every post is weighted the same - there's no upvotes to tell you what you're supposed to think.

There is a downside of sifting through pornography, but it's not a big issue to not click links you don't like. Minimal moderation on SFW boards also works pretty well.

>I mean actual free speech would just be an endless collection of penis videos.

It is the oldest problem in the book; how do i get free expression, while forcing everyone one else to agree with me?

>I mean actual free speech would just be an endless collection of penis videos.

I agree with the main thrust of your post, but to nitpick, American free speech jurisprudence is not so daft. Where some restrictions are necessary, the principle of “viewpoint neutrality” still works to prohibit censorship. So, where the government allows pro-abortion expression, it must also allow anti-abortion expression. And this applies even where its more general obligation to allow all expression does not hold.

Yeah I get it.

But like it’s fine for Flyertalk.com to be about frequent flier programs, and for Woodweb.com to stick to discussions of router bits and edge banding.

It seems to me that the reason people are applying some kind of double standard to Tik Tok is because it’s Chinese. But like it’s fine to make an app for kids to share only positive light hearted videos and keep it focused on that.

But of course the more interesting question being raised here is if the other model —- the extremely moderated some kinds of “free speech” but not others Facebook model — is in fact better.

That’s not clear at all.

It's not hypocritical to look at a Chinese app and question the motives of the censors there. Obviously their censors are controlled by the CCP. I dont have children yet but if I did they would not be allowed on TikTok, period.

But then, I also think the free world shouldn't do business with the Communist Chinese. So that's just my opinion.

> I mean actual free speech would just be an endless collection of penis videos.

I disagree. There may be some such videos, but if anyone will write anything, then there will also be a lot of other stuff too, including other videos, and also stuff that isn't videos. There might also be worthless messages such as "kljsdljlaregj lkejgl ekjrg", but there will also be some good stuff too.

There are simple mechanisms to prevent "penis flood" without censorship: categorization (18+/SFW categories), and sybil attack prevention/popularity ratings (just because 1 guy wants to upload his penis 1000 times, doesn't mean it must appear 1000 times in the global feed. Trolls can attract a lot of attention, but most people aren't trolls).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com