Hacker News Reader

Comment by kyle_martin1 | Hacker News Reader

The realities of censorship are and historically have been large net losses. That was one of the large premises of the founding of the United States, among many other ideals.

So in the interest humanity and historical evidence, censorship is and will always be a bad idea. The best ideas will eventually win, as history has also shown us.

Source: US constitution, Venezuelan history, Romanian history, British history, Korean history, Vietnam history, Chinese history, Cuban history, Cambodian history, Soviet Union history, German history. That’s just a start.

View on HN

I'm pretty sure current China would disagree with you given the amount of people they've raised from essentially peasantry to a modern middle class in the past generation.

That experiment is still ongoing and it's unclear what the ultimate result will be. They've very much not reached steady state yet.

I much prefer the western system, but really all our experiments are ongoing.

The USA experiment is the single greatest creator of prosperity in all of history. Our tides have all boats 1000x.

Thanks to USA funding them through outsourcing low wage jobs and commerce. Take a Google.

Let me preface this by saying I used to be a free speech absolutist, and maybe I will be again some day. I still don't think the government should be banning speech. But I think companies moderating their spaces is necessary.

Good moderation is large part of why this forum is so good in the first place. The history of the internet has shown us that unmoderated spaces turn into dumpster fires.

German history seems to be the classic example of an unchecked conspiracy theory doing massive damage. That is why holocaust denial was made illegal in much of Europe.

I am ignorant of most of the other histories. Would love to hear your take.

(Also as an aside, I upvoted you since I think you make good points and provoke an interesting discussion, even if we don't agree on everything).

Thanks for the upvote. To your point about companies censoring speech as they own the platform, I'd agree they claim to be a platform but I don't think they're acting like platform. Based on their actions they’re acting as a Publisher because they’re editing and curving speech like a newspaper does with opinion pieces.

Platform has a legal definition, which was litigated in the early 90s. The result was if you’re a platform you’re not legally liable for the content of your website. The legislation calls out that’s speech must be user generated and flow of ideas cannot be restricted unless they are already illegal (eg. how to make a bomb).

Publisher also has a legal definition, which social media companies certainly don’t want because then they’re liable for all content and can be regulated further. Actually these companies don’t want any regulation The business models will eventually come under attack due to overreaching privacy policies and general CEO autonomy.

I’d also like to point out there’s some incestuous situations going on between the staff of Facebook, Twitter and Democratic campaigns including Biden’s. If we’re honest with ourselves we know it’s highly likely collusion and back channels exist between the two. I can provide more information if you’d like.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com