Hacker News Reader

Comment by grezql | Hacker News Reader

Where does the line between blocking illegal content vs censorship go?

In the western world we would probably allow ISPs to block sites that promote traditions that we do not see as normal. For example; in some east asian countries they eat dogs during festival. Websites selling dog meat shipping to western countries would be blocked in my country.

Why can't India censor websites than promote values they dont agree with? Or Russia?

Every country and people are unique and they have different values. We shouldnt try to assimilate those.

View on HN

Let the laws and courts determine that. Not Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey.

Im totally against Social medias. And believe they have caused mental health damage to large section of the population. but lets talk about general censorship vs freedom without Social medias in the equation.

There are 2 approaches.

You could argue that freedom of speech is a sacrosant right, like the right to live, that no law(not even the constitution) can overrule. You will lost that battle, with reason, because things like child pornography or slander must not be protected.

So the second approach is to say, ok, some things are better censored, let the laws to clearly define that. If something must be appended or removed, do it through the appropriate channel, sponsor a bill, vote it, make it law, create the precedent.Rinse and repeat. A tedious game, but a needed one.

What you cannot do is to let the techno-barons to decide themselves what should or shouldnt be said, when they are managing platforms that are quasi-monopolistic.

> let the laws clearly define that.

If there is one thing about laws is that they're messy and complex, a reflection of the world we live in. Our culture and values constantly evolve, and the laws are normally following those so something legal or illegal at this moment might not be in the future.

And that's why there is a full branch of government dedicated to that work, a branch that at least in theory is at the service of the nation. Totally opposite to the XXI century digital Rockefellers.

Social media outlets are publishers, I have no problem with them editorializing. I wouldn’t have a problem with a book store not carrying a book or a newspaper not publishing a crank opinion piece, why should I have a problem with twitter banning someone (or whatever else)?

Because then you will have to shut your mouth when Google delists you, youtube deplatforms you and Amex/Visa/MasterCard refuse to do business with you just because something, perfectly legal, that you said. Maybe it is OK for you, for me it is bone chilling scary.

However some are upset at what one nation's laws and courts block as compared to another. The Zuckerberg's and Dorsey's of the world however are intimidated into doing such censorship on the behalf of politicians who cannot do it themselves.

They accomplish this simply by attacking the organizations on another front. Never underestimate the coercive nature of politicians whose own countries forbid censorship they can get another to do for them.

The simple fact is, our western values are not the world's values.

> Let the laws and courts determine that. Not Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey.

So, we should rely on state censorship in preference to the free marketplace of ideas competing for private support to relay them?

Yes, do you want the free market to decide who should or should not be killed?

"state censorship" at least in The USA, is pretty limited.

So yes, I would prefer the existing system, where state censorship is extremely limited, to a situation where instead censorship is much more broad and effects more people.

If the speech is legal, then it should be allowed on major communication platforms.

There is even existing laws for this, that we could expand to cover new forms of media.

Those existing laws are called common carrier laws, and they currently apply to the phone network, and they could be changed to include many of the major new platforms.

Common carrier laws are pretty uncontroversial. I would hope that you do not think as they apply to the phone system, that they are some huge example of unfairness.

By wanting to use legal measures to force publishers to carry certain speech, you're not only drastically limiting the organizations' own free speech rights, but very quickly opening up a short path to punishing those who refuse to carry certain messages. Another word for that is (literally) propaganda.

This whole movement of people begging the government to prevent companies from curating their content, under the guise of fucking free speech of all things, is so deep into doublespeak territory that it just leaves me in awe.

Do you think it is some huge infringement that phone companies are required to follow common carrier laws?

Common carrier laws are pretty uncontroversial. Those existing laws could be updated to include communication networks that are more relevant in the modern day.

I am sure forbidding Jack Dorsey to kill one of his minions also drastically limits his free will, but _c'est la vie_.

Another way to evaluate would be what would have been allowed in private organization or published in a book or pamphlet?

If the answer is "you can't do anything on the internet that you couldn't do before" then that changes the headline.

There are such things as good and bad in the world.

Cultural relativism is brain poison. It is very important to define and fight for universal human rights, such as the right to date and marry someone regardless of gender.

There is no line, thats censorship as well and should be rejected.

Would a site selling dog meat be blocked? Or would sales to your country be barred (as they'd, presumably, be illegal)?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com