Hacker News Reader

Comment by otterley | Hacker News Reader

Why anyone should care if you can't send links to websites run by kooky nutjobs with false or highly questionable COVID information to other people via FB messenger?

View on HN

"Kooky nutjobs" do exist, but part of the problem with censorship is that undesireable people can be put into this can all too easily to be silenced, even though their agenda is not really that kooky.

Pro-gay or pro-weed activists, heck even pro-civil rights activists used to be kooky nutjobs of their time.

We haven't arrived at the end of our moral or legislative evolution. We need to hear some voices that are considered kooky.

For a recent example, see Lenore Skenazy and her free-range parenting. This definitely seems kooky to a paranoid, helicopter parent part of the population. What if this part of the population holds the Delete button?

This isn’t the same thing, and I think you know that.

I know that this isn't the same thing, but once you have a big hammer (censorship), let us bet that it will be used fairly indiscriminately.

This isn't a new discussion, and I think you know that. Bureaucracy tasked with suppression of speech and beholden to career politicians hasn't historically shown itself to be subtle and erring on the side of freedom.

Let us not, because pretty much all communication platforms have been moderated in one way or another for all time, even on the Internet (Usenet excepted, which I’d argue hastened its decline; and even then, a lot of news servers wouldn’t carry the crazy groups). There’s plenty of history here already and it seems pretty clear that it hasn’t had catastrophic effects.

As I said elsewhere, if an actual problem arises, fine, let’s do something about it. But that’s not the case today. There’s just no indication that Facebook is going to block mainstream political speech anytime soon. If you find a real example of that, raise it, and I’m sure it’ll get a lot more attention than from just the free-speech absolutists.

Because of the precedent that sets. For example, some would hold that socialism is as economically illiterate as anti-vaccine opinions are medically illiterate to you. Should socialist links be likewise censored?

The precedent that privately-run internet messenger services can censor content was set a very long time ago. You’re decades late to that party.

Besides, we’re not talking about political opinions here. If they ever do that (which is unlikely), then we can become justifiably upset. That’s a hill worth dying on — this one is not.

About this case in particular, one problem I have is that they seem to censor the entire domain. Most of the content on that site is bad and definitely violates Facebook's rules. A lot of it is straight up lies made up by the site owner for political purposes.

However, some articles on the site are just political opinions about the CCP. Because Facebook blocks those, I think the merits of this censorship at a coarse grain are worth discussing.

When 99% of your content makes the rest of it look good, you willingly assume that risk. Nobody should be shedding tears about this.

Also, censorship is forbidden only to the government and to common carriers (which Facebook is not). Private parties (with very rare and reasonable exceptions) have the right to control what others do with their chattels.

Guess you missed all the 2020 election censorship since you're not in the present wrongthink category.

Try sending https://thedonald.win via FB Messenger

> socialism is as economically illiterate as anti-vaccine opinions are medically illiterate to you

Edgy comment, but unfortunately, even with all the sophisticated jargon and advanced mathematics, economics isn't a real science with objective truths, but medicine is. Don't get me wrong, I too believe that capitalism is the only form of economic system that works, but to equate socialists (however misguided you think they are) with anti-vaxxers is a bit much.

I said there are people who would say that. Whether I am one is not the point.

In this case, the linked article contains a lie. It's not an opinion. The article claims that a study had a result that it did not have (higher viral load amongst the vaccinated). The authors of the study have already published a condemnation explaining the misunderstanding.

Should Facebook block every lie? Where exactly does that line fall? How, anyway, do you distinguish with certainty between a lie and a misunderstanding?

In some cases it's hard to tell where the line should fall. This isn't one of those.

In general you can't distinguish but fortunately that doesn't matter. Facebook doesn't block lies, it blocks "known misinformation". The information in the linked article is known to be false, and it is harmful, so it's blocked.

Why don’t we judge each action on its individual merits instead? Why can’t we simply say “yup, this site is a problem, nothing of value lost here” without worrying about whether they’re going to block speech about whether 2 or 3 teaspoons of yeast is the right amount to put in a loaf of bread, or whether my candidate for school board is better than yours?

Let me be super clear here: nobody is entitled to use other people’s stuff to make trouble or potentially harm society. Not your mother’s house; not Facebook’s messenger. If anyone gets to use anyone else’s stuff, it is at the owner’s pleasure and under their conditions.

I ran into this block last year trying to send a link with a comment like "wow this is wild, if this is what people really believe our democracy is in trouble <link>", that felt like a hinderance to even discussing the problem.

That's the very definition of concern trolling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Concern_troll

> A concern troll is a false-flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the troll claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt within the group often by appealing to outrage culture.[63] This is a particular case of sockpuppeting and safe-baiting.

So no?

The person you reply to is a 7 year old account in good standing.

Also let me give you another example: licensed medical doctors being unable to have a technical discussion between themselves about Ivermectin in one channel and having to move elsewhere.

This edge case, while admittedly existing, doesn’t seem worth wringing our hands over. There are other channels available for that.

What about links that call for violence / genocide? Should those be delivered to avoid setting a precedent?

Yes, I would say so.

TBH that absolutist position feels untenable. Unmoderated platforms are quickly overrun by objectionable content, and easily usurped by moderated competitors. The only way to force this would be through legislation, and I just think there is no way that the majority of people can be convinced to support/vote for that position.

That's true of communities involving large groups of people; this is Facebook Messenger, which is mostly used for one-on-one or small-group chat, like SMS. SMS is not generally overrun with objectionable content, even though it is mostly unmoderated.

I want you to imagine for a second a conversation between two people, one that goes something like this:

Person A: "I really don't think weed should be illegal."

Person B: "Oh yeah, so what about raping rural villagers to death? I guess you think that should be legal too huh?"

This is how ridiculous you sound.

You’re making up something that person didn’t say (or even imply, really). That’s not ok.

I want you to imagine for a second that someone makes the claim that blocking links for COVID misinformation is setting a precedent. An obvious follow up in order to have a constructive discussion is to establish where the line is, ie whether the debate is a) whether blocking of any kind or b) what content warrants blocking. This is specifically relevant to Facebook since Whatsapp has been used in the past to coordinate/incite violence and genocide.

So maybe stop and think for one second before commenting?

There was already a consensus on where the line should be, it's people making arguments like the one you're making that are muddying the waters so they can "clarify" as you're doing and suppress speech. We already know where the line is.

The line is here: in a private communication between people anything can be said, nothing should be censored. if someone gets caught planning or doing something illegal they go to jail.

That was never the consensus or the “line,” because major chat providers never behaved in the way you suggest. They have always had rules that were codified in their Terms of Use, and have enforced them through various means.

Your absolutist position is interesting, but don’t make it sound like private carriers have ever been held to this standard.

Wait you started this thread making it seem like it was ridiculous to equate covid misinformation and other forms of objectional content (such as calls for violence), implying that you felt it obvious that allowing the former would not mean also allowing the latter. Is that not your position?

Private messaging platforms have been censoring content for decades and yet I can still openly discuss socialism on any platform I want. Maybe we should evaluate actions individually on the merits instead of constantly focusing on hypotheticals that rarely come to fruition?

Hypothetical applications are how you evaluate a principle. "Does the principle this precedent relies on hold up equally well when applied to socialism?" is a reasonable and useful question in that context.

The currently popular idea of "setting precedent" is overrated, misused and an argument, and shouldn't be taken as "it will definitely happen all the time soon".

The Japanese "set precedent" by bombing Pearl Harbour. How many seaports of the US have been bombed by a foreign power since then?

The US dropped two nukes on Japan. Did it "set precedent" for nations to nuke each other willy-nilly in wars since then?

You know what I say -- so be it. If they want to censor literally everything that isn't pleasantries and personal conversation I say lets do it. The world will be better off almost immediately.

Why did you bother to post this message then? Shouldn't it be censored?

It's not a link to a 3rd party website containing rant about censorship so I'd argue that's what I'm looking for.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com