Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by dylan604 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

dylan604

I would also be interested in honest answers here, but would not expect anyone to be willing to have this conversation.

Facebook == bad/evil, so easy reaction.

Censorship == bad/evil, so easy reaction.

Fixing some of FB's bad requires censorship. uh-oh. This one might require some thought vs reaction.

View on HN

We are looking the externalities. Until we start examining the root cause of what is causing people to behave this way on these platforms, and start addressing those issues, which is arguably much harder, everything is going to be lipstick on a pig IMO.

Agreed 100%. But oh the irony. You took time (and I’m taking more time) to put comments about the issue on an obscure forum of geeky people. As you’re pointing out, the roots of these problems (human trafficking) is not an internet problem. So internet censorship is not a real solution. And then we use the very internet (and our time) to diagnose this very issue.

Maybe we should all spend more time in the real world doing real things that make the world a better place so these evils happen less collectively. I’m going to do just that. I’ve just got a few more threads I need to comment on first…

> Until we start examining the root cause of what is causing people to behave this way on these platforms...

People were just outraged at facebook last week for researching just that (how insta affects teens). I don't have much optimism in our ability to go beyond the surface.

I don't think most people were outraged at FB for _researching_ how Instagram affects teens. What people were outraged about was that upon finding that Instagram appears to have deleterious effects on teen girls, FB a) didn't share these findings with the public or consumers of Instagram, and b) doesn't appear to have done anything to correct or mitigate the negative effect their product appears to have on these people.

I think it's also interesting here because really this is about Apple vs. Facebook (Instagram).

Apple is saying Facebook you need to moderate your content.

Which the question becomes "Is Instagram more than a glorified web browser?"

Instagram controls what is uploaded to its servers — a web browser does not do that.

Are you suggesting the app does local qualifications of what is uploaded vs processing on the server? Does it really matter which side the qualifing is done?

You aren't wrong, but as far as I'm aware, the majority of content on the Instagram app is accessible via an instagram.com URL. That's what I mean by glorified browser. If apple is "banning" that app because of the content but that content is still available on the device via apple's own Safari, did they really ban anything?

---- The question is "when legally is apple responsible for UGC on instagram's servers?" That's the real question. Otherwise this would be moral grandstanding by Apple.

I'm pretty sure if anyone tried to sue Apple for "distributing objectionable content" they'd run to "we aren't responsible for what's on Instagram's servers." How responsible SHOULD Apple be for data hosted on instagram's servers?

Are people incapable of nuance?

Blocking slave adverts != Censorship

I have no problem with that.

Please explain how it is not censorship.

Are slave adverts protected speech?

Again, I don't think the nuance is subtle at all.

Censorship applies to everything, not just "protected speech" (whatever that is)

Why would you not want to block slave adverts? Absolutist approach to freedom of speech?

I'm not stating that I am for or against anything. I'm asking how the blocking is not censorship. Why would you need to speculate anything further? Just answer the question rather than deflecting and redirecting to another question. (yes, i'm aware you're not the original person)

How do you block slave adverts across an entire federated protocol that is designed to be censorship resistant?

You don’t. Just like you don’t block individual electrons in transit to complete a fraudulent credit card charge. Endpoint security is always, has always been the weakest link, in practice, for actual crimes. For casual political censorship and to threaten law-abiding people, this top-level analytics is fine. “Don’t sell slaves on our platform. If we find you doing this we send your info to law enforcement.”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com