Hacker News Reader

Comment by numtel | Hacker News Reader

> No doubt, these censors and would-be censors have the best of intentions.

I would contend that profit is at least partially the intention of these actors, largely indirectly by people who are invested in stock markets.

Capitalism is a symptom of power and information asymmetries. A few years ago, Zuckerberg said that all problems would be solved if everybody told the truth all the time. It's not that simple though. There's a Greg Egan story about a couple that undergoes a procedure to experience all the thoughts and feelings of each other for a period of time, which ultimately results in their breakup.

View on HN

I think this is absolutely right, and wish that discussions on this topic would focus more on the externalities of profit-seeking platforms than free speech principles.

Free speech absolutists tend to jump to the defense of free speech and in the process ignore a real problem. Pro-censorship/content moderation folks tend to jump to the defense of censorship/moderation. In the process, the debate gets framed around "speech vs. censorship" instead of the serious issues with our political commons being dominated by sophisticated profit-seeking entities.

> A few years ago, Zuckerberg said that all problems would be solved if everybody told the truth all the time.

Everyone 'going transparent' in other words

The circle is looking more and more like the 1984 of our time

> Capitalism is a symptom of power and information asymmetries

if you want to talk about power and information asymmetries, I suggest you look at Communist regimes.

>"I would contend that profit is at least partially the intention of these actors, largely indirectly by people who are invested in stock markets."

Profit is definitely one motivation for censorship, but there has been plenty of censorship in non-profit-centric situations. Communist countries and other government actors have been leaders in censorship, with no obvious profit motive.

OP is clearly referring to censorship in the "admin bans you from their website if you say things they don't like" sense, not the "government throws you in jail if you say wrong thing" sense. These conversations tend to become unproductive and devolve when folks conflate these two senses of the word censorship.

IMO, we should use "content moderation" for the former and "censorship" for the latter, congruent with historical usage. But people who are against content moderation will claim I'm being biased, even though I view the whole debate as a bit of red herring that distracts from the real issues. So I'd settle for "private-sector censorship" and "government censorship".

But in any case it's almost always counter-productive to conflate the two, to the point that it's a logical fallacy which should be named.

Thanks for the clarification. The article was talking about shutting down Facebook so that is the source of the reference.

It makes misunderstandings more likely, however i am not so sure if the distinction still exists when every conversation online is covered by private-sector censorship. Seeing as in the end the private sector always has governments influencing their moderation policy. And be it just through liability.

My point was more abut misunderstandings, which is why at the end I say "whatever, as long as we're all on the same page, others can pick the names."

> i am not so sure if the distinction still exists when every conversation online is covered by private-sector censorship

That's certainly fair, and I think a particularly prescient observation in favor of the conclusion that it's time to severely restrict legal protections for social media platforms.

> will claim I'm being biased, even though I view the whole debate as a bit of red herring that distracts from the real issues

This implies you don't think "content moderation" is a "real" problem, which suggests to me you are biased. Also, "moderation" to me suggests mere moderation (consistent with fair, stated guideline) versus moderation "if you say things they don't like".

This kind of fight happens all over the place (e.g. what counts as hate/rape/murder etc), but I feel "moderation" is fairly neutral sounding without the implication of injustice befitting the act of being deprived of a a voice on omnipresent and monopolising platforms. It's also clear to me that some publications use comments sections as a way to manipulate public opinion, so cherry-picking/censoring them is an exercise in PR if (and only if) it isn't clear that result are being manipulated.

Dude... I literally said we can call it whatever you want. What are you on about?

Where did you say that? I directly quoted what I'm responding to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com