Hacker News Reader

Comment by somewhereoutth | Hacker News Reader

Communications between individuals (who presumably know each other) should be treated like phone calls.

Communications one-to-many (presumably mostly strangers) should be treated like broadcast media. This would include memes, links, etc, that may actually be passed person to person (the broadcast is diffuse, but still a broadcast).

So censoring phone calls/chats is not ok, but censoring public posts, or memes/links intended for distribution should be. Incitement to violence is a good test, as is wilfully spreading harmful misinformation.

Eventually we are going to have to get a handle on social media - as recent events have shown (doesn't matter when this comment was written, there is always a recent event, sadly).

View on HN

One-to-many should be treated on a site-by-site basis. Hacker news is pretty heavily moderated, and that's fine for hacker news. 4chan is lightly moderated, depending on the board, and that's fine for 4chan. But back in the day, even 4chan decided to ban specific things beyond legal issues like CSAM or raids or people sharing personal information (all of which could also face legal penalties even if they were not publicly broadcast). They specifically banned My Little Pony content on /b/, just because it was annoying too many users. No clue if the ban is still present, but it's their business whether it is or not.

Sites shouldn't need to justify this to any central authority, the government does not need to be more involved in this process, and this law is stupid (and would likely lead to conflicts with another stupid set of laws, SESTA and FOSTA).

This is fabricating a huge number of brand new handcuffs for social interaction. And there's not a single iota of justification or reasoning presented. It's purely say so.

It totally ignores that anyone but the individual has rights. It admits to no clash, acknowledges that no one else has rights. If the entire world except you votes unanimously that your posting is just the lowest grade most toxic trash that no one would ever go near & has no value, this asserts that since you shared it with >1 person, no syst nor person nor networlay get in the way with you sharing it with the whole world. We all have to listen.

This is a farcical & unserious position. The agenda here is just malice, a bunch of people seeming to use the law to interject themselves as they please in a way no one can reject, utterly secure in their bloviation/unchallengeable.

Recent events have shown the shouting class os obnoxious & toxic & most spcial networks are fed up with these problematic overimposing loud few. That these few take suchkdern umbrage with the most minimal & gentle of private curbings & immediately resort to trying to get thr goverent to force them to be unignorable, unavoidable shows what real moral standing they have.

Broadcast media is regulated because it uses a limited resource deemed for the public good - the broadcast spectrum. There is no equivalent to the broadcast spectrum on the internet. Note that non-broadcast media like cable is far less regulated for that reason.

Also, incitement to violence is already against the law and the TOS for social media platforms.

I think the incitement to violence exception is a simple phrase that is highly complex. To me, our former president continuing to harp on the lie that the election was stolen was a clear incitement to violence.

But to many, they disagree. He didn't specifically say "go commit violence" (although he has done so in the past in other situations).

There are many people that were arguing that calling COVID-19 the china violence was one of the things leading to increased violence against Asians. So would that constitute incitement to violence? I don't think so, but I can definitely see a very blurry line here.

I disagree that all communication that is one-to-many should be treated like traditional broadcast media. A great deal of folks on the late 90s and early 2000s internet were protesting effectively this kind of censorship, in the form of the Communications Decency Act. As Yishan Wong mentions in his thread regarding Elon Musk’s planned acquisition of Twitter, the difference between the Internet then and now is that the Internet then was mostly grappling with censorship from the evangelical religious right, whereas today it is very different. However, while reality has become muddy and unclear, I feel the principles have largely stayed the same.

The fact is that the internet is becoming the fabric of all kinds of communication. All scales of communication can happen in effectively the same manner; a tweet can be sent to one person or a million and there’s no real difference. Internet communication has effectively replaced sitting in a group chatting with friends and acquaintances, something that absolutely should not be treated like broadcast media. It is tempting to try to special case this because it worked before, but I don’t think that’s the answer, and I wonder if that will even remain a feasible option into the long term future. With improving technology and the fundamental belief that people have a substantial amount of freedom to use computers (and the internet) as they like, it’s hard for me to imagine the cat going back into the bag.

So I think what we have today is most likely to not change substantially… Everyone agrees that the internet can amplify some bad behaviors, but nobody seems to agree on exactly what to do about it. Making Twitter responsible for the content of every tweet seems unreasonable, but Twitter having zero accountability for what happens in the open on their platform also seems unreasonable. That makes it seem like the answer must be somewhere in the middle, and maybe it is. But sometimes, I do wonder if maybe there will emerge an alternative approach that doesn’t seem to be a futile game of balance?

Although it is clear today that the Internet and social media is far from just a passing fad, I do wonder if it will ever hit its cultural peak at some point and begin declining in importance. I mean, how much longer can it continue to eat up other forms of interaction? Surely it will run out. Surely fatigue will build. Surely? And assuming it’s not cyclical, I hope that this eases some of the problems that come from the internet having become so important in modern society. Definitely won’t be holding my breath.

I don't believe social media does eat up other forms of interaction, at least not for most people. People still speak, they still read, they still watch tv, talk on the telephone, communicate in every way they used to.

Over 90% of the entire human population has cell phones, globally. Sure, some of them lack data or at least robust data, but the writing is firmly on the wall: people are getting online one way or another. Meanwhile, Facebook has nearly 3 billion active users on its own. It only started in 2004 and it wasn’t even available to the general public for years.

By some estimates, 4 billion people don’t even have postal addresses yet. This is substantial adoption in an exceedingly short period.

Many things can be said about exactly how and why this happened, but by and large Facebook became a utility for communicating with people who you otherwise would have trouble keeping up with due to geographical differences or other life changes.

That said, as it has become so ubiquitous, today many people use it to keep up with people they see every day. Hell, I’m more likely to get a Discord message from someone who is a room away rather than them walk over. The utility of the internet draws people in, but once you have it, it can become second nature. Many of us carry around internet communicators in our pockets 24/7. You may initially mostly have one so you can use Maps, or call someone if you need to, but if it has a data connection and a screen it can probably be used to post to Facebook or watch a YouTube video.

If it were deniable before, I’d argue COVID-19 lockdown only made it more evident just how online everyone was, and if they weren’t already, it certainly gave them a push to get there.

For economical and other reasons, I’m sure Internet and social media adoption will slow down and it will take a long time to permeate even more of life. However, many Americans probably already spend more time with social interactions online than IRL.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics:

> From 2003 to 2017, the average amount of time Americans spent socializing per day dropped from about 46 minutes to 39 minutes.

Meanwhile, many reports have cited frankly alarming amounts of time spent on platforms like Facebook and phones in general, with one claiming that Americans on average spend 7 hours a week using Facebook, and a report[1] from Pew Research Center asserts that 31% of American adults claim to be online “almost constantly.”

Of course, this is U.S. centric to some degree, but the writing is on the wall. People still speak, read, watch TV, talk on the telephone, and communicate in every way they used to. Except they use Facebook more, and they use the “telephone” to do internet communication more than they use it to do voice calls over the traditional phone network. No matter how you look at it, the internet is eating up social interactions of all kinds. And if you don’t see it yet, you probably won’t have to wait long on this trajectory. For better and worse.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/03/26/about-three...

Also the prevalence of homicide decreasing would mean that the laws need to be relaxed. There was no enforcement in the beginning of the net and violence did not increase at all. In that case restrictions on speech don't have any justification as provided by empirical evidence.

Those that call for tighter regulation need to adjust to a realistic approach to the problem, not an emotional with reference to current event.s

No, censorship is not OK, and free expression will probably win in end. People don't like to be shut up, and in the long run capitalism provides people with what they like.

Capitalism won't however, allow for speech which threatens its own existence. Utterances which pose a threat and cannot be subsumed by capitalism are stopped, erased, and penalized. I'll argue that this is the very speech that is most important to protect.

> Capitalism won't however, allow for speech which threatens its own existence.

What are some examples of that kind of speech?

The most obvious example is that time free speech was used to elect a certain someone who was politically hated by the big tech capitalist class.

I'm assuming it would get me banned, but nice try ;)

Actually a mixed economy provides people with what they like, with about 40% organised by the state.

Free expression has always had limits, particularly regarding 'spreading lies about others' and 'inciting bad stuff'.

Where do Group chats land in this?

Phone calls can have more than one person, for example, so those laws could still apply cleanly.

IMO - anything with a bound and mutual audience is "Direct Messaging". Eg. a private FB account posting to ONLY its followers (who had to be manually "friend request accepted") is a private message. A public twitter feed that anyone can view is a public broadcast. A private message with the permissions changed by the creator to become a public is - wait for it - public.

The grey area here in my view is FB groups (which can have 10s of thousands of members). I would say its public since its not universally mutual with each pair. that said, if you IRL went to AA or church or something and shared something for a group, you'd consider it a private conversation. I think this is where the vagueness of law would say something like "could the speaker have consented to this audience with the expectation that it would be private."

The giant caveat to what you are saying is that the nature of the 'broadcast' is not isolated to the individual - it's on a platform.

So - for 'web sites' - yes. That should apply. And it does: you can make your own 1-to-many site and say almost whatever you want.

Twitter is not that, there's much more going on.

In the public interest, it may be worthwhile to have maybe some regs around it, and the notion of 'banned for having an opinion' is not entirely unreasonable. That said, most people on Twitter are not banned for that.

And of course are the statements: "The Election Was Stolen!" or "The Voting Machines Were Hacked By China" or "Vaccines Were Invented By Big Pharma To Control US" 'opinions'?

I would argue that AWS should have very little leeway in terms of who they can host or not - much like 'net neutrality' they should have 'service neutrality'.

Same for Email.

But for things that are truly social networks, they should have a fair bit of lattitude to set their own policies.

Finally you have the issues of distribution. App Store and Google Play have very difficult and problematic barriers to the content on apps. I had an app 'not pass muster' because someone in a bit of content was talking about whether or not a particular male celebrity was 'hot or not'. Ridiculous.

So, a final point might be to at minimum require 'objectivity' and 'transparency' to Social Network management, such that people are at least treated consistently according to a clear set of rules.

Twitter 'verification' is a giant 'black box' - that's just unfair.

I disagree. That isn't realistic for the communication channels of today. Also liberals and conservatives randomly switch opinion on this matter depending on the content.

Social networks were successful because they allowed it to be a soapbox for everyone. Overall that is certainly an improvement over traditional media channels.

Recent events, I guess you are referring to someone going on a shooting spree again, cannot justify censorship as the homicide rate in the US is still vastly lower than 1985.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com