Hacker News Reader

Comment by matkoniecz | Hacker News Reader

> so HN wants Twitter moderation and censorship but a country censoring videos and text books is a big no no.

I have no big problems with websites limiting what users can post (HN is also ding this!), but I have big problems with politicians having ability to for example take down content criticizing them.

Content that should be made illegal to post anywhere at all is in my opinion extremely rare, and basically all censorship system should censor less. Sadly, some things needs to be blocked and once system exists it inevitably gets misused.

Not sure what the proper solution is.

View on HN

New Zealand has very strong separation between policy makers (the government) and the agencies that enforce policies. The government can't tell the police what to do, they can't tell treasury what to do, they can't tell defence what to do, etc. All they can do is write policy, approve funding, and request help.

Therefore, they'll help set policy for what needs to be taken down, but a politician will not be able to take down content, they may request the censor office does this, but they won't be able to force them or do it themselves.

NZ is an outlier in the world, but it is a very strong liberal democracy. It has very low levels of corruption, very high levels of public confidence in government, very transparent ways of operating, and very strong media and public participation to hold the public sector to account.

Other countries might abuse this system, but I doubt New Zealand is.

> they can't tell defence what to do

The Prime Minister can only exercise control over the military by policy? They have no input to operations at all? Seems extraordinary. Wikipedia says that ministers exercise authority.

Yes, it's a bit of a stretch. The whole idea is that ministers do in fact make decisions so that somebody can be held democratically accountable for them. But sometimes we limit their decisions to appointments, i.e. choosing who to delegate power to. If that person messes up then we hold the minister accountable for putting their faith in the wrong person. The comment was pushing back on the idea that politicians are the ones doing the censoring. In that sense they are largely correct -- censorship is one of those powers you do not want to give directly to the politicians. And you can set it up so they don't get it. That's all.

Do Ardern’s political opponents feel the same way?

> New Zealand has very strong separation between policy makers (the government) and the agencies that enforce policies. The government can't tell the police what to do, they can't tell treasury what to do, they can't tell defence what to do, etc. All they can do is write policy, approve funding, and request help.

Seems like it is less a democracy than rule by a professional elite with a thin veneer of elections to keep the people happy.

No, there is a lot of transparency and oversight, including to any member of the public, and ultimately the government sets policy. I can just request any document, and in fact I used to work in the public service where a coworker would frequently request any correspondence about him by staff or managers under the official information act. He was paranoid but had the ability to do it.

An example is during covid, the government set policy around what could be done but the police were ultimately in charge with how they enforced it. Additionally New Zealand has a culture of egalitarianism and community. While there is growing inequality, there isn't an elite yet.

The government provides checks on the public service and the public service provides checks on the government.

Another example is the treasury prevents the government going into debt unless there are extreme circumstances and a plan to get back into surplus. The government can't just cut taxes and up borrowing to buy votes, they need to be fiscally responsible and that's controlled by the treasury.

Ultimately New Zealand has a reasonably direct, accessable, and transparent form of government which represents the community that it serves, it is rated top in the democracy list for a reason.

It's come a long way since the days when it was known as "the only command economy in the OECD", then!

> I have big problems with politicians having ability to for example take down content criticizing them

Is this a hypothetical? Because plenty of content on FB criticising New Zealand's politicians.

> Is this a hypothetical?

depends on a country

> Because plenty of content on FB criticising New Zealand's politicians.

This does not mean that no content was taken down solely for criticizing politicians.

Considering I can't prove a negative, are you able to prove a positive?

Because trust me, New Zealand's opposition parties, social media, and the real media, would be on that like flies on shit if there was even a hint that it had happened. All it would take is someone saying "Wtf, my FB post calling Jacinda Ardern a pretty communist was mysteriously deleted."

I guess it's good to live in a nation where corruption is low, and the rule of law applies to all, the media is free, and who deliberates on questions of law isn't decided by politicians.

Because I know that any of the behaviour you posit would be absolutely called out.

Like the time a New Zealand Prime Minister sent the Police in to find an investigative journalist's sources, because it embarrassed him and his government.

Or the time that the New Zealand Defence Force sicced the internal intelligence service on the same journalist to find his sources because he embarrassed them...

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/104638742/police-apo...

https://i.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130640313/the-dirty-politics-b...

The fact that a) these things happened concerns me but b) that it was exposed to the light heartens me.

So yeah, if you've got evidence of what you posit actually occurring, please share it.

> Considering I can't prove a negative, are you able to prove a positive?

Yes. In communist Poland "You submit the content for classification. With documentation. And they send it back with a detailed report of what needs to be censored" was used and designed to keep criticism of ruling class and ruling system out of public view.

----------------------------

Note that I am not claiming that NZ is currently abusing this system, or that NZ system is intended to provide such use.

I was responding to

> Because plenty of content on FB criticising New Zealand's politicians.

that is not really indicating anything, except lack of USSR-level censorship.

Maybe confusion was caused because I responded to

> But that sort of censorship is fine. You submit the content for classification. With documentation. And they send it back with a detailed report of what needs to be censored and why.

treating is a claim in general, not specifically about NZ

(I do not want to claim anything about NZ as I am not familiar with it)

> All it would take is someone saying "Wtf, my FB post calling Jacinda Ardern a pretty communist was mysteriously deleted."

The post saying that would also be deleted in that scenario.

No one cares if one domino falls over. But a whole bunch in a row is quite a spectacle.

Good thing there's more than one social network then.

No content was taken down solely for criticising politicians

The solution is for us Kiwis to decide. You can worry about your own government.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com