Comment by ANTSANTS | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ANTSANTS | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

A guy that has been using 4chan and other anonymous messageboards since he was 12 acts and thinks like a 4chan user. What a shock.

I know it's not the same to you, but if you look at the top 15 boards on 8chan, that list includes a board that Fredrick likely has no interest in (gay porn), boards full of users that he probably disagrees strongly with (/leftypol/, a left wing version of /pol/, and /christian/, iirc he is an athiest), and a community full of people that he personally cannot stand (/furry/). Maybe you wouldn't pay to provide a home for "gamergate jerks", but he doesn't seem to have a problem providing a home for a lot of people he dislikes or disagrees with.

What is the difference between "enabling" and "not stopping" something? Is he "enabling" GamerGate because he supports it on his personal twitter account, or is he "enabling" it just for refusing to censor it on his site? Is he "enabling" /baphomet/ because he made some improvements to the site software that happened to fix a spam/flooding problem they had? Then is he not also "enabling" the /furry/ board that he developed a CAPTCHA option specifically for, due to the constant attacks of one dedicated spammer that board received? Or does "enabling" just mean "allowing something I dislike"?

I would say "enabling" applies to all of those examples apart from supporting it on twitter, which counts as "supporting".

If you own a media site (or, let's say, a newspaper), you're very much responsible for what's on it. If you believe in free speech to the point that you'll publish anything anyone wants to say to your audience, then you're very much enabling them and responsible for anything that happens as a result of publishing that.

Image boards aren't like newspapers or blogs. All content is user generated.

You're still giving them a platform to do so - it doesn't matter the exact details of how much is user-generated and how much isn't.

If you allowed anybody in the world to put an ad in your newspaper, for example, you would be responsible when ISIS use it as a recruitment or propaganda tool - they wouldn't have that reach otherwise. Same with imageboards, reddit, or HN.

Same with VPS servers. Same with internet infrastructure; hubs, switches and fiber. Or ultimately any physical area in which people uttering heresy and atrocious opinions stay while uttering them (the latter point would ultimately be of concern to any owner of private property, or the state itself in the case of common public property).

How are these distinct from imageboards, forums or reddit? This is a very slippery slope which implies censorship from the very beginning. Are you prepared to follow your reasoning all the way to its conclusion and stop people from having any platform for speaking their mind? Once you go there, you no longer have freedom of speech, which I agree with Hitchens et al. has to be protected even when it is uncomfortable.

I agree that there is a very tricky ethical case when it comes to harrassment or terrorism, but I have no good ideas on how to resolve it. We should err on the side of not censoring stuff we don't like.

> Are you prepared to follow your reasoning all the way to its conclusion and stop people from having any platform for speaking their mind?

No, that's not the conclusion. The conclusion is that the providers are responsible for it and are definitely enabling it, but sometimes that's better than the alternative. Not everything's black and white, unfortunately.

I'm not entirely certain that unrestricted use of a popular destination is the same thing as unrestricted use of a transport, though, to try and figure out a place where the line should be put. If you have an audience and allow people to reach that audience with dangerous and harmful ideas, that's likely worse than giving them the transport to build their own audience.

Alright, so we're separating infrastructure into two types. There's "transport" infrastructure that allows people who already know each other to communicate and there's "audience" infrastructure that provides a way to present ideas to a group of strangers.

Holding providers of "audience" infrastructure accountable means that the only unorthodox groups that can communicate as effectively as the orthodoxy are groups with members that can provide "audience" infrastructure. Now the unorthodox suffer a disadvantage. The purpose of this system is to prevent dangerous and harmful ideas from being spread. This is still censorship.

You're confusing censorship with freedom of association and freedom to chose your customers. If an ISP won't take the KKK's money, that is not censorship. Censorship would be if the government banned every ISP from serving the KKK whether or not they wanted to.

Requiring all ISPs (or forums or whatever) to accept and retransmit the KKK's propaganda is just as much a limit on freedom as banning the stuff.

If I configure my home router to use OpenDNS, such that my children cannot access internet pornography or extremist forums (such as 4chan or 8chan for example), that is a form of censorship, yes? It is a form of censorship that the government is not involved in. It is legal, and it is well within my rights to do. Hell, I'd go so far as to say it is the appropriate thing to do. It's still censorship though. I don't know what else I'd call it.

Alternatively, when an American cable news channel bleeps profanity or blurs nudity, isn't that a form of censorship?

I'm really confused with where the "censorship is only something a government can do" idea came from.

Some sort of conflation between the ideas of "censorship" and "violation of first amendment rights" I suppose.

Part of it is people confusing legal and ethical.

Oh my god, shut up about free speech. It's his privately owned website and he can do whatever he wants with it.

I gave a government example, as that's what we were talking about. Censorship just requires power, and government power is the most important and obvious kind because governments are monopolies over large numbers of people. But yes, you also, having power over your kids, can censor what they see.

But if every individual ISP refuses to host the KKK because they'd just rather not do business with bigots, then that's not censorship. It's just freedom of association.

If the 8chan guy tomorrow decided to shut down and nobody else wanted to host the pedophiles, that isn't censorship. They can buy a piece of land and make a pedophile clubhouse. They can buy a printer, make pedophilia leaflets, and distribute them in the town square. But if nobody wants to help them do that, it isn't censorship, because nobody is exercising power over the pedophiles, just over themselves.

But if every individual ISP refuses to host the KKK because they'd just rather not do business with bigots, then that's not censorship. It's just freedom of association.

No, that is censorship.

transitive verb : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring

That's a ridiculous interpretation. People don't have an obligation to uncritically pass on any and all messages. That a publisher only publishes certain books is not censorship of all the other books. That you promote your own views without simultaneously mentioning all other views is not censorship.

Freedom of speech means that you can put up your own lawn signs in your lawn. It doesn't mean that you get to put your lawn signs in other people's yards. It certainly doesn't mean that they are obligated to print and put up your signs in their yard.

That's a ridiculous interpretation. It's the correct interpretation.

People don't have an obligation to uncritically pass on any and all messages. True.

That a publisher only publishes certain books is not censorship of all the other books. True.

That you promote your own views without simultaneously mentioning all other views is not censorship. True.

Freedom of speech means that you can put up your own lawn signs in your lawn. It doesn't mean that you get to put your lawn signs in other people's yards. It certainly doesn't mean that they are obligated to print and put up your signs in their yard. True.

These are all true, but irrelevant. Refusing to help spread a message is different than trying to stop other people help spread a message. I've been repeating this for a while now. If you're still confused, try rereading our discussion until you see the difference.

Ah yes, the only possible reason somebody could disagree is failure to understand your perfect words.

If my neighbor puts up your signs, I am allowed to express my opinions to him. If he decides to take down the signs, that is still not censorship. I'm even allowed to decide to not talk to him if he leaves them up. Exercising my right to freedom of speech and freedom of association is not censorship. It can't be, because otherwise the right to free speech ends up being self-contradictory.

Ah yes, the only possible reason somebody could disagree is failure to understand your perfect words. Well of course. That's because I'm correct.

Your analogy is irrelevant. Your example neighbor is only putting up signs for one person, and you don't explain why he takes down the signs.

Censorship is selective removal of unwanted ideas to prevent those ideas from spreading. Removing all ideas for some other reason is not censorship.

If I can say anything I want, but I have no infrastructure, then I can't communicate my ideas effectively. People who provide neutral infrastructure allow others to exercise their right to free speech. People who oppose neutral providers want to make communication difficult for people they disagree with.

Removing neutral infrastructure is restricting free speech through social conventions instead of through government. It's still censorship.

It is definitely not censorship. Nobody is under any obligation to help, say, pedophiles, promote their ideas. To say otherwise is to deny freedom of action and freedom of association.

If you have an ideological attachment to the existence of neutral providers, nobody can stop you from creating one. But as 8chan is discovering, people are free to criticize them for who they are helping and what effects that has.

Nobody is under any obligation to provide infrastructure, but not providing infrastructure is different from trying to stop providers.

People are of course free to try and stop neutral providers. They are also free to lobby for a government that will censor them.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. If people are free to speak, I am also free to speak out against them. If people support particular speakers, I am also free to speak out against those supporters, and to shun them.

If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe a lawyer who does a lot of free-speech work: https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/

Yes, it is legal to do many immoral things.

Edit: According to you, shouldn't Twitter be at fault for letting Pax say such hurtful things? They're providing him a platform.

Suppose a world where there are your vocal cords, pens, and printing presses. The sort of world that existed when these "free speech" ideas where first being seriously considered.

Should you be under fire if you sell a printing press to an unsavory bunch of people?

How many levels of "providing a platform" can we go through before we no longer vilify people? We do business with companies (our ISPs) who do business with companies (other ISPs) who does business with a company (8chan's ISP) who does business with a company (8chan's host) who does business with a company (8chan) which is used by extremists. How deep does this go?

Alternate question: Should we bust newspapers for pimping?

If you want to create an analogy, I think chans are more like user group meetings that happen in public spaces (e.g. a public park). Nobody would kick members out of the park because they heard that they're pro-ISIS (that's just their opinion). However, display of illegal content or illegal actions would get members removed via someone calling the cops. Off topic comments that detract from the spirit of the group could also get members suspended or kicked out of the group permanently.

Is it up to park police to monitor the user groups? Sure, but they cannot take action unless it violates the law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com