Yep, but censors (on both sides) cheer for this, because it's not them... yet.. atleast not on 'that' platform.

Sadly, even on HN we have people arguing for that. You are labeled 'absolutist' if you argue against censorship. It is fascinating really.

You won't find any sympathy for that position here because nobody complaining about social media is actually arguing against censorship, they're arguing against moderation. HN is also not an unmoderated forum. You don't get to post whatever you want here. I also don't get to post whatever I want here, and I'm willing to make that compromise so nobody ruins the place with toxicity and spam and conspiracy theories. You can very easily witness the consequences of not doing that, by taking a look at 8chan or Parler.

I am not fishing for sympathy. I am arguing for a set of values that are a supposed foundations of US.

Now, I personally find it troubling that so many people seem to want to upend that foundation.

The private freedom of association is just as foundational to the US (and liberal society broadly) as the freedom to speak without government intervention.

Is it a private association when the extent of a reach of a given entity rivals that of a nation-state? I am not disagreeing with your argument in principle. There has to be balance. Right now, that balance is out of whack.

Yes. The public can choose to create a legal structure that does not let private entities grow so large, but we have not chosen to do so, and that choice does not mean that private entities are de facto public.

Those structures already exist. They are typically categorized under anti-trust category. The issue is that between regulatory capture, revolving door, dual party system and average voter distracted by carefully selected social issues, the choice is theoretical.

I am not automatically arguing they should be public. I am saying they should be cut down to size.

>I am saying they should be cut down to size.

I've heard that a countless number of times and yet nobody has been able to come up with a good way to do that or even demonstrate that it needs to be done, or demonstrate what it would accomplish, or demonstrate that it would not make the problem worse. Every congressional hearing I've seen has ended with a failure to even explain the basic reasons why it's being done. It all seems to eventually revert back on a list of personal grievances that some individual or group might have with the company, which do not require antitrust action to correct, and the judges notice this and throw the case out.

I would be much more in favor of something like GDPR, but the US has no political will to enact something like that, it's all personal grievances all the way down, on both sides of the aisle.

> foundations of US.

I'm not sure if you are meaning United States or emphasizing humanity, but in either direction: a private company's social media application gets to chose the content that goes on the platform. I'm all for free speech as intended by the constitution. I can say hateful things, and cannot be prosecuted by it. BUT I'm perfectly fine in a world where if I say something against a "Do no harm" policy of a website, I get kicked off that platform.

> You are labeled 'absolutist' if you argue against censorship. It is fascinating really

what's fascinating is that you are writing it on a website that "censors" opinions, based on your definition.

There are degrees of difference between moderation and censorship. At one end of the spectrum, it makes Keanu Reeves not exist in China and books banned in former USSR republics; at another, it makes 4chan look like reasonable chaps by comparison.

I am saying it is fascinating, because the label implies fervor of sorts that irrationality disliked on HN. The term was designed to work in HN. What is fascinating to me that even here, propaganda spreads well.

> What is fascinating to me that even here, propaganda spreads well.

of course it does.

even the "freedom of speech should be absolute" is propaganda.

No it's not. It's a normative opinion. The opinions against it all have horrible repercussions and difficult questions to answer such as "who should be in charge of moderating or censoring?" and "how can we trust them?"

The first one is always "my party" and the latter answer is always "because they protect my interests, and your interests doesn't count."

Meanwhile most people agree that cursing, pornography or spam - and things otherwise clearly outside the bounds of the law - should be censored. And perhaps also obvious ad hominems. But that's not what we're discussing right now. Instead we're discussing whether a Democrat should have the right to speak on a Republican forum and spread Democrat opinions there. Today that is precluded because "it's a private enterprise."

Meanwhile if freedom of speech was better governed, you would have to defend against flaws and lies with facts and logic instead of censorship, or even moderation.

But then there isn't anything precluding private enterprises from making such a place. And I happen to think people would flock to such a place. There would certainly be a lot to win for the enterprise to have so many people there, but so far the only model that seems to have worked is one where all those masses are somehow guarded against each other in sub-forums, such as on Reddit or even on Facebook. But perhaps Musk can revolutionize Twitter? What do you think?

Ok just stop with the one sided arguing gab, parler and all the "freedom of speech" titled social networks are worse in censoring than your primetime twitter or Facebook they at least pretend to be neutral.

Just conveniently ignoring the content of these sites/services that gets them banned in the first place...

If it's illegal, the governments should take care to punish the reponsible ones via the court system.

If it's legal, the service provides should have no say.

This is like christan toll-bridge operator not allowing people to pass the bridge, if they drove in from the direction of a brothel.

> If it's illegal, the governments should take care to punish the reponsible ones via the court system

if it's abusive of the people patience and potentially dangerous, the government can and should shut it down.

it's not illegal to carry arms in most of the US, but in some places they can ban you if you carry one, because they don't want to deal with you or be responsible for what you could do with it.

it's not illegal to drink in many parts of the Globe, but some people could not want you to drink in the children's playground at 9 in the morning and if you don't leave on your own they might call the police.

society has rules other than legal/illegal.

it's the perk of living in what's called "a free country".

Yes, and some parents influence the schools to ban harry potter, because of anti-god magic, and those parents then organize book burnings (yes, this year - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/04/book-burning... )

Some of us consider this a bad thing, even though it's still done in some societies (eg. USA).

If someone starts a harry potter microbloging platform, and the content there is legal, and the technology works in a way, where a want-to-be-offended pastor has to actively type in the url/name in the browser, to see the content and get offended, this should not be a reason to ban that platform. The same with eg. not being able to disallow customers of the shop that sells harry potter to use public roads.

Internet services and payment processors should be treated the same as other utilities... as long as it's legal, the services/processors should not be able to deny service due to political reasons, because they believe harry potter is against gods will.

> Some of us consider this a bad thing, even though it's still done in some societies (eg. USA).

it's not good or bad.

it's the price of freedom.

what's the alternative?

having the police to beat those people burning the books?

silence them?

kick them out the society/country?

> Internet services and payment processors should be treated the same as other utilities

I'm of the opinion that depending on the service they should have much more responsibilities than service providers.

For example social networks that algorithmically propose content should be considered editors/publishers and be treated as such, including being responsible for the content they publish.

> the service provides should have no say

Who’s the censor in this conversation again?

I’m having a hard time squaring the idea of free speech maximalism with “a certain group of people should have no say.”

Service providers should act as an utility, such as roads, waterworks, sewers, etc.

We have laws set in place where we decide who can drive on roads using which kinds of vehicles, and road operators and owners (not sure how road system works in USA, in my country, some roads are country-owned, some are owned by the municipality, and some private ones can join the road system - eg. the long road from the main street to the IKEA entrance), and if the driver has a licence and a stret legal vehicle, s/he can drive on all those roads, even if he carries gay porn and anal dildos, and the municipality is full of christian/muslim radicalists.

So, as long as the content is legal (regarding the laws of the country), no service provider should be allowed to block you from using that service and/or connection to view that content.

> no service provider should be allowed to block you from using that service and/or connection to view that content.

that's not how it really works.

what you are describing is a totally nuclear society, where everyone is on their own and mind their own business.

if in the car you've mentioned in your example there's a kid sitting in the back, I would alert the authorities.

Not because it's illegal to dive kids in a car full of gay porn and dildos, not because the content is for gay people or because dildos are not toys for kids, it's not even because I believe in some weird story about magic eternal beings that have nothing better to do that dictate books to their disciples about what I should or should not do, but because it should ring a bell to everybody.

What effect do you feel your policy might have on service providers such as HN?

Yeah, you don't want that because if they get regulated that either their user must be identifiable or that they are responsible for what's written on the platform there won't be a platform for much longer or with serious restriction on what you can topics are allowed on these platforms and as long as corps have one incentive alone and that's maximising profits they will subdue unpopular but loud minorities.

That's an oddly specific example, did this happen somewhere?

It was just an example of a public utility blocking access to a service they disagree with, but the service is still legal.

The first idea was EU blocking rt.com (and some other russian sites), even though their content is perfectly legal, but EU doesn't want the people to look at that content there.

EU was sanctioning Russia, and cut off sources of income (advertising and eyeballs) to a Russian state media organization. Not because they didn't want people to look at the content, but because they are going along with sanctions.

Advertising income can be dealt with differently, but 'eyeballs' is effectivly political censorship, which was until now a thing of the "bad guys" (political dictators, etc.).

I mean, even the taliban are allowed to keep their twitter accounts - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-twitter-allows-taliban-ma... - but not russia?

I doubt you're going to win your argument using RT as an example. We're one whoopsie away from war. That's very different than regular censorship.

We're always one whoopsie away from a war, and some of us (i'm from the balkans) have had a few whoopsies not that long ago here and not that far from my location.

Globally speaking, in the same time, US (and nato and other "allies") attacked quite a few other countries, iraq, afghanistan, syria, libya, they're bombing somalia, bombed pakistan, etc., and none of the media was blocked back then.

Even the taliban are allowed to maintain their twitter accounts ( https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-twitter-allows-taliban-ma... ).

And now, we're blocking RT, for what?

The article is documenting reaction to the banning; which is to create a parallel set of products.

Personally, this is no different than people setting up a rival newspaper or magazine that caters to a different POV. Eventually, the dominant platforms on both sides will regress to the content/banning mean.

I don't understand this.

There are well-known arguments for not tolerating intolerant people.

Do those who advocate for tolerating intolerant people act in good faith, or are they simply part of them?

There are also arguments for avoiding the breakdown of communication by expressly favoring the most strongly censored and unfashionable ideas at any given time and striving to platform them everywhere, even irrespective of their actual merits. This is what Herbert Marcuse calls for in his Repressive Tolerance. The point there is not to defend society against anything inherently problematic, but merely to push the very notion and social norm of a "managed", fad-driven discourse to its breaking point. It's a "chaos monkey" approach to the whole problem of communication 'filter bubbles' and 'echo chambers', or pretty much the trollish 4chan model under a different name.

Most of the people getting caught up in all this banning aren't rabid racist or misogynist or whatever ism or ist they are being smeared with. They are non hateful individuals who don't fall in line with the "current thing" and have a non-approved view point. The woke crowd somehow has been given a monopoly on who has a voice in the modern era. Is someone a "transphobe" and intolerant of trans people because they think the definition of a woman is the same as sex? This isn't intolerance this is a disagreement on the nature of reality.

I accept the right of others to say things I find absolutely abhorrent because I recognize that I sometimes say things I believe to be perfectly rational and someone else finds intolerable.

Fighting disagreeable speech with more free speech is harder than just banning it, but generations that follow will be better off for it.

Just seeing the Russia v Ukraine conflict and seeing how one country can enforce a narrative by law and arrest people as being sympathizers of an “intolerant” regime should be enough to make people aware that regulating verbal “intolerance” is a bad idea.

>Just seeing the Russia v Ukraine conflict and seeing how one country can enforce a narrative by law and arrest people as being sympathizers of an “intolerant” regime should be enough to make people aware that regulating verbal “intolerance” is a bad idea.

The fun bit here is understanding that there's no way to tell which country you're talking about

The irony of course being that the American political demographic, MAGA, with the biggest grievances regarding tech “censorship” also appear to be most willing to make excuses for or deny Russian war crimes.

I can go on Twitter and see a lot of examples of this and generate that impression, but then I don’t see it in real life.

What’s real? How do we know our perception of reality isn’t being distorted by algorithms and sampling bias?

The question would be a lot easier to resolve if the major MAGA thought leaders would stop making excuses for genocide. Anecdotally, my dad is MAGA-leaning right, and while he opposes the invasion and is happy to see the Russian army destroyed, his immediate response when I brought up the mass graves was “how much of that is propaganda though?”. Skepticism about what we are told about a war is always warranted, but right wing Americans are being actively persuaded right now to deny or doubt Russian war crimes despite overwhelming evidence.

What overwhelming evidence? At this point it’s allegations. The crimes haven’t actually been investigated.

They should be. But “overwhelming evidence” should be rephrased as “lots of allegations.”

Photographs corroborated by satellite and drone imagery, which is consistent with the public arguments being made by [Russian state media](https://medium.com/@kravchenko_mm/what-should-russia-do-with...) (yes I’m aware the translator has a horse in this race and no I do not read Russian myself but obviously she is not the only one who has reported on the content of what Russian state media is saying needs to be done) calling for ethnic cleansing/genocide. But I’m sure my inability to think critically has caused me to irrationally preclude the possibility that these civilians simply killed themselves.

Now also corroborated by radio intercepts: https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/possible-eviden...

Ukraine has stationed soldiers in schools. Russia bombed schools for that reason.

Is Ukraine committing war crimes? I am not pro-Russia by any stretch, but the actions taken by both sides in that war aren’t so black and white.

Watching this war as a dispassionate observer, it’s a study in propaganda. Zelensky broadcasting using a green screen to make it look like he’s on the streets for instance. The famous “I don’t need a ride, I need ammo” quote. The so called Ghost pilot who supposedly shot down a bunch of Russian fighters (which didn’t happen by the way.)

There is also the stories of torture — stories being given to the media by the Ukraine government. At least some of which are unverifiable: https://www.reuters.com/world/pentagon-cant-independently-co...

Other media outlets have run stories of torture based on materials given to them by a government that has a vested interest in anti-Russian sentiment.

And still other confusion on the air strike on the materai it y hospital: https://thegrayzone.com/2022/04/03/testimony-mariupol-hospit...

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/02/11/ukraine-attacks-military...

So we aren’t making excuses for Russia (why would I, an American in Texas, give any fucks about Russia?) — but we are used to the media lying and lying over the past several years.

Case in point: Hunter Biden’s laptop. Whether or not it matters, the point is that a bunch of media and intelligence types told us it was “Russian disinformation.” Yet two years later WaPo and The NY Times have confirmed the authenticity of the laptop contents. Two years after they made a big point of suppressing or discrediting it.

So we’re supposed to believe those same media outlets when they are getting hand-fed by one of the participants in the Ukraine War?

A lot of people have lost the ability to think critically. Read the North Korean News Agency sometime. The language isn’t much different than how the western media frames the Ukraine War. One sided, with a strong propaganda diction.

Was the Russian invasion wrong? Possibly. But what’s the other side of the story? What’s the background? What exactly was the situation in the Russian-speaking regions of the Ukraine? Are there actual neo-Nazis in Ukraine? What’s the real story of the Azov battalion?

War is messy. Propaganda can never be trusted. And calling the other side a war criminal serves a valuable purpose. To be clear, I am not saying war crimes haven’t happened. I am saying that such claims ought to be dispassionately evaluated. Using schools to base troops and them complaining when Russia bombs a school — that seems a bit ridiculous. That’s the same tactic Hamas uses. And it works. It generates sufficient international outrage because apparently a large portion of the world lacks the ability to think critically

So no, not making excuses for Russia — but also not blindly cheerleading Ukraine. I don’t know enough about the background of that conflict to have much of an opinion. My opinion is more in line with media criticism rather than any version of the facts.

Congrats on your contrarianism. Forgive me if my simplicity and inability to think critically causes me to think less of you.

> Read the North Korean News Agency sometime. The language isn’t much different than how the western media frames the Ukraine War. One sided, with a strong propaganda diction.

May as well just go ahead and believe North Korean propaganda at this rate. Maybe the world is covering up the truth. We haven't been there so we really can't know though (honestly).

You can go and watch Putin's speeches directly. He goes from saying it's to simply protect Russians in Donbass, to saying it's actually to stop NATO's expansion (countries should be free to choose their alliances--people ally with NATO because they don't want Russia invading their country, and invading their country only makes NATO seem more necessary), to saying it's really that Ukraine is entirely controlled by Nazis and needs to be de-nazified... by sending in the nazi Wagner mercenary group to kill a country run by a Jewish president who pretended to be gay on TV, to outright denying the historical existence of the Ukrainian people or their country and that it's just supposed to be Russian territory. All these speeches were in the span of literal days and show he just gave up on trying to hide his actual reasons.

You can completely ignore all western media if you like. You can completely assume all of what Ukraine says is absolute lies. All you need to do is listen to the words directly out of Putin's mouth and it's immediately obvious that it's the most transparent bullshit to justify a land grab that there ever was.

Would you want a corporation or government to decide for you which of your neighbors you shouldn't tolerate, without letting you get to know them, or would you like to make an informed decision yourself?

No Corporation has decided anything like that. Corporations are responding to their customers requesting those users to not be tolerated. This isn't Twitter banning anyone because they want to. It's Twitter deciding that enough users have decided that tolerance has run its course. They were in response to campaigns of users to deplatform those who we consider harmful.

Corporations seem to be responding to tiny but very vocal mobs of activists. These groups don't necessarily represent the majority point of view.

Are you sure? I know a huge number of users that advocate for Users that expose bigoted views or misinformation to be de-platformed. See the recent Joe Rogan podcast push. That wasn't a tiny percentage of users.

Arguments aren't axioms. Karl Popper is not some inherent authority.

There are well known excuses.

And this in turn makes you intolerant, and I won't tolerate this.

Free speech is important and should be protected, even if k__ disagrees with what you said.

This is actually a good point, and it's important to realize that even Karl Popper acknowledged this. He explicitly argues that some limited tolerance should be extended even to the intolerant to the extent practical, since this helps promote the norm of tolerance in the first place even when intolerant ideas might otherwise appear to be prevalent. The Paradox of Tolerance is more about acknowledging that limits to tolerance must exist somewhere than an actual argument for narrowing those limits.

Twitter has just as vile content as anything you can find in the other cesspool. It just happens to overwhelmingly lean the right way politically, so is not only still around but treated as some legitimate source of news.

twitter itself is left-leaning (in the liberal sense), yes - are we pretending that progressivism and far-right ideology have equal legitimacy? parler was founded to be a haven for the latter.

I might be out on a limb with this, but I don't think we should be giving far-right people a platform to spread their views.

So you think we should be able to label a group of people and restrict their rights? You don't see how this could be a problem?

I think that if your views include "we should kill people because of their race", your views should be banned off every platform, yes. Trying to imply that that's the same as racism is a false equivalence.

Let's not pretend that this is just about progressivism (though it's not like even Progressive ideas were ever exempt from being highly problematic: eugenics anyone?). You could find plenty of literal tankies posting on Twitter before Putin made the whole 'tankie' thing rather unpopular.

are tankies progressive? I think their primary axiom is hating America.

Either way, I agree that there's a range of legitimate discourse and it shouldn't just be the current flavour of progressivism. I was more cutting out a negative exception for the far right than a positive exception for libsocs.

If there's no 8chan to host the horse porn, who will?