zlacker

[return to "The Lonely Work of Moderating Hacker News (2019)"]
1. optima+t7[view] [source] 2022-02-17 16:00:30
>>nicola+(OP)
I've noticed that all the online spaces I enjoy visiting are heavily moderated. Whenever I get linked to "free speech" loosely-moderated platforms, I usually hit the back button pretty quick.
◧◩
2. jl2718+xa[view] [source] 2022-02-17 16:13:37
>>optima+t7
Do you seek the truth unconditionally, or only truth that fits within your pre-conceived notions of acceptability? Can you imagine a society where an objective truth was unacceptable, and denial of that truth was harmful to themselves or others?
◧◩◪
3. cogman+2c[view] [source] 2022-02-17 16:20:14
>>jl2718+xa
To be frank, often when I see this glossy pamphlet cover for free speech, you open up the pamphlet and see a bunch of child porn, antisemitism and/or racism.

The issue with free speech platforms is they attract a crowd of people whose only narrative is one that can't be said in other places. It isn't a narrative of truth, it is one of hate and bigotry.

I've seen few examples where objective truth is banned. I have, however, seen a lot of Nazis get banned.

◧◩◪◨
4. zionic+Cl[view] [source] 2022-02-17 16:55:30
>>cogman+2c
That’s just a flaw in your brain’s logical processing.

I’ve seen this again and again, people will see an ocean of normal content anywhere free speech is allowed and laser-focus on the single floating turd.

They’ll then mischaracterize the entire ocean as the turd, it’s like they have no sense of proportionality.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. cogman+pm[view] [source] 2022-02-17 16:58:32
>>zionic+Cl
Name a free speech platform where I'm not going to find the turd on the front page at this very moment.

I'm happy to be shown to be wrong, but from my experience what you are saying doesn't exist.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. jl2718+IV[view] [source] 2022-02-17 19:36:46
>>cogman+pm
I think of the sea of knowledge as a bunch of floating turds at first sight, which are intentionally provocative and noxious but easy to spot, mostly water below, which is the context of common knowledge and beliefs, which may be the unstated assumption of the material, and then nuggets of gold below, which are hard to find because they are repressed for some reason, legal, social, safety, or otherwise, and therefore potentially valuable to a certain set of objectives. But both turds and gold nuggets face the same types of moderation pressure by their disruptive nature.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. cogman+p44[view] [source] 2022-02-18 18:59:18
>>jl2718+IV
> But both turds and gold nuggets face the same types of moderation pressure by their disruptive nature.

Again, I fundamentally disagree. You are being vague and overly general on the sort of moderation pressure. The actual banned content on most social media platforms, if we bring it out of context, ends up things like CP and Nazis. If those are the "disruptive ideas" we need to explore truth, then I'm pretty ok never finding it.

On almost every social media site (except, ironically, "free speech" platforms) there is a space to discuss everything from communism to anarchy. Crystal healing to quantum physics. Ghosts to exoplanets. Nihilism to Scientology.

The actual set of banned discussion is pretty much all centered around speech that directly leads to harm.

The reason I keep bringing it back to "what is actually banned" is because when you get right down the actual banned conversations, they are both few and not really worth discussing for "truth".

Name a banned "golden nugget" conversation. You say there is censorship, so list it. Tell me what sort of deep conversation or truth we can't know because we stop Nazis from using the N word.

[go to top]