zlacker

Your comment isn't dismissive, but I do think users have a right to know where they've been moderated.

>>rhaksw+(OP)
Mat I ask why? Why do users have that right?

>>pests+f56
Thank you for the question. I can think of two reasons:

(1) You wouldn't want someone to secretly remove or demote your own commentary. But secretive content moderation is extremely common on today's major platforms. In order to be heard there, you would need to fight back against the practice, and you cannot effectively do that while keeping secrets yourself.

(2) Undisclosed content moderation does not express any kind of message, and therefore the platforms' use of it may not even be protected by the first amendment.

#2 is currently under discussion in a few cases before the Supreme Court:

https://twitter.com/rhaksw/status/1752367424303771948

>>rhaksw+qa6
Interesting.

Re: #2

How is it a free speech issue when someone kicks you off their property? It has nothing to do with speech so why would the first amendment be involved?

>>pests+0H7
In the case of shadow banning, you haven't kicked them off your property. You're asking them to stay while you earn ad money from their attention.

See the linked tweet for a more lawyerly argument in defense of shadow banning. The question before the court may hinge upon whether or not shadow banning expresses a message.

>>pests+0H7
And to add to that, USA's 1st Amendment applies only to actions by the government. But this does mean that in other situations that redress is never available. It just may require more nuance or collective action, or conversely, even the willingness to let something go.

(I am not commenting in this message on whether an HN issue may exist or should be let go. On those matters, I am still reading.)