
Gatekeepers or Censors? How Tech Manages Online Speech - uptown
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/07/technology/tech-companies-online-speech.html
======
notveryrational
Having been censored multiple times by tech firms, I fall squarely into one
camp.

During the Snowden Disclosures, I took to Facebook with the documents getting
published and started to do my own summaries.

Facebook implemented a policy in which it would not let any post that
contained a link to a Snowden Document. In some cases they would let the
content get posted, but I confirmed with a friend's account that it was not
visible when scrolling my feed from another account. Posts about other content
were all visible and otherwise had no problems.

I complained and Facebook got back to me with a customer relations paragraph
about keeping their platform free of unwanted or questionable content.

Not long after I discovered through media, and then some friends from Turkey,
that what I experienced was identical to state sponsored censorship that
Facebook extends to the Turkish government.

This lasted for close to the entire duration of public attention on the global
and domestic surveillance scandal.

(Other links and content in other scenarios, for example May Day protest
organization, was similarly blocked by Facebook - at least in Seattle for the
organizers that I was in contact with).

~~~
lordCarbonFiber
I love the unspoken sentiment behind your experience.

"I took to facebook to post links to grey legal documents rather than hosting
them myself because I wanted facebook to be liable; Im shocked when they told
me they didn't appreciate the transfer of risk. It's literally censorship I
tell you!"

Freedom of speech is not, and hopefully never will be,"freedom to post on
other people's servers unmoderated".

~~~
grandmczeb
> It's literally censorship I tell you!

It literally is. Most people would say that is justifiable given that Facebook
owns the platform, but that dosen't change the fact that they're censoring
what users say.

~~~
lordCarbonFiber
Moderation != censorship. When facebook can send you to jail for your speech,
then we can talk about censorship. I don't want to live in a world where I
can't ban bad actors from my own servers (thus violating my freedom of
speech).

~~~
ratsmack
When a moderator removes one of your comments because they disagree with the
content, that is censorship. When a moderator removes your comment because it
breaks a well defined rule, then that is moderating.

Trying to moderate "hate speech", which is highly subjective, is a losing
proposition.

~~~
notveryrational
When well-defined rules include "content that the government wants to suppress
because it criticized them" the rules provide censorship via moderation.

In this case, Facebook - presuming what they did was "follow the rules" \- is
following censorship rules.

So perhaps the thread should be about the US government forcing companies to
censor free speech for them.

------
Ahjie1Ai
I like the reddit and 4chan model. Content is clearly compartmentalized by
topic with different rules for each subcommunity. Of course they are not
totally free of moderation but it still allows a greater diversity of opinions
with seemingly diametrically opposed groups existing side by side.

Many of the big social networks lack compartmentalization. On the other hand
twitter demonstrates that it's not necessary, just helpful.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _Of course they are not totally free of moderation_

If there is one thing I wish I could beat into people's heads with a stick
about online discourse, is that any place free of moderation is not going to
be a free speech haven, but a cesspit where the people with the most free time
will dominate and drive out others.

It's _incredibly cheap and easy_ to shit up a conversation, but quite costly
to have an engaging dialogue. By having no moderation, you're actively
choosing to reward shitposters, and punish quality contributors.

And, no, adding an up/downvote mechanism _does not_ solve this problem.

~~~
baud147258
> If there is one thing I wish I could beat into people's heads with a stick
> about online discourse, is that any place free of moderation is not going to
> be a free speech haven, but a cesspit where the people with the most free
> time will dominate and drive out others.

It depends. One forum where I spend some of my time has very hands-off
moderation and it does have a) some quality conversations b) diversity of
opinions. Of course it descends regularly in low-quality drivel, insults
and/or shitposting, especially on controversial subjects, but it works.

Edit: But I can't say that it works everywehre, just that it can work.

~~~
pavel_lishin
It can definitely work in certain cases, especially when there's a single very
clear focus or purpose for the forum, or some sort of accountability for your
opinions.

~~~
baud147258
> single very clear focus or purpose for the forum

It's the case on that forum and the off-topic discussions (religion &
politics) are accesible only to accounts older than 1 year, so it helps to
limit shitposting in those discussions. Accountability for your opinions in
that case just mean getting mocked by other people (I said free speech, not
nice speech).

I just wanted to show an counter-example disagreeing with your (apparently)
absolute position.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _Accountability for your opinions in that case just mean getting mocked by
> other people_

Yup! That's one of the good ways of holding people accountable.

~~~
baud147258
Also they have tags that will appear above the user portrait, to indicate the
more troublesome members. They are applied by the few moderators. They include
shiposter, idiot, edgy...

------
marenkay
Perhaps this is a stupid question but why should e.g. treat these things _so_
fundamentally different than things we already have rules and regulations for?

Going back in time, what about newspapers and letters to the editor? Those had
a clear range of what was allowed and acceptable.

Is there really anything stopping us from using these rules except for being
afraid to not post bullshit everywhere unsanctioned any longer?

~~~
Ahjie1Ai
Because a lot more communication is done over private platforms these days.
When working from home even informal work conversations are done over some
cloud-hosted chat.

------
apocalypstyx
It's been this way since the establishment of state-sanctioned copyright with
the Statute of Anne in 1710. Only now, in the USA, the experiment to privatize
everything has continued on.

Proponents will argue you can own your own site, so long as the hosting is
okay with what you say, you can run your own hardware, so long as the co-
location center is okay with what you say, you can run the server from your
home so long as your ISP is okay with what you say, and it will be delivered,
so long as the various individual ISP of you readers also find what you say
okay.

The end result is the American population of free-er and free-er from the
government (which won't, almost, anymore do something against an individual
for being the wrong X,Y, or Z. Why should they expend the effort? All they
have to do is enforce Right To Work laws, and private enterprise will do it
for them.) (The US Post Office may no longer seize copies of Fanny Hill, but I
will wager it couldn't be posted on Facebook.)

------
jerkstate
The product is getting restless, the customers aren't happy with their brand
being next to all of this inflammatory content. This was bound to happen in an
ad-supported internet.

~~~
sandworm101
Howard stern. It doesnt matter that people are angry. People who hated him
listened to howard stern more/longer than his fans. Facebook doesnt care that
people are screaming mad. That emotion is just proof of how connected they are
to the platform.

~~~
baud147258
Hate clicks are important for media companies, since they will generate more
shares, links, discussion and controversy, which, in an ad-funded business, is
good (in the short term)

~~~
sandworm101
Short term is all that matters in media when platforms can rise and fall
within a few years.

------
geggam
HN voting is a groupthink censor

~~~
slg
Society is a groupthink censor. If your beliefs are too extreme in any number
of directions, society will eventually shun you. Whether you think this
behavior is wrong or not usually depends on how closely your beliefs match the
beliefs that are currently being shunned.

~~~
geggam
Sucks for folks like Socrates doesnt it ?

~~~
slg
Sure, the standards change over time. You would likely be shunned 200 years
ago if you said whites and blacks had equal intellect. You would likely be
shunned today if you said the opposite. Society generally moves in the right
direction. "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward
justice."

I was simply pointing out that this phenomena is not new or limited to the
internet. It is inherently human. It also is neither completely negative or
positive. It just is.

~~~
malvosenior
> Society generally moves in the right direction.

Does it? Because it's currently ok to say that "white people suck" and various
other overtly racist statements that would have been interpreted as such by
society as little as 10 years ago.

~~~
slg
Firstly, the context of the quote from my next sentence is that things must be
viewed from a distance to see the bend toward justice. Individual setbacks
might make it seem incorrect over short periods, but history has generally
showed it to be correct.

Secondly, it is not currently ok to say that "white people suck". The huge
uproar over that is evidence of such. However, society has decided that saying
"white people suck" is inherently different than saying "[any historically
repressed minority] sucks". Society has also decided that context of those
statements matters. Saying that offhandedly on Twitter as a joke is different
than saying it in a campaign speech.

~~~
malvosenior
> _However, society has decided that saying "white people suck" is inherently
> different than saying "[any historically repressed minority] sucks". Society
> has also decided that context of those statements matters._

I think that debate is far from settled.

------
sandworm101
In some ways i envy the governments that block facebook. The threat of
blocking is the only thing that changes facebook's behavior, normally by
causing them to implement censorship. But western democracies cannot block
facebook, and so lack real power. Facebook may scream about burdens and taxes,
but those arent a problem if you have customers. Saudi Arabia controls access
to customers and so is more important than any western legislature.

