Disinformation will continue to evolve. Overreaction (deleting things the moderators don't agree with but are otherwise legitimate opinions of non-hostile actors) will increase as well.
Sadly this is a potential path to tyranny (if not the government-enforced kind, then the kind that comes from those who control the flow of information).
Well I think we can agree that the type of targeted, sophisticated, funded misinformation campaigns that we're seeing, are always bad. Meanwhile I think we can also agree that moderation is a necessary feature of any community. But it sounds like you're trying to put moderation and misinformation campaigns in the same category?
> But it sounds like you're trying to put moderation and misinformation campaigns in the same category?
Moderation is necessary and great for a healthy online community. Abuse of moderation is a tool used by misinformation campaigns. The parent comment clarified the difference with abuse being when moderators take down legitimate, non-hostile comments because they disagree with the point being made.
I think right now we're seeing more cases of moderation abuse on various forums because the consequences are so unpredictable. YouTube videos, tweets, Facebook posts get flagged at really inconsistent rates.. there was an excellent post highlighting this a few months ago in regards to Twitter[1]. This is a mark of tyranny, where you have vague rules that are selectively enforced so your populus doesn't know the limits of what's ok and they censor themselves. In this case it's Twitter/Facebook/YouTube being the tyrants, but they're acting this way because they themselves are afraid of what laws might hit them from our unpredictable government.
Creating an alternate reality of lies is a more direct path to tyranny. Particularly when that alternate reality causes people to distrust election outcomes and public health guidelines.
If a webmaster of a free website takes down an opinion they don't agree with, or don't want associated with their site, I'm fine with that. People have a right to free speech, but that doesn't mean others have to archive that speech in a database and serve it, out of pocket, in perpetuity.
> Creating an alternate reality of lies is a more direct path to tyranny.
Who has had greater success at this than the media? The two great narratives that undermined faith in the Democratic process in the past four years are A) Democrats claiming that there was evidence that Trump had colluded with the Russians to influence the 2016 election[0], and was therefor not a legitimate president[1][2], and B) Trump claiming that the 2020 presidential election was rigged by Democrats, and therefor Biden was not a legitimate president.
Trump's lie was immediately panned as utter bullshit. Since, media have trumpeted the claim as evidence of insidious, anti-Democratic sentiment among all Republicans--in other words, the Anti-democratic claims made by Republicans were used a bludgeon against Republicans.
But the former claim (which was no less damaging to the legitimacy of our institutions) was, in the absence of any corroborating evidence whatsoever, was treated as a serious concern. At the time of the release of the Mueller report, half of the country believed the Russia-collusion conspiracy theory[4]. When the Mueller report revealed no evidence of collusion[3], the story was used as a bludgeon against Democrats, right? Of course not. It was memory-holed.
The fact that the media was able to weaponize both of these anti-democratic lies into a narrative that one party is somehow a danger to our institutions is emblematic of why they, the media are, in fact, the greatest threat to our society and our institutions.
> Who has had greater success at this than the media?
Totally agree that FOX News and other of the right-wing pundits have helped create an alternate reality where election results and public health guidelines don't matter. You're talking about The Media as if the Right doesn't have a media apparatus.
> When the Mueller report revealed no evidence of collusion
Reading your link about Mueller and other summaries of the Mueller investigation, I get the feeling that the investigations was not a "nothing burger": the investigation produced 37 indictments, seven guilty pleas or convictions, and compelling evidence that the president obstructed justice on multiple occasions[0].
> Trump's lie was immediately panned as utter bullshit.
Sure, AG Barr described the Big Lie as bullshit, but Hannity, Carlson, Ingraham, Crowder, and Shapiro haven't come anywhere close to that kind of a statement. Their gravy train runs on the Big Lie.
If Republicans don't want to look anti-democratic, then they should have (1) unilaterally disavowed the January 6 Insurrection instead of denying it, or calling these people patriots, and they should (2) make voting as easy as buying a gun, since they're both rights protected by the Constitution.
You're taking a contrary tone, but I think we're in agreement here.
When it comes to Trump's lie about the 2020 election, the tone of the media in general was dismissive and highly skeptical due to a lack of evidence. The right-wing media was, of course, more credulous and willing to entertain the possibility of widespread election fraud... for a few months.
When it comes to collusion conspiracy theory in the 2016 election, the media in general was highly credulous and willing to entertain the possibility--even in the absence of evidence. The media in general pushed this conspiracy theory for four years, while of course the left wing media was more credulous and willing to entertain the conspiracy theory.
You're right that Mueller investigation resulted in a large number of charges, but none were related to the question of collusion. The media isn't forgiven for convincing half the country that Trump was a Russian puppet just because Paul Manafort laundered some money (unrelated to the Trump campaign), or because some Russians were running a troll farm (unrelated to the Trump campaign). Why even bring it up in a conversation about the collusion conspiracy theory, if not to muddy the waters?
Moderation isn't an overreaction or path to tyranny, it's the opposite. Called the Paradox of tolerance [0]. If stuff isn't moderated, only the extremely intolerant views will remain.
> If stuff isn't moderated, only the extremely intolerant views will remain.
That's actually the claim here and it's not one you support. Mein Kampf, an extremist work, has existed for 80 some years now and can be bought in most bookstores, yet we don't seem to all be goose-stepping or have any less non-extremist content for it.
Reddit right now is having an interesting problem where by simply subscribing or commenting in a subreddit, others will ban you. That doesn't seem to be "moderation" but instead we're attacking peoples freedom of expression.
The Paradox of Tolerance is against intolerant behavior - one of which is suppressing expression.
It's really ironic that you used Main Kampf to justify your position. Mein Kampf hasn't taken over our society (though there are still plenty of people who read it), but it was an important part of the way that the Nazi's took over Germany in the 1930s.
And continues to inspire and radicalize people. It's only that the world has come through the other end of that insanity and the body count is high enough, that Mein Kampf stands, to most people, as a tombstone monument to complete insanity.
Do we need to let every kind of complete insanity run its course and generate a body count?
I'm going to reply the exact same way I did to another comment: Mein Kampf sold 240,000 copies before he became chancellor, so it seems like it was already an important part of the conversation. I'm not advocating for censorship, but obviously the argument that Mein Kampf is available therefore we should stop trying to limit violent speech is not a good one.
Without context, sellling a 1/4 million books to a population of some 62 million is not impressive. I couldn't find out how many books were sold in the late 20s in Germany, but it is hardly a bestseller if less than 1/2 of a percent have read the book.
Anyway my argument was sorta the opposite: the book did manifestly not sell well enough that it became how most people got converted to Nazism, and if more people had read the book they might have realized that Hitler was doing exactly what he wrote in his book and stopped him at an earlier point.
The New York Times Bestseller list covers a population much larger than that. Yet:
"""To make the list, it is estimated that novels sell from 1,000 to 10,000 copies per week, depending on competition. Median sales fluctuate between 4,000 and 8,000 in fiction, and 2,000–6,000 in nonfiction. The majority of New York Times bestselling books sell from 10,000 to 100,000 copies in their first year.""" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Best_Seller...
The Nazi's didn't need a book to take over Germany in the 1930s. Their use of radio, and controlling all theater was much more important to their campaign.
They controlled who was allowed to express themselves and how. They limited everything to their message, even suppressing branches of science that didn't support their views.
That we as a liberal society can tolerate illiberal views is important. You should read things like Mein Kampf and the Unabombers manifesto - not because they are good but because you should know your enemy and how they think.
Mein Kampf sold 240,000 copies before he became chancellor, so it seems like it was already an important part of the conversation. I'm not advocating for censorship, but obviously the argument that Mein Kampf is available therefore we should stop trying to limit violent speech is not a good one.
"Fire & Fury" sold 2.3 million copies. Did it play a role in Trump not being re-elected?
Strawmanning an argument is poor form.
Mein Kampf has existed and been available, and hasn't actually really caused any harm. That doesn't make it a better book but the hallmark of liberal society is that we can tolerate dissent while an authoritarian one can not.
Another interesting way this breaks down in practice is when communities interact.
You can observe this today on the Fediverse. A common pattern is a small group pressuring moderators of some community to ban select people, under threat of the whole community being banned by many other communities. They make good on this threat by playing all the other communities against each other, threatening each one with being banned, unless they ban the original target community.
Could you please stop creating accounts to post flamewar comments to HN? That's not what this site is for.
I suppose I should add: No, we don't care about your views on China. We're just trying to have an internet forum that doesn't burn itself to a screaming crisp, and also (if we're allowed a stretch target) that doesn't suck.
Right any force of rule/law enforcement can be corrupted. That's not an argument against having rules or attempting to enforce them, even if imperfect.
This is a distortion of the paradox of tolerance, it doesn't endorse censorship. The existence of extremely intolerant views doesn't magically make it impossible to voice normal views. For example, Reddit pre-Pao had plenty of extreme subreddits that existed on the page, and never resulted in a exodus of non-extreme views.
The paradox of tolerance only comes into play when views start getting translated into actions. Let the Nazis march down Skokie. Action should only be taken against them if they start acting on their views. Removal only happens in the interest of self-preservation. The paradox of tolerance is not an endorsement of censorship.
Let’s call moderation what it actually is: censorship. And censorship is very much the path to tyranny, especially when done in collusion with governments.
Sorry, thought stuff like this was more well known. They’ve been colluding for quite a while but now it’s so brazenly open the White House press secretary is mentioning it in press conferences.
That was a suggestion Facebook can (and has) ignore. If you are implying that was some kind of legally binding edict, you would be wrong.
I agree it was out of bounds to make a comment like that from the WH, but lets be clear what it was and wasn't. It wasn't political, it was public health. And it wasn't an order, it was a request.
This generation has not experienced anything remotely like censorship. Telling nutters to go elsewhere is absolutely nothing like the draconian measures of last century.
For all their belly-aching, there is literally no insane idea that you can't put out there with essentially zero repercussions.
This response is simply goal post shifting. Censorship is censorship.
Using a recent example: YouTube removes a video of medical Doctors promoting studies of a COVID treatment, one that could save lives. There’s science to back it up, however it’s not science promoted by the medical majority. Thus, it is censored. As a result, people don’t have access to a potentially life saving treatment and will die - this is censorship.
Are there worse examples of this concept happening over the past century? Yes, of course. But censorship leading to the deaths of millions is certainly bad.
> This response is simply goal post shifting. Censorship is censorship.
No. Deplatforming is not the same as censorship. Don't equate them.
If Stanford University throws you off campus for holding up a "Stanford sucks" sign, this is deplatforming. Put it on your own lawn. Nobody has the obligation to host your content.
And no, it's not "effectively censorship" either. Censorship is actively seeking out and removing information from all platforms, everywhere, burning books, etc.
> But censorship leading to the deaths of millions is certainly bad.
What the actual F, no one is being censored leading to millions of deaths. If anything, deplatforming has saved millions of dying of COVID due to actual disinformation about fake cures (Hydroxychloroquine, injecting bleach) and pseudo-scientific FUD about vaccines.
Have a miracle cure for COVID? By all means, share. You'll be both wealthy and a hero. But nope, it's goddamn charlatans all day long with this shit.
Hi again. Deplatforming is censorship. Your example is censorship. I’ll leave the definition here for others and maybe you too if you want to learn what it actually means.
I think the need to redefine words like censorship is to make one seem good and necessary and one seem bad and deplorable. So “deplatforming” is now the good censorship and censorship remains the bad. Again see the link to clarify what exactly constitutes censorship. It doesn’t matter if you get it or not.
>Have a miracle cure for COVID?
Nope, just a suppressed treatment which could save lives. If the medical establishment actually cared about health it would be bending over backwards to study it instead of actively suppressing it. All I can do is post the science, here are 60 studies with more than half peer reviewed:
> Censorship occurs when individuals or groups try to prevent[1] others from saying, printing, or depicting words and images.
In the example I gave, Stanford is not showing up to your house to take signs off your lawn. So according to your very definition, they aren't "trying to prevent you from saying, printing, or depicting words and images," they are literally just kicking you off their lawn. You just repeatedly state these things are equivalent, when they are not, as I explained multiple times, and then you post a link to information that has not censored. Frankly I don't even want to argue about whether said link has been deplatformed or not, because it's not censored, and it's just me and you at this point, with zero progress.
[1] prevent, v.
1. keep (something) from happening or arising.
2. make (someone or something) unable to do something.
Sadly this is a potential path to tyranny (if not the government-enforced kind, then the kind that comes from those who control the flow of information).