Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by adventured 1517 days ago
> What moral high ground do we hold now?

Vast amounts of ground, fortunately. How about the fact that we can have these conversations fully uncensored? That little thing known as freedom of speech, which is still overwhelmingly alive and well. I enjoy its use, aggressively, on a daily basis without persecution and have for decades uninterrupted.

3 comments

The article is about the benefits that the US intelligence agencies get from the censorship power of a centralized monopoly of tech companies.

For example, if your main form of communication online is through companies owned by Meta, it’s very easy to effectively censor a point of view or group of people through deplatforming, but if there are dozens of platforms that becomes more difficult.

While more authoritarian countries rely on direct censorship, the US instead promotes the viewpoints they want people to subscribe to: positive reinforcement. You can see this with the government’s involvement with the entertainment industry, or with the military paying sports leagues to promote patriotic displays.

Tech companies being private entities means that they can censor or at least stop the viral effects of social media on ideas that don’t fit the mold.

There’s a lot you can do to shape public opinion without violating the first amendment.

It’s kind of similar to the way local news stations will run “stories” that amount to advertisements for various products or local businesses. Or you might see a funny meme on Reddit where the joke mostly has to do with a company.

Not to say that there aren’t valid reasons to do stuff like this…there’s plenty of harmful speech out there that makes the world a worse place. Hateful, violent, or misleading speech is a legitimate problem. For example, there’s a report that claims most anti-vaccination online content comes from just 12 sources. [1]

It seems a little bit alarming that such a small group can amplify speech in a way that has cost perhaps thousands of lives.

[1] [PDF] https://f4d9b9d3-3d32-4f3a-afa6-49f8bf05279a.usrfiles.com/ug...

Except that freedom of speech does not protect us from intolerance, as Karl Popper observed. For example, private entities are not required to uphold freedom of speech.
It's funny when Popper is brought up in this way because his conclusion was that the only reasonable censorship of intolerance was that which poses a threat of immediate physical harm. So basically how the US treats freedom of speech today.

He certainly wouldn't be supportive of censoring racist commentary that didn't incite immediate physical violence.

Funny enough, in Germany - which is definitely more restricted, and for good reason, on the US understanding of "free speech" - Facebook and Twitter are routinely seen as public discourse forums and have to unban users as long as what they post isn't against the law [1].

[1] https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/muenchen-urteil-faceboo...

Good news- We aren’t required to tolerate institutions that don’t uphold freedom of speech.
We can have this conversation now, but vigilance is good.
Certainly. Nothing in my comment suggests otherwise in the least.
So much on this site and online more generally comes across as criticism. It wasn't meant as such. I just thought it should be minded.