[pumpkinprog]

That is how all the censorship stories start. In the beginning, you censor several "reasonable" resources, and after a while, you get the Great Western Firewall. For example, Russia introduced Internet censorship laws in 2012 with the excuse of blocking some Caucasus terrorist groups' websites and "protecting children". In 2022 it is nearly impossible to surf the net as usual without a VPN.

[DoItToMe81]

We had considered implementing a very extensive filter in the early 2000s. What started as blocking porn sites with questionable moderation and a fair amount of pedophiles transformed (before it was even codified into law!) into sites being blocked for personal offences, including a dentist's business site with a gif the censor board objected to, and perceived moral degeneration, likesites on safe usage of drugs and how to avoid overdosing.

It wasn't even a slippery slope, it was more of a crumbling ledge.

[daniel-cussen]

...it was more of a crumbling ledge.

-- DoItToMe81 Sun May 1, 2022

[seniorivn]

hackernews is a joke, why do you downvote this?

Censorship is bad, is as simple as killing is bad. that's something that should be learned during childhood and be a common ground for a modern society.

[Gupie]

Classic slippery slope fallacy. Censorship is necessary to limit harm to the vulnerable in society. Or are you on favour of allowing rape videos, kiddie porn, ..., of allowing ‘Troll factories’ to spread Russian pro-war lies online?

[seniorivn]

sorry for the late reply, but here it is anyway

My ideal social network is a network where all kinds public statements are completely free to be published. If you publish something illegal you should be legally liable for that. If something illegal was published anonymously, an author should be given a time threshold when he can prove his/her personality and become personally liable for that content/statement.

The only additional feature that would improve user experience without harming people's freedom, is labeling of content by a thirdparty(chosen by the enduser, like i would chose one labeling system of content, that would put the most horrible things under "nsfw" clickwall, and someone else might choose a labeling system that puts under a clickwall(one click away for you to view that) everything that has a chance to offend anyone)

Horrible content like footage of crimes presented as entertainment should be treated the same way as described above.

[xaedes]

Classic fallacy fallacy. The fallacy fallacy is a fallacy that asserts that because an argument is fallacious, the conclusion of the argument is false.

[Gupie]

I correctly pointed out that his argument was fallacious. I didn't say that the conclusion of his argument was false because he used a fallacy. Instead I backed my point of view with a coherent argument.

[Amezarak]

I am in fact in favor of “troll factories” being allowed to spread “pro war propaganda” online, because I do not think we should have the norm in place that videos can simply be declared propaganda and censored because they might cause someone to disagree with the foreign policy goals of whatever government they live under.

For example, if that was permissible and expected, then I would fully expect a hypothetical video of $ALLY/SELF committing war crimes to be censored as $ENEMY propaganda. Just as the Russians do. If you entrust the “experts” with the ability to tell you what is true, you will not be living in a democratic society.

[Gupie]

I was arguing against the dogma that all censorship is bad. I can understand your point of view, but I don't agree with it. We are in an information war with Russia (and other such undemocratic entities). We have been for years and we have been losing it.

I am also needless to say against war crimes no matter which side perpetrates them so videos of $ALLY/SELF committing them that come from reputable source or that can be verified should not be censored.

[Amezarak]

You cannot have censorship of “disinformation” and democracy. They are necessary antagonisms. If you want a free society you just have to accept that sometimes people will hear and believe untruths and do your best to argue your side. This has been the case from the beginning - even in America, we have ample examples from the post-revolutionary era of people complaining that “designing men” were misleading the public to rile them up against their representatives. And of course, the Adams administration used the foreign policy position of the state to throw their critics in prison as being seditious. People like to say that well, social media has changed everything. In fact, we’ve simply returned to a situation more like what we had prior to centralized mass media, where rumors and panics and “disinformation” originating in the common people (and often blamed on foreigners) frequently caused all kinds of dramatic events and political upsets.

The very idea of an “information war” that can be won only by silencing your adversary is an attack on democracy.

> videos of $ALLY/SELF committing them that come from reputable source or that can be verified should not be censored

There is no world where the authority delegated to protect us from propaganda isn’t going to censor these. It’s well and good to posit the idea that untruth shouldn’t be allowed but by giving someone the authority to arbitrate what is reputable and true you’ve already ceded the entire idea of self-governance.

[Gupie]

That sounds very dogmatic to me, "you cannot", "they are necessary", "you just have to", "an attack on democracy". You are right to be worried about attacks on democracy, with the refusal to Trump at al to accept the result of last year's election. But that is not down to censorship.

[DocTomoe]

And somehow, because you feel uneasy with Russian propaganda, you feel entitled to deny my right to consume and analyse it?

[Gupie]

I feel a democratically elected government it entitled to deny your right to consume such propaganda, although I don't understand why you would want to.

[deepsun]

I'd agree with you if I didn't see first-hand how propaganda starts wars. And yes, reasonable censorship helps, e.g. YouTube blocking RT is very much positive for the whole world.

[Amezarak]

Propaganda has always been a problem and democracies and led to wars. What is different now? Also, in this particular case, what war are we stopping by banning Americans or Europeans from seeing Russian propaganda? It looks to me like that ship has sailed.

In fact, if anything, it appears to be we’ve opened the floodgates to pro-Ukrainian propaganda, as if being anti-Russian invasion means we must therefore accept all things pro-Ukraine. As with the Ghost of Kiev, people have even said even if it’s not true, we should still believe it. Since this type of propaganda has encouraged the arming of Ukraine by the west and increasing escalations, it seems like it is more likely to increase the scale, scope, and length of the war. Should we ban Ukrainian propaganda?

[deepsun]

It's not necessarily will become a great wall. E.g. they already censor child porn.

Yes, propaganda is very capable to start wars and genocide (see Rwanda). I'm all for reasonable censorship, and it will not necessarily grow into bad censorship. You make it sound like white or black.

[Amezarak]

Yes, this is a case where the slippery slope is real. Another example is that Paul Graham and Marc Andressen are on hate speech watchlists run by ex-Twitter employees and funded by the German government. “Hate speech”, “public order”, and “disinformation” are all just very vague banners under which varying groups can implement their preferred censorship.

https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/1516860142737780736