Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by skillpass 524 days ago
Why is it “certainly a loss for users”? Many are likely to enjoy the ability to post without censorship on topics they care about.
2 comments

Fact-checking and censorship are two very different things.
Indeed. This was more censorship than fact-checking.
Deleting isn't fact-checking. Whereas "community noting" actually can make a case for being fact-checking.
Fact checkers weren't deleting posts and didn't even have the right to do so. They are separate journalistic orgs tagging posts. Deleting is done by Meta moderators, which is something else entirely.

I think you also just proved my point that if HN users can't even get basic facts about an event right, how do you expect the average FB user to do so? Goes to show that even on HN "community noting" would be a disaster.

The problem with "fact-checking" is that if it's done by humans at all then it will be heavily biased.

With Silicon-Valley people being in charge of "fact-checking" for the past decade there's been countless examples of them doing mass cancellations calling things lies that we all know ended up being true.

> countless examples of them doing mass cancellations calling things lies that we all know ended up being true

really? like what, exactly? please give concrete examples or this is just hot air

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/may/27/facebook-...

"Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made (2021)"

It is not known to be true of course, but it always obviously a possibility.

I mean, we can’t be correct retroactively can we?? I dont think all the doctors that came before antibiotics should be blamed for not knowing Germ theory.

IS this a reasonable expectation of fact checking?

I’m very curious now, I actually would love takes on this. I feel we are implying that the standards of fact checking validity weren’t met, but the standards haven’t been stated.

The reason censorship is generally undesirable is because it assumes the person doing the censoring is always correct, and that they're infallible perfect arbiters of truth incapable of letting their political motivations dictate their censorship decisions...which is of course false. They're very often wrong, and always make decisions based on their political leanings, even when it contradicts the evidence.
If you're wanting to claim that `Cancel Culture` never happened, then I'm afraid, at this point in history, the burden of proof is on you, not me. lol.
I made no claim.

But the OP did make a claim that "calling things lies that we all know ended up being true"

I challenged that with a request for actual examples. Feel free to link to them.

No one needs proof Cancel Culture was real. Everyone knows at this point. So you can pretend you need proof if you want, but you're not fooling anyone.
Suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop scandal by heavy censorship of any post about it on Facebook. For instance.

There's a high probability that heavily influenced the presidential 2020 election outcome.

https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the-news/facebook-execs...

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republican-led-us-house-pan...

There was a long period where people were getting banned from Twitter and Meta platforms for posting (true) claims about the Hunter Biden laptop story (which was, of course, extremely politically consequential)

Is that your example? It's not a very good one.

If you read the article you linked to, you find that 1) Twitter blocked tweets about the WP story, not banned users, and 2) they reversed that decision and unblocked the tweets 24 hours later as they realized their mistake.

It took the corporate media (CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, PBS, etc) a full 3.5 years to admit the laptop was real. It wasn't just some little thing like you're trying to portray it as. It made the difference in the 2020 election.
The Hunter Biden laptop story had no meaningful political consequences.
Yeah other than the minor thing of swinging an election. lol.
peaceful protests?
That sounds like a line from the CCP.
I’ve seen this happen before. Back in the good ole days of the libertarian internet.

You had subreddits which had zero moderation, because again “the best ideas succeed”. Those places got filled with the hate speech, vitriol, harassment, stalking and toxicity.

Minorities and women left, because they were basically hunted.

Logical arguments dont work, because hate, harassment and anger are emotionally driven behaviors.

This creates the toxic water cooler effect. The fact that its ok to say horrible things, attracts more people who are happy to say those things.

You lose diversity of arguments, view points and chances to challenge ideas.

You increase radicalization, dramatically speed up the sharing and conversion of anger into action.

Eventually, the subs brought in moderation. As did every social media platform in existence. The people who didn’t like it, created their own spaces.

Which didn’t do well. Because those positions and spaces are NOT popular. Facing this fact, they are now turning to shut off opposition and moderation, because that is necessary to keep the ball going.

This isn’t even opinion, this is the history of the past 30 years. It’s not even that old!

I really do hope this time its different. Genuinely, I said it when the new communities were created. I meant it then, I mean it now.

Moderation is fucking toxic and unhealthy. I rejoined moderation recently, and in the first 10 frikking items, I had to see a dead baby pic from an un covered ethnic war zone.

I really want this to succeed, and want it to be good for users. I am hoping it is.

But experience is clear - making space for hurtful speech, results in more hurtful speech and people just leaving to places where they dont have to be harassed.

Blue sky should probably see a jump in users over time this year.