How do you do that? I've noticed lately that HN commentary (at least in threads like this) has trended increasingly pro-censorship[1] lately, and it's pretty disheartening to read.
Would rather do something like what you say, but I'm not quite sure what you mean.
[1]: Which is a bit ironic, thinking about it.
There’s no feasible zero-censorship scenario (see “yelling fire in a crowded theater”, etc.) so pretty much everyone is “pro-censorship” to some degree. But pretty much no one wants preapproval of every utterance either, so everyone is also “anti-censorship”.
If you see someone talking about “damping positive disinformation feedback loops” or something like that, rather than “censorship”, that’s one signal there’s a substantive discussion taking place.
(Zero censorship is kind of like absolute anarchy: an interesting thought experiment that may be useful to inform a practical debate.)
I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", just as an example of what I meant in my first comment.
> so pretty much everyone is “pro-censorship” to some degree
Please, don't. You're arguing against an extreme of my comment instead of what I actually meant[1] (which, of course, you're free to do, but I would also be just as free to dismiss it as a bad faith argument), but also you're extending something you might believe onto others. You're of course free to be "pro-censorship", but you don't know what everyone else thinks, and certainly not what I think.
> The use of the term “censorship” is itself a negative signal, as it preempts useful discussion by imposing a false dichotomy.
I completely disagree with this. The example I gave is absolutely an argument in favor of censorship.
> If you see someone talking about “damping positive disinformation feedback loops” or something like that, rather than “censorship”, that’s one signal there’s a substantive discussion taking place.
Excusing it by saying "dampening positive disinformation feedback loops" is excusing censorship. You might refuse to call it such, but I don't have a reason not to.
[1]: For starters, I'm aware that there's unprotected speech for a reason, and I never called condemnation of such speech "censorship".
I didn’t present any position at all other than saying that neither extreme is realistic — which I think you actually agree with. But you’re trying to argue with me anyway.
I was just trying to answer your question on how to recognize a more nuanced and productive discussion: look for people arguing about specific behaviors; avoid people arguing over the definition of the word “censorship”.
The US has always had limits on free speech.
> Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Incitement, sedition, public security and harm to others seem to be relevant to this discussion.
But not to my comment, and not just because I'm not from the USA.
I'm not speaking in favor of parler if that's what you assumed (for some reason). Specially if it is, like the top comment said, just a propaganda machine trying to enforce a single viewpoint. That's antithesis to free speech.
Where you see “pro-censorship”, many see speech that historically has never been protected in the US like calls to violence, or speech that insights others to violence.
Companies gave Trump et. al. the benefit of the doubt on the “inciting violence” part, until the violence actually materialized and the FBI warned of groups organizing online to coordinate future violent attacks.
