undefined | Better HN

0 pointsstaunch4y ago0 comments

I think 99% of people would agree it's reasonable to have a very few, very clear exceptions. And it's possible to do so without falling down a slippery slope. We know this for a fact because sites like Reddit did it for over a decade, as did many other sites. It used to be that they didn't moderate content themselves for fear of losing their "common carrier" liability protection.

And many of these exceptions might not even necessarily even be exceptions to US law or the First Amendment. Abuse of computer systems (spam), Federal obscenity laws, etc.

And there are many potential approaches to hiding (with transparency) from view legal content that no one (or almost no one) actually wants to see, without necessarily even deleting it.

One obvious approach would be to allow users to dictate what kinds of content they want to see. An example is subreddits, where users who want to see gore could be free to do so. Twitter could implement similar kinds of self-moderation features.

There are probably even more creative approaches that could solve some of the echo chamber effects, misinformation, etc without heavy-handed global moderation. It's a hard problem but it'd be really great to see someone try at least.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

philipkglass4y ago· 2 in thread

It used to be that they didn't moderate content themselves for fear of losing their "common carrier" protection.

Reddit allowed porn from the beginning. Facebook never allowed nudity. Neither one of them had any common carrier protections to protect or to lose by these policies.

Reddit proves that even subreddits, personal filters, and other self-moderation tools are not enough to prevent politician, media, and advertiser pressure around controversial content. The jailbait subreddit, like every subreddit that has been banned, was full of willing subscribers.

I can't name any prominent American politicians who really want social media to publish everything that's allowed under the First Amendment. Do you know of any?

Some politicians say that they do but I don't believe they have considered the full scope of what is actually allowed under the First Amendment. For example, Senator Tom Cotton published an apparently fierce defense of free speech on his own web site in June 2020:

https://www.cotton.senate.gov/news/op-eds/twitter-tried-to-c...

It ends with

These social-media companies have improved the lives of Americans in many ways. But they should not be surprised public opinion is turning against them when they act as censors and moral scolds to millions of Americans. Nor should they expect to find many people rushing to their defense. In fact, to coin a phrase, those of us in their crosshairs might say: No quarter for Big Tech censorship.

However, in September 2020 he accused Netflix of distributing child pornography (the movie Cuties) and wrote:

Netflix has a basic legal responsibility to not stream child pornography or otherwise promote the sexual exploitation of children.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/netflix-cuties-child-pornogr...

I don't think that he understands how broad the First Amendment actually is, and how narrow the exceptions for obscenity and child pornography are. He just wants to make tech companies stop censoring his tweets and start censoring movies. Likewise, many activists who are upset about (e.g.) LGBTQ content getting suppressed by YouTube algorithms don't much care about YouTube suppressing videos about guns and explosives.

There are few people except perhaps Constitutional scholars willing to defend the full breadth of what the First Amendment guards, much less require social networks to host content of similar breadth. I'm willing to defend the First Amendment as it currently exists, even the publications I find vilest, but I don't want social media forced to publish all of it.

staunchOP4y ago

I agree sites had different policies and I'm (intentionally) simplifying the history.

> Neither one of them had any common carrier protections to protect or to lose by these policies.

That is precisely the reason sites had a light moderation touch for years. I'm not sure where you're getting that from? The consensus (from lawyers I was advised by personally) was that too much moderation would open you up to liability, and so most social sites just enforced their ToS without wading into full scale moderation.

> I can't name any prominent American politicians who really want social media to publish everything that's allowed under the First Amendment. Do you know of any?

I'm sure there's probably at least one, but I have no interest in what politicians say they want. They're so often the people the Supreme Court is protecting us from. To me the question is what principles should guide us, and my answer is the First Amendment.

> I don't think that he understands how broad the First Amendment actually is...

I think he does understand how broad the First Amendment is. I also think he's probably much more willing to sacrifice short-term (or even long-term) revenue than most people would expect. I don't claim to know for sure though. And he might change his mind in the future.

themitigating4y ago

What makes you think he is willing to sacrifice short term revenue?

- He's a businessman. You could argue that you need to be successful to have the resources to help people

- He sued Top Gear because of a somewhat negative car review of the original Tesla Roadster [1]. Would an advocate of free speech to the level some want here do that? Maybe he changed though, maybe he only wants free speech when it doesn't hurt him.

I'm honestly asking where the image of a champion of free speech comes from, besides what he says he'll do?

[1]https://www.wired.com/2012/02/tesla-vs-top-gear/ [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/elizahaverstock/2022/02/15/elon...

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse