China launches platform to stamp out 'online rumours'(news.trust.org)
news.trust.org
China launches platform to stamp out 'online rumours'
http://news.trust.org/item/20180830063018-6rju6
68 comments
That's not exactly "powerful around the world" who are routinely vote for more censorship in democratic countries. There is no strict difference between "hate speech", "fake news" and "online rumours".
And many in the HN community regularly call for censorship - under the guise of "regulation".
That’s because people want freedom of speech but only their interpretation of free speech, which is why freedom of spreech, with very narrow exceptions, is crucial.
To be fair, I have never seen this on HN. You may still be right, I've just never seen it. (Maybe those calls for censorship are themselves getting censored?)
HN has a long history of censoring particular groups of people based on identity. That’s why it’s become such a monoculture (a monoculture of people generally convinced than HN is diverse, however.)
Down voting things you disagree with despite being well articulated (in fact because they are well articulated) is a form of censorship here.
But of course it goes much further when shadowbanning is deployed to enforce the narrow and rigid views of the moderation team.
Yes, I know pointing this out means it will now happen to me.
Nothing a censor hates more than thwarting the narrative they are trying to enforce.
But that’s why you think it doesn’t happen here. This is the most harshly and hypocritically cultivated walled garden on the Net. (Moderators violate their own rules regularly with impunity.)
Alas, I cannot abide not pointing out these abuses.
Down voting things you disagree with despite being well articulated (in fact because they are well articulated) is a form of censorship here.
But of course it goes much further when shadowbanning is deployed to enforce the narrow and rigid views of the moderation team.
Yes, I know pointing this out means it will now happen to me.
Nothing a censor hates more than thwarting the narrative they are trying to enforce.
But that’s why you think it doesn’t happen here. This is the most harshly and hypocritically cultivated walled garden on the Net. (Moderators violate their own rules regularly with impunity.)
Alas, I cannot abide not pointing out these abuses.
Click a checkbox in your profile and you can see those shadowbanned posts just fine.
Very rarely are they well written or polite.
I have yet to see well presented, civil, arguments censored. I have however seen entire threads criticizing HN and YCombinator staff, by name, be left alone.
Very rarely are they well written or polite.
I have yet to see well presented, civil, arguments censored. I have however seen entire threads criticizing HN and YCombinator staff, by name, be left alone.
A "third" perspective; I think there's at least some self-censorship (In certain dimensions, don't let me paint this as some universal or even majority thing) from people who tend to write civil, well presented arguments. You can read my post history if you want, and I've _certainly_ had some of my posts get greyed with rapidity (Obviously I selfishly found them to be innocuous but others clearly disagree, I find in situations where the status quo is _aggressively_ in one direction, even expressing moderation is caught in the blast radius), so I avoid the really hot subjects with a ten foot pole; you learn that it just doesn't end well, especially for those of us who have associated our professional lives with this site.
You can notice this more obviously if you watch new, that certain topics reach and get to the front page VERY RAPIDLY and stay there, while others are flagged or fall off with prejudice. I'm not sure I'd call it a huge problem, and the parent post is probably a bit hyperbolic, (Certainly I give the mods benefit of the doubt, even though I've gently disagreed with dang via comment prior) but it's definitely present.
You can notice this more obviously if you watch new, that certain topics reach and get to the front page VERY RAPIDLY and stay there, while others are flagged or fall off with prejudice. I'm not sure I'd call it a huge problem, and the parent post is probably a bit hyperbolic, (Certainly I give the mods benefit of the doubt, even though I've gently disagreed with dang via comment prior) but it's definitely present.
Plenty of people on HN take the position that private companies should deny their platform to unsavory voices, and this position has its own spectrum of views about where those lines can/should be drawn.
Clearly that's an overstatement - I take it you mean that they are all cases of people calling for limits to speech, but 'hate speech' has clear legal definitions in many jurisdictions. We shouldn't omit 'libel' and 'slander' which are restrictions on free speech as well, though they rarely seem to cause too much outrage.
The reason is the standards for "libel" and "slander" are strict enough that it is hard to falsely bring that charge, unlike "fake news".
Tyranny, in all its shapes and sizes, comes wrapped in claims that it is for the common good.
In fact a good way to think critically about things you hear is to ask “how is the politician profiting from this law?” And noting what new powers the law gives government.
If government “needs” more power with the justification of “helping people”, it may be the case that helping people is just the excuse.
Government power is easy to monetize: threaten industry with worse regulations but forget the idea when you get campaign contributions, etc.
In fact a good way to think critically about things you hear is to ask “how is the politician profiting from this law?” And noting what new powers the law gives government.
If government “needs” more power with the justification of “helping people”, it may be the case that helping people is just the excuse.
Government power is easy to monetize: threaten industry with worse regulations but forget the idea when you get campaign contributions, etc.
Should the internet behind the great firewall be considered a part of the global network, considering how isolated it is? I don't really consider what happens in China to be indicative of global trends. There may be similarities, for sure, but the scale is very different.
A free and open internet is a great equalizer. Powerful people don't like that because it can cause them to lose power. I think it is actually that simple.
This is precisely why it is dangerous to let someone other than yourself decide what meets the criteria for "fake news." It gives the decider an opportunity to manipulate public discourse.
Or "hate speech" for that matter.
Obligatory: "The purpose of free speech is to protect unpopular speech. If the speech were popular, it would already be free without any guarantee."
How about the tolerance paradox? Tolerant society that tolerates intolerance will cease to be tolerant.
More critically, it's to protect that speech from the government. Because you don't really need protection from anyone else, as no one else has a monopoly on violence.
An online mob can turn into violence. Or, the least look to silence opinion, either directly or by soliciting favor through boycotts, etc.
The violence of an online mob is not protected by the government. So who cares? Arrest the mobsters and move on with life.
A boycott is not even violence. So, again, who cares? We're not even in physical danger in the case of a boycott. In fact, the boycott is actually free speech. (Or, more precisely, free expression).
But consider, if the government comes after you, who will you arrest? Who can you get to defend you? In this case, the Constitutional protections of our freedoms are essential.
The threat from the government is the danger that the Founders were insistent on mitigating. And they were right to do so. The government is the main entity that we need protection from vis-a-vis restriction of rights.
A boycott is not even violence. So, again, who cares? We're not even in physical danger in the case of a boycott. In fact, the boycott is actually free speech. (Or, more precisely, free expression).
But consider, if the government comes after you, who will you arrest? Who can you get to defend you? In this case, the Constitutional protections of our freedoms are essential.
The threat from the government is the danger that the Founders were insistent on mitigating. And they were right to do so. The government is the main entity that we need protection from vis-a-vis restriction of rights.
let's not start stretching things too much now.
“Hate speech” is actually a great example. I’m a fan of the fact trans people are getting better treatment in today’s society, but if some obnoxious jerk says “there are only two genders” or “Chelsea Manning is a dude”, that may make him an asshole but it’s not a crime, it’s not aggresssion or violence.
Yet “hate speech” is literally a phrase created to justify oppression against people for having opinions you don’t like.
I may choose not to associate with a jerk like in my example, but the perpetrators of “hate speech” concept want to deny him basic human rights, and often do violence against him.
Ironically for the “crime” of being different.
Basic human rights s are rights for everyone.
Genuine liberals used to advocate for the right of the KKK to march. The ACLU even filed a lawsuit Withings the past ten years defending their right to make white robes fools of themselves.
When “liberals” stopped defending human rights, you lost the plot and the whole point of being liberal.
Yet “hate speech” is literally a phrase created to justify oppression against people for having opinions you don’t like.
I may choose not to associate with a jerk like in my example, but the perpetrators of “hate speech” concept want to deny him basic human rights, and often do violence against him.
Ironically for the “crime” of being different.
Basic human rights s are rights for everyone.
Genuine liberals used to advocate for the right of the KKK to march. The ACLU even filed a lawsuit Withings the past ten years defending their right to make white robes fools of themselves.
When “liberals” stopped defending human rights, you lost the plot and the whole point of being liberal.
Many leftists are now coming to different conclusions about free speech: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
You guys talk about "left" and "right" as if there is a difference.
Both are characterized by marked intolerance. A small minority of both are what I would term "Violently Intolerant". You can get yourself killed for being a congressman at a baseball game, or for being black and going to bible study or walking up a street. The "Left" and the "Right", particularly their extremists, are just bad business all around when it comes to what we would typically term "tolerance".
Both are characterized by marked intolerance. A small minority of both are what I would term "Violently Intolerant". You can get yourself killed for being a congressman at a baseball game, or for being black and going to bible study or walking up a street. The "Left" and the "Right", particularly their extremists, are just bad business all around when it comes to what we would typically term "tolerance".
Nah, I'm intolerant of nazis, and that's not the same as being intolerant of jews.
No one said it's the same. This is the problem, you take an extreme case and you say, "See! Since this [insert ridiculously extremist case here] is obviously bad then my [insert more reasonable case here] is good!"
No one's talking about the obvious stuff here. Like Nazis, or forcing blacks back into slavery or something. I'm talking about being intolerant of reasonable ideas.
It's perfectly reasonable for a bunch of congressmen to get together for a baseball game without being shot.
It's perfectly reasonable for young black military officers to walk up a city street without having a knife stuck in his chest.
Don't even get me started on how reasonable it is for little old ladies to go to churches.
No one's talking about the obvious stuff here. Like Nazis, or forcing blacks back into slavery or something. I'm talking about being intolerant of reasonable ideas.
It's perfectly reasonable for a bunch of congressmen to get together for a baseball game without being shot.
It's perfectly reasonable for young black military officers to walk up a city street without having a knife stuck in his chest.
Don't even get me started on how reasonable it is for little old ladies to go to churches.
[deleted]
Who are “the liberals”? You surely cannot think that all “liberals” or even a majority I think we should be banning speech. If you do think that I’d love some data because as a self identified liberal I don’t want to ban hate speech. I think you’re painting a straw man here.
Sure, but the recommendation algos amplify the mob, which is as intelligent as its dumbest member.
So, cool that you have decided what's fake, but if the mob thinks otherwise you're toast.
See anti-vaxxers and their effects on innocent children, both their own and others.
So, cool that you have decided what's fake, but if the mob thinks otherwise you're toast.
See anti-vaxxers and their effects on innocent children, both their own and others.
"The platform operates under the guidance of 27 government departments..."
China loves bureaucracy.
China loves bureaucracy.
From the video promoting the platform: "Rumours violate individual rights; rumours create social panic; rumours cause fluctuations in the stock markets; rumours impact normal business operations; rumours blatantly attack revolutionary martyrs"
One of these is not like the others... You'd think that "attacking revolutionary martyrs" would be in the government's list of pros about rumors, not cons. Or at least so I've heard
One of these is not like the others... You'd think that "attacking revolutionary martyrs" would be in the government's list of pros about rumors, not cons. Or at least so I've heard
Many communist governments consider themselves "revolutionaries", so that is likely referring to people "martyred for communism".
Ya, I eventually figured out they were referring to people like Mao. But is Mao a typical rumor topic?? Honest question
No clue, I just wanted to point out what they meant by using the "revolutionary" rhetoric.
Just replace that with "national heroes" and you're all good
How will this platform handle facts that are inconvenient for the moderating authority?
They'll consider those facts rumors and remove them.
The function of this "platform" is so vague that I don't think anyone is under any illusions that this isn't another way for the government to control public discussion.
They will dismiss them as dangerous conspiracy theories, just like Facebook does in America.
[deleted]
The attack on "fake news", by any other name...
Sinopes.com, the Chinese Snopes.com? Dang, it's already taken.
[deleted]
paradite(5)
It seems like the powerful around the world are competing with each other to see who can censor and control the internet the most. And of course they all, to the last man, claim it is for the benefit of the people.