> Finally, censorship is always bad, for a variety of well understood reasons that we don't need to repeat here.
I agree that uncensored speech is good, but when I read this I knew it would come up as problematic. I think we've all seen a lot of bad arguments sneak their axioms into the conversation with a line like this (but again, I agree with what's written here). Does uncensored speech fall into the category of "it goes without saying"? Perhaps I should learn more about censorship so I can effectively advocate against it, just like the article says.
Which is why you keep it simple by allowing all speech. Once you start down the road of a little bit of this, not much of that, and who gets to decide what the complexity only goes up.
Not to mention the honest concern of where that censorship power is held.
> The key question of censorship is: Who decides what to censor?
This is the problem. Sure, like most people I don't want to listen to ____. But the cost of silencing them, is going to be opening the door to silence me.
> The notion that all speech should be allowed actually seems stupid to me on its face, the more that I consider it.
Who will decide which speech will be forbidden, and on what basis will the decision be made? How accountable will this person or body be, and to whom? Will it work transparently or in secret?
How will it enforce its decisions? Who will be bound by them? What punishment will be appropriate for those who utter forbidden words?
The praciticalities of censorship-enforcement are as nightmarish as the "ethical" arguments for it.
>I want free speech. And I want social norms. They're not incompatible.
Yes, they are. and the way you're trying to square the circle here is by creating an arbitrary distinction between censorship (which is the evil government doing scary bad things) and 'moderation' (which is private groups doing the same thing, but in like, a good way).
There is no material difference between the two other than the size of the institution doing the censoring. Social norms, by their very definition constrain and civilize people by telling them what not to do or what not to say, either explicitly or implicitly so we don't all behave like a bunch of monkeys in the banana factory.
If there really was such a thing as an 'innate right to voice your ideas', censorship here on HN would be as vile as the government doing it, possible even more so because you at least elect the latter. Clearly it isn't vile though, because without strict censorship discourse here would not be possible.
It's long-term censorship because if you can control speech for long enough you can control the range of ideas people have the possibility to be exposed to, the overall opinion consensus changes over time toward just the allowed range of ideas, and after enough time this changes the facts in consensus reality.
If you want to come into my living room and shout Nazi propaganda, your ass is getting censored and banned from my house.
If you think that level of censorship is a problem, then we have a fundamental disagreement, and the bad news for you is 95% of people will disagree with you.
If you agree on that level of censorship, then we’re just arguing where the who/when/where line should be.
> censorship is the intent to prevent someone from speaking.
You can't mean that seriously. If I successfully form the intention to stop someone speaking, but fail to carry through (perhaps because I don't own a police force), are you really saying that I've succeeded in censoring them?
It seems to be the fashion these days to construct arguments based on redefining words. If "censorship" is a kind of intention, then there doesn't appear to be much wrong with censorship. You've redefined a word that is generally considered to refer to something bad, to mean something that isn't bad. That's sort-of OK, but it means that we have to put a glossary of definitions at the top of anything we say.
>It doesn't matter whether I agree or disagree. It matters whether we, as a society, can find a balance between the rights of the individuals and the rights of the sovereign/state.
Yes. And this is called... censorship. Even when we, the good guys, do it. You can't just change the definition of words based on whether a western democracy or an authoritarian hellhole does it, when they're doing exactly the same thing.
Edit:
> Censorship usually (also) refers to restrictions of free speech typical for non-democratic societies [1], which doesn't lead to productive discussions (in my experience). It is not uncommon to see the false conclusion "censorship is used in authoritarian countries therefore free speech must not be restricted".
If people make a faulty argument, point out the fault in the argument. No need to change the definition of words so the ground shifts under their feet. FWIW, I think "censorship is a prime feature of authoritarian governments" is a perfectly valid argument against, ahem, restricting free speech.
> Censorship is when state authorities limit the speech of the people under their power.
That is plainly wrong, that is just a subset of censorship.
> But this is an unbelievably complicated and nuanced concept
No, the concept is very simple. Defining and agreeing on exceptions in regards to ethical considerations is a hard and nuanced discussion. Some people want to force certain considerations which certainly violates the principle of free speech. That too is a very simple concept.
The EU just released a law that illegal content has to be removed withing 24h. This is hilarious as determining a statement to be legal or not would take at least 6 month with the load our legal systems have to endure. But I guess after that period the content has to be removed rather quickly? The digital sphere is a hard problem for the old continent. I live in Europe and at times it is a bit embarrassing.
But that is irrelevant because of course companies will err on the side of caution before any legal channels are about to be used. The criticism and implications of overblocking are well known and the author has chosen to ignore that argument completely even if we had ample empirical evidence that this is exactly what has happened.
I am not really keen on billionaires using their capital to influence content either, but to my shame I must admit that the approach of Musk seems plainly better than that most media personalities suggested to us in recent years.
It is no secret that there are other political groups that want to curb freedom of speech. Maybe it is time to learn that you should not advocate for it if your political opponents have more experience implementing it.
> baby’s-first-free-speech-debate
Is this quality journalism of '22?
> What this all portends is an incredibly simplistic and harmful take on free speech and moderation
There is nothing to add that we just have to disagree and I fear any compromise will be difficult with these axioms on the table.
>I'm really annoyed by the common effect where people complaining about censorship on the big platforms always complain about it in vague abstract terms
Ten people want to say thing 1 on twitter. Ten people want to say thing 2 on Twitter. Ten want to say thing 3, and so on for ten million things. Twenty people don't want to say anything particularly controversial and don't think anyone else should either. If the groups of ten don't address free speech as an abstract ideal, each of the hundred million will be individually silenced by the twenty.
Not really; there are both many reasons why censorship is sometimes good, and why attempts to defend freedom of speech on the principle of democracy is not as persuasive as it would seem at first. Many powers can also be abused, and indeed have been in the past, from food and drug regulation to anti-terrorism measures. The fact that it can be abused is not in itself a great argument against the power.
There are also good reasons to bring religion into the discussion too, and whether it should be an exceptional part of freedom of speech. Some religious speech (in particular of parents to their impressionable children) should be second guessed as deserving of protection. Nevertheless, it's also a matter of degree. Most of the elements of religion are not so much misinformation as they are unknowables or taken on faith.
> I don't need to make an argument that it isn't censorship
Yes you do. This is plain as day censorship. You're not allowed to say certain things to your friends. If you're going to claim that that isn't censorship you are absolutely making the affirmative claim.
That's because it's not called "censorship" any more. Instead, people will label a person whose speech they dislike as a racist, homophobe, Islamophobe, anti-semite, misogynist, etc. Sure, people with such views exist and we should debate how we, as a society, want to respond to such views.
What is the problem is the unwritten expectation that, once identified as such by almost anyone, you are excluded, attacked, and told to "shut up". For a regular person it's often enough to be labeled in this way once for their social or work prospects to either be ruined or hurt. Worse, the label will still stick, even if later this person is exonerated.
> The counter argument is that censorship is bad in all its forms.
That’s a platitude, not an argument. And being absolutist is being sadly ignorant of the realities of public speech.
Censorship is not just sometimes good, it’s also sometimes required by law. There is a fairly long list of things that are explicitly illegal to say and are exceptions to US freedom of speech laws, including: libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, state secrets, non-disclosure agreements, personal private information, and, last but not least: lies.
Censorship is required by the GDPR, for example, when dealing with Personally Identifying Information (PII). Because the freedoms to speak publicly can conflict with our own freedoms privately, some kinds of censorship are beneficial to people including you.
Commercial speech is specifically exempted from US Freedom of Speech laws. You can spend time getting upset over legal private censorship all you want, but it isn’t a Freedom of Speech issue, and it doesn’t amount to a meaningful moral or principled stand. Our courts have already established through two hundred years or argument and precedent that our principles are that cash corrupts speech and should not be a protected category.
> Since you seem to be more or less pro-censorship, I’ll assume that you’re a bit left leaning
What gave you that impression? I was raising questions to show that any censorship (or definition of civil discussion) is problematic.
It's a tough problem because bad ideas can lead to bad things, but stopping good ideas can lead to bad things too. If we all agreed on what's good and what's bad this would be easy, but we don't.
I'd much rather live with the consequences of free speech than live with the consequences of censorship. But neither side should project claim it's a utopia.
Sure seems to be simple: "speech I like is good, speech I don't like is bad".
reply