Also, love the presentation on this page.
I’d like to know how curious this would make non-HN people, and those living in more censored places.
My assumption is that they take it for granted and just continue to watch the show. It might be hard for them to even find the uncensored clips.
Anecdotally from my own perspective, I see big waves of voting on HN that go in various political directions. Seems consistent with self-selection by topic combined with randomness.
None of it inspires confidence in your assessment of being "censored" on HN, or diagnosing the audience as less curious.
Just a few days ago Zuckerberg was discussing banning / suppressing discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop - https://nypost.com/2022/08/25/mark-zuckerberg-criticizes-twi...
Idk what to say about that. It’s not editorial decisions when DMs are being censored or social media posts. Particularly when the FBI / government is suggesting it.
2. This is a perfect example of my point. Most people don’t even realize they are surrounded by censorship. Or they outright agree with it. Look up the list of topics bannable on YouTube. On Twitter you can’t even call someone by the name their parents gave them if they disagree. In schools near where I live you can get suspended for using proper pronouns, if someone disagrees.
Censorship in the US is different, but very apparent.
Disagreement among private parties, or getting less private promotion than you wanted to get, is not “censorship”. It’s free speech in action.
The main problem is that you compare the freedom of social media platforms to regulate the content they host, to outright government-controlled censorship of all media. If it was actually the government censoring the topic, you would not have been able to link to a nypost article talking about it, and Trump wouldn't be able to post on his own social media platform.
> Look up the list of topics bannable on YouTube. On Twitter you can’t even call someone by the name their parents gave them if they disagree. In schools near where I live you can get suspended for using proper pronouns, if someone disagrees.
Why are those topics bannable? Could it be that there is some kind of "code of conduct" that makes sure people are respectful to each other? Those people disagreeing are still free to host their own service, if they desperately want to deadname someone.
That said, if a private company like Twitter thinks Alex Jones is a liability because he spreads conspiracy theories of shape shifting lizard people from alternate dimensions sabotaging the Trump Presidency via the deep state because he’s prepping the military and cia to take out the satanic cultists that worship and appease said lizard shapeshifting creatures via the blood of post-coital children, well…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3PIGLDscQ
https://twitter.com/alexberenson/status/1558060844549902338
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/FACEBO...
https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/government-dictating-what-soci...
I can keep going, but most of those people who are impacted you don’t hear from due to censorship.
Otherwise, I don’t know what you’re suggesting to be done. Do you want to expand the powers of the government to moderate these companies and their property?
There’s an implied threat. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this previously. I expect in the next couple years as court cases about the censorship work through the courts, the same thing will happen again.
If the government was silent and the censorship occurred then MAYBE it’s legal. That of course depends on if it’s a common carrier or public space. Both arguably are true for social media, but again it takes time for the courts to figure it out. I would concede that point, but again government asked for the censorship here.
There’s a faction / ideology (across all party lines) in the west that is doing the same thing as China. For the same reasons “to be respectful to one another”.
That’s kinda the point I’m trying to make.
Unlike the ccp example here, where I would say they do have a great handle on what can and cannot be discussed on any public platform and dissenters are most definitely threatened with if not actually subjected to physical force.
> censorship, the changing or the suppression or prohibition of speech or writing that is deemed subversive of the common good. It occurs in all manifestations of authority to some degree, but in modern times it has been of special importance in its relation to government and the rule of law.
Let me make an analogy to Alex Jones and Trump: if the water company cuts someone off, but they continue to run a huge fountain in front of their mansion, then you can't reasonably claim they're being deprived of drinking water.
How long were the FBI in possession of Hunter Biden's laptop, why is Mark Zuckerberg trying to blame them for the censorship of the NY Post's story, and do you consider the FBI to be part of the government?
There's no need for quotes around suppressing as it was suppressed, objectively.
> they were awfully bad at it
It was done to sway an election, which went the way was desired, and without any legal blowback. That is not being "awfully bad at it".
> as anyone who ever wanted to learn about them certainly won’t shut up about it.
But at the time and when it was most important people were shut up regardless of whether they wanted to be.
Again, if you are somehow equating this hunter biden story with the censorship of, say, tiannamen square by the ccp, I encourage you to visit china and research the subject. Compare the efforts you mentioned were used to suppress the hunter biden story with what is outlined here, for example: https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/03/a-look-at-the-many-ways-ch... and you will see how awfully bad the us gov is at censorship.
If the government was so concerned about trump as you say, then why did the same fbi re open an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server just weeks before the 2016 election?
Actually, tell you what, if you believe that the efforts to censor the hunter biden laptop story and tiannamen square are equivalent, I will make a bet. I will pay to print up two shirts: one with “hunter biden is a criminal” and a QR code to the New York post article. The other will say “remember June 5, 1989” with a QR code to the Wikipedia article titled “tank man”.
Wear both shirts in public outside the US capitol and take selfies. Then wear both shirts out in Beijing. Hell just try to get through customs wearing the June 5 shirt and let me know how that goes. I’ll pay for the shirts.
The government tells publishers all the time not to print things. The decision is up to the publishers. That’s free speech.
What do you think the government said when the Washington Post called them up and said “we have a bunch of top-secret stuff that one of your contractors stole from the NSA”? The Post published the Snowden stories anyway. This sort of thing happens a lot.
Many people posted and talked about the Hunter laptop story. None of those people went to jail for it.
Your ability to know about a story does not tell us whether the wider population knew.
> At no point was it difficult to learn more.
And yet it was actively suppressed. I also wonder what topic you couldn't claim that for?
> Again, if you are somehow equating this hunter biden story with the censorship of, say, tiannamen square by the ccp
I didn't use that example, perhaps it was used further up. Regardless, equating is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Comparing would be a better fit. Yes, all instances of censorship can be compared simply because they are censorship.
> you will see how awfully bad the us gov is at censorship
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't be worried about this censorship because the government is bad at it compared to the Chinese government? That's not going to fly. I also think the obvious slippery slope here would be hard to characterise as fallacious, given we're provided with both ends of the slope, and in actual fact, the US is not at the top of the slope.
> If the government was so concerned about trump as you say, then why did the same fbi re open an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server just weeks before the 2016 election?
The government is not of one mind, it is made up of many departments, groups and individuals, each with their own attitudes, desires and intentions. Regardless, how am I supposed to answer that? Or more to the point, what kind of answer would satisfy you?
> if you believe that the efforts to censor the hunter biden laptop story and tiannamen square are equivalent
Did you mean to reply to me?
> I will make a bet
I skipped this as it was childish and unhelpful, and only builds on the straw man (intentional or not) that you are building.
That may well be true.
> The government tells publishers all the time not to print things. The decision is up to the publishers. That’s free speech.
If the mafia offer your business protection you could also make your own decision. Would that be freedom of conscience?
> What do you think the government said when the Washington Post called them up and said “we have a bunch of top-secret stuff that one of your contractors stole from the NSA”? The Post published the Snowden stories anyway. This sort of thing happens a lot.
Why does that incident mean that this incident is different? Were the same people involved?
> Many people posted and talked about the Hunter laptop story. None of those people went to jail for it.
Would people need to go to jail for the aims of the censor to be realised?
So many questions, so few answers.
> The email, which was recently disclosed during discovery in a federal lawsuit that Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed in May, vividly illustrates how the Biden administration engages in censorship by proxy, pressuring social media platforms to implement speech restrictions that would be flagrantly unconstitutional if the government tried to impose them directly. Landry and Schmitt, both Republicans, argue that such pressure violates the First Amendment.
> Judging from the examples that Schmitt cites, the tenor of these communications has been cordial and collaborative. The social media companies are at pains to show that they share the government's goals, which is precisely the problem. Given the broad powers that the federal government has to make life difficult for these businesses through public criticism, litigation, regulation, and legislation, the Biden administration's "asks" for stricter moderation are tantamount to commands. The administration expects obsequious compliance, and that is what it gets.
[1] https://reason.com/2022/09/01/these-emails-show-how-the-bide...