←back to thread

808 points shaunpud | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mrtksn ◴[] No.45003438[source]
Traditionally in the west, censorship was through copyright rights. It wasn’t considered censorship if you do it for money and business.

Fast forward to today, Americans are pushing you for self censorship through force and denial(if you don’t speak in line with the admin, you will have hard time in your US public sector job or if you want to travel to US) and Europeans find all kind of other ways.

Tough new world order. I used to be advocating for resolution through legal/political means, but now I'm inclined to believe that the solution must be technological because everybody wants security and control. Nobody wants loose ends. Everyone is terrified of some group of people will do something to them, freedom is out of fashion and those claiming otherwise want freedom for themselves only. The guy who says want to make humans interplanetary species is posing with people detained for traveling on the planet without permission. Just forget about it.

So this website itself is about censorship, therefore people interested in this shouldn’t be using websites. New tools are needed, the mainstream will be controlled the way the local hegemony sees it fit.

replies(11): >>45003665 #>>45003694 #>>45003703 #>>45003707 #>>45003817 #>>45003837 #>>45003945 #>>45003970 #>>45003991 #>>45004290 #>>45008332 #
mtsr ◴[] No.45003707[source]
Interesting point. There’s wide acceptance of commercial censorship, but censorship for the common good (rightfully) feels like a slippery slope. But are they actually so different? Couldn’t the latter be done in a way just as purposeful? Or does it always lead to loss of freedom disproportional to its goals?
replies(6): >>45003735 #>>45003736 #>>45003749 #>>45003946 #>>45004132 #>>45008978 #
Xelbair ◴[] No.45003749[source]
I see no way to have censorship and freedom and common good at the same time, so good of society is out of question - unless you don't value freedom at all.

It is a tool that entrenches current powers that be, system wise. Who decides what the "common" good is? the one in power.

It also hides societal problems and signals that could be used for policymaking.

The acceptance of censorship honestly scares me, and i grew up on stories of oppressive communist regime - full of censorship, secret police etc.

and frankly, commercial censorship might be even worse - it is a "for profit" enterprise, common good be damned.

and one last thing - even if you fully trust your current government, you're just one elections away from something vastly different. They will have access to the same powers that you've granted them(indirectly, by voting).

replies(2): >>45005084 #>>45008988 #
1. coffee_am ◴[] No.45005084[source]
imho that is just silly ... I can see various ways censorship and freedom and common good at the same time. Actually, I can imagine different set ups where this could work...

But then, you have to define these things. E.g.: freedom of person "A" to kill person "B" infringes on person "B" freedom of come and go and not be killed (by "A" or anyone else) ... so what is freedom. "Common good" is even more complicated ... who should defined it ? And how ?

On the other topic, I for one think that censorship of AI generated content and fake news, as well as AI generated ordering of results should be censored. But it's not that easy, and implementing that is an even bigger can of worms.

replies(1): >>45009252 #
2. Xelbair ◴[] No.45009252[source]
the issue is how do you prove the content was written by AI?

> But then, you have to define these things. E.g.: freedom of person "A" to kill person "B" infringes on person "B" freedom of come and go and not be killed (by "A" or anyone else) ... so what is freedom. "Common good" is even more complicated ... who should defined it ? And how ?

even worse - how do you make sure the definition of such terms stays up to date with changing times?