Depends on the platform. On Reddit, definitely yes, as almost all censorship is "deletion style" where the target post or comment is initially visible until the mods suppress it.
But your point is well taken, it's definitely more challenging and expensive than what's being done here.
It would be one heck of a challenge, but, almost by definition "impossible" - as a naive guess, perhaps (for those platforms that have opened code) characterize some statistical signatures that "arbitrary data" ran through it (simulating user activity) would show ...
... and then check for those (or, counterexamples) in the wild.-
Join the referral program for a low cost online pharmacy. Post a link on each platform informing the users about the availability of male health products. Measure if it gets removed.
You still want to know the extent of that 'moderation' that is totally not censorship. E.g. Facebook and Instagram ban white nationalism, and Youtube has banned American Renaissance, meaning we can infer Google bans white nationalism too, as American Renaissance is guilty of nothing else.
You may agree or disagree with the ban, but surely you agree that we should be aware of such Overton window enforcement?
4chan users might want that, but even for the types of people willing to operate a site like that they don't want to be liable for the amount of CSAM, piracy, and other legally objectionable material that would end up on a fully unmoderated site.
We might be talking past each other a bit. I agree that without any sort of spam filter a comment site would become unusable.
What I was trying to point out is that there are a lot of users of these 'edgy' sites that would like to post content that the site owners don't want them posting. So the site owner censors and removes CSAM and piracy so that the site isn't immediately in a legal black hole. The site owners remove content that at least some of the users would want be a use they find it morally or legally objectionable. Spam is kinda orthogonal to that point, since neither the site owner or the users want to see it.
What you said about spam is exactly what I'm trying to point out.
There are forms of moderation that we often dont even think of as moderation or 'censorship' because its removing content that "nobody" wants to see. One may argue that the spammers are users of the site who are being censored.
Also, this is a side note, but I'd assume that the overwhelming majority of even 4chan users are in favour of CSAM being banned from the site, even if there are some users who want to see it (i could be wrong about that, it's not like i even have anecdotes to back that up)
CSAM and piracy aren't the worst of examples on a site like 4chan. People... like clinically insane people just keeps scriptbombing someone's private addresses and bomb threats and other schizophrenic copypastas(not regular ones like Blackbird speed checks or "Glasses are versatile", but more like cognitohazards) as well as there will be viagra/cialis/poker/prostitution/roblox spams. I think those in that order should be the primary concern for keeping BBS running because those chase normal people away.
For the two categories mentioned above that are plainly illegal, I think, ironically, you can probably just keep AI classifiers running and wait for calls from NCMEC or DMCA emails, exploiting safe harbor clauses and/or by pointing at reasonable measures you've taken. If you have a large post volumes and short public log retention(private logs will probably have to be kept), that would help keeping the pressure low for those.
Yes, but some of them aren't. There are instances of people being banned because they participated in another sub. Instances of people being banned for criticizing Israel. It wouldn't be so much of an issue if it was like back in the day where there were a thousand independent boards. But Reddit killed that.
I had an account banned simply for pointing out that there was a spare seat in that orbiting sports car, and implying that Musk would be a good choice of passenger.
It made me wonder how unlikely or impossible an event has to be before it would no longer be considered a real threat by whoever or whatever flags posts like that. Firing billionaires into the Sun? Hmm, probably too close to home. Sending them light years away to fire them into a black hole?
You get a flood of people praising Hitler in your subreddit. 1000 per day You have two buttons in front of you: ban individual user (ban form takes 30 seconds minimum to load and fill out), and ban all from /HitlerLovers. Which do you pick.
That's not what happened with r/conspiracy users getting banned in other forums. Yeah I guess it has its place but that feature has been mostly misused from what I've seen.
You're also a mod of six different forums. Do you wait until each one gets targeted by /HitlerLovers before configuring the bot to ban them or do you just leave off the filter from the bot and have it ban them everywhere it has power to?
Btw, seeing how far right people with a megaphone in the town square looked and acted (and hearing the AI music they blasted) made me more convinced they're degenerate trash than any censorship ever could.
If someone is doing that, it's classified as either a true threat or an incitement, both of which have been clearly established as not covered by the 1st amendment by SCOTUS and thus illegal - and can be stopped for no more reason than the fact that it's illegal.
On the other hand, online content moderation rules often get politically weaponized to silence dissent that is inconvenient but fully legal (and perfectly fine, for as much as you might disagree with it / hate that others get to hear ideas you don't like).
Going from "I voiced my opinion on the internet" to "people are inciting gassing the jews" is quite the stretch, crosses a well defined line, and is just nonsensical.
Regardless there's value to know exactly what topics are off limits and for which platforms. Censorship needs to be measured and quantified (probably with vectors).
Moderation as in "You can't call the other posted 'fuckface'" and moderation as in "I will delete every mention of this news story because it's negative to the agenda I want to push" are not, at all, the same thing.
In fact, I wouldn't call the latter "moderation" at all, rather it's mods abusing their power to push political propaganda, but they do it through moderation in terms of action.
> I will delete every mention of this news story because it's negative to the agenda I want to push
Thankfully this is extremely rare on the major platforms. "This news story is fake as fuck and is causing trouble such as people going to throw Molotov cocktails at random mosques" is the common scenario.
>there's practically no uncensored public spaces on the internet
Yes? Moderation is a form of censorship with a different connotation (the one you agree with vs the other you don't). I don't see how it's controversial
> old Twitter decided to censor a NYPost article
Again, which article, about what subject?
howunfortunate didn't answer, just deflected:
> Are there NYPost articles you feel people should be prevented from DMing? Or posting, for that matter?
qerghnui's reply was flagged to death:
> Why do you refuse to answer the question?
> The story you are referring to involved the New York Post or its affiliates breaking in to Hunter Biden's laptop (a felony) and publishing his personal correspondence, complete with unredacted phone numbers and email addresses. This violated Twitter's policies against doxxing and dissemination of hacked materials. Characterizing this as censorship is misleading; the story contained no newsworthy information and its publication violated longstanding Twitter policy. It's hard to imagine Twitter functioning without such a policy. I don't see any reason the New York Post should get away with violating it just because it claims to be a newspaper.
> The Wall Street Journal, a Murdoch rag like the Post and hardly known for its liberal bias, declined to publish this information, which is why it wound up in the disreputable Post instead. Respectable journalists have ethical standards. Act like thugs, get treated like thugs.
> P.S. Twitter is free to make whatever editorial decisions it pleases. Trying to make them publish something they don't want to publish is compelled speech. Compelling speech in the name of freedom of speech is hypocritical.
howunfortunate · · focus · HN ↗
I'd wager the vast majority of internet censorship is within platform, like that done by Reddit mods.
The most egregious example I've seen in my lifetime was when old Twitter decided to censor a NYPost article, down to blocking sharing in DMs.
It seems that type of example is entirely missed here. Is there any attempt to capture that signal?
Bluestein · · focus · HN ↗
howunfortunate · · focus · HN ↗
But your point is well taken, it's definitely more challenging and expensive than what's being done here.
Bluestein · · focus · HN ↗
... and then check for those (or, counterexamples) in the wild.-
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
goatsi · · focus · HN ↗
eigenspace · · focus · HN ↗
Literally even 4chan has moderation.
Nobody, not even 4chan users, want an actually unmoderated space.
like_any_other · · focus · HN ↗
You may agree or disagree with the ban, but surely you agree that we should be aware of such Overton window enforcement?
zrobotics · · focus · HN ↗
eigenspace · · focus · HN ↗
If 4chan didnt have spam filters, the users would be begging for it almost immediately because the website would become unusable.
zrobotics · · focus · HN ↗
What I was trying to point out is that there are a lot of users of these 'edgy' sites that would like to post content that the site owners don't want them posting. So the site owner censors and removes CSAM and piracy so that the site isn't immediately in a legal black hole. The site owners remove content that at least some of the users would want be a use they find it morally or legally objectionable. Spam is kinda orthogonal to that point, since neither the site owner or the users want to see it.
eigenspace · · focus · HN ↗
There are forms of moderation that we often dont even think of as moderation or 'censorship' because its removing content that "nobody" wants to see. One may argue that the spammers are users of the site who are being censored.
Also, this is a side note, but I'd assume that the overwhelming majority of even 4chan users are in favour of CSAM being banned from the site, even if there are some users who want to see it (i could be wrong about that, it's not like i even have anecdotes to back that up)
numpad0 · · focus · HN ↗
For the two categories mentioned above that are plainly illegal, I think, ironically, you can probably just keep AI classifiers running and wait for calls from NCMEC or DMCA emails, exploiting safe harbor clauses and/or by pointing at reasonable measures you've taken. If you have a large post volumes and short public log retention(private logs will probably have to be kept), that would help keeping the pressure low for those.
NDlurker · · focus · HN ↗
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
NDlurker · · focus · HN ↗
antonvs · · focus · HN ↗
It made me wonder how unlikely or impossible an event has to be before it would no longer be considered a real threat by whoever or whatever flags posts like that. Firing billionaires into the Sun? Hmm, probably too close to home. Sending them light years away to fire them into a black hole?
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
NDlurker · · focus · HN ↗
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
NDlurker · · focus · HN ↗
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
account42 · · focus · HN ↗
That alone shows that the hyothetical "you" is the last person who should be allowed to moderate anything.
lirolero · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
econ · · focus · HN ↗
That one can only do it within reddit is of course merely a technical limitation. The idea can be implemented much more broadly.
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
includenotfound · · focus · HN ↗
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
neuroticnews25 · · focus · HN ↗
neuroticnews25 · · focus · HN ↗
includenotfound · · focus · HN ↗
If someone is doing that, it's classified as either a true threat or an incitement, both of which have been clearly established as not covered by the 1st amendment by SCOTUS and thus illegal - and can be stopped for no more reason than the fact that it's illegal.
On the other hand, online content moderation rules often get politically weaponized to silence dissent that is inconvenient but fully legal (and perfectly fine, for as much as you might disagree with it / hate that others get to hear ideas you don't like).
Going from "I voiced my opinion on the internet" to "people are inciting gassing the jews" is quite the stretch, crosses a well defined line, and is just nonsensical.
howunfortunate · · focus · HN ↗
rubyfruit · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
Onavo · · focus · HN ↗
Levitz · · focus · HN ↗
In fact, I wouldn't call the latter "moderation" at all, rather it's mods abusing their power to push political propaganda, but they do it through moderation in terms of action.
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
sofixa · · focus · HN ↗
Thankfully this is extremely rare on the major platforms. "This news story is fake as fuck and is causing trouble such as people going to throw Molotov cocktails at random mosques" is the common scenario.
analog8374 · · focus · HN ↗
Giving an anonymous rando the power to censor my conversation is abhorrent. And it's absurd that most people are ok with that.
tosapple · · focus · HN ↗
orbital-decay · · focus · HN ↗
Yes? Moderation is a form of censorship with a different connotation (the one you agree with vs the other you don't). I don't see how it's controversial
urbnspacecowboy · · focus · HN ↗
Which article, about what subject?
thenayr · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
howunfortunate · · focus · HN ↗
qerghnui · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
nixon_why69 · · focus · HN ↗
There's an argument that when a platform is big enough, it's a common carrier.
ThePinion · · focus · HN ↗
thenayr · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
thewanderer1983 · · focus · HN ↗
bluebic · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
urbnspacecowboy · · focus · HN ↗
Again, which article, about what subject?
howunfortunate didn't answer, just deflected:
> Are there NYPost articles you feel people should be prevented from DMing? Or posting, for that matter?
qerghnui's reply was flagged to death:
> Why do you refuse to answer the question?
> The story you are referring to involved the New York Post or its affiliates breaking in to Hunter Biden's laptop (a felony) and publishing his personal correspondence, complete with unredacted phone numbers and email addresses. This violated Twitter's policies against doxxing and dissemination of hacked materials. Characterizing this as censorship is misleading; the story contained no newsworthy information and its publication violated longstanding Twitter policy. It's hard to imagine Twitter functioning without such a policy. I don't see any reason the New York Post should get away with violating it just because it claims to be a newspaper.
> The Wall Street Journal, a Murdoch rag like the Post and hardly known for its liberal bias, declined to publish this information, which is why it wound up in the disreputable Post instead. Respectable journalists have ethical standards. Act like thugs, get treated like thugs.
> P.S. Twitter is free to make whatever editorial decisions it pleases. Trying to make them publish something they don't want to publish is compelled speech. Compelling speech in the name of freedom of speech is hypocritical.