| ▲ | howunfortunate 2 hours ago |
| Hmm. 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? |
|
| ▲ | eigenspace 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| If you count platform moderation as 'censorship' then there's practically no uncensored public spaces on the internet. Literally even 4chan has moderation. Nobody, not even 4chan users, want an actually unmoderated space. |
| |
| ▲ | NDlurker an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Some of the moderation is just banning people with differing opinions. | |
| ▲ | howunfortunate an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | My comment above does not rely on the premise that all moderation is censorship. Only that some Reddit mods engage in censorship. | |
| ▲ | zrobotics 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | eigenspace 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Deciding what is spam and blocking it is moderation or "censorship". If 4chan didnt have spam filters, the users would be begging for it almost immediately because the website would become unusable. | | |
| ▲ | zrobotics 3 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
| |
| ▲ | like_any_other 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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? |
|
|
| ▲ | urbnspacecowboy an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > old Twitter decided to censor a NYPost article Which article, about what subject? |
| |
|
| ▲ | Bluestein 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| As a thought exercise, could it be captured? |
| |
| ▲ | goatsi a minute ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | howunfortunate 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | Bluestein 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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.- |
|
|
|
| ▲ | thenayr an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
