The commentary is interesting, but it does unfortunately gloss over the very real issue of actually controversial topics. Most platforms don't typically set out to ban controversial stuff from what I can tell, but the forces that be (advertisers, government regulators, payment processors, service providers, etc.) tend to be quite a bit more invested in such topics. Naughty language on YouTube and porn on Twitter are some decent examples; these are not and never have been signal to noise ratio problems. While the media may be primarily interested in the problem of content moderation as it impacts political speech, I'd literally filter all vaguely politically charged speech (even at the cost of missing plenty of stuff I'd rather see) if given the option.
I think that the viewpoints re: moderation are very accurate and insightful, but I honestly have always felt that it's been more of a red herring for the actual scary censorship creep happening in the background. Go find the forum threads and IRC logs you have from the 2000s and think about them for a little while. I think that there are many ways in which I'd happily admit the internet has improved, but looking back, I think that a lot of what was discussed and how it was discussed would not be tolerated on many of the most popular avenues for discourse today—even though there's really nothing particularly egregious about them.
I think this is the PoV that one has as a platform owner, but unfortunately it's not the part that I think is interesting. The really interesting parts are always off on the fringes.
It’s hard for me to imagine what “scary actual censorship” is happening — that is, to identify topics or perspectives that cannot be represented in net forums. If such topics/perspectives exist, then the effectiveness must be near total to the point where I’m entirely unaware of them, which I guess would be scary if people could provide examples. But usually when I ask, I’m supplied with topics which I have indeed seen discussed on Twitter, Reddit, and often even HN, so…
Nobody wants to answer this, because to mention a controversial topic is to risk being accused of supporting it.
You could look at what famous people have gotten into trouble over. Alex Jones or Kanye West. I assume there have been others, but those two were in the news recently.
The problem is that it's not really about censorship the way that people think about it; it's not about blanket banning the discussion of a topic. You can clearly have a discussion about extremely heated debate topics like abortion, pedophilia, genocide, whatever. However, in some of these topics there are pretty harsh chilling effects that prevent people from having very open and honest discussion about them. The reason why I'm being non-specific is twofold: one is because I am also impacted by these chilling effects, and another is because making it specific makes it seem like it's about a singular topic when it is about a recurring pattern of behaviors that shift topics over time.
If you really don't think there have been chilling effects, I put forth two potential theories: one is that you possibly see this as normal "consequences for actions" (I do not believe this: I am strictly discussing ideas and opinions that are controversial even in a vacuum.) OR: perhaps you genuinely haven't really seen the fringes very much, and doubt their existence. I don't really want to get into it, because it would force me to pick specific examples that would inextricably paint me into those arguments, but I guess maybe it's worth it if it makes the point.
> The problem is that it's not really about censorship the way that people think about it; it's not about blanket banning the discussion of a topic.
Then we're far away enough from the topic of censorship that we should be using different language for what we're discussing. It's bad enough that people use the term "censorship" colloquially when discussing private refusal to carry content vs state criminalization. It's definitely not applicable by the time we get to soft stakes.
As someone whose life & social circle is deeply embedded in a religious institution which makes some claims and teachings I find tenuous to objectionable, I'm pretty familiar with chilling effects and other ways in which social stakes are held hostage over what topics can be addressed and how. And yet I've found these things:
(1) It's taught me a lot about civil disagreement and debate, including the fact that more often than not, there are ways to address even literally sacred topics without losing the stakes. It takes work and wit, but it's possible. Those lessons have been borne out later when I've chosen to do things like try to illuminate merits in pro-life positions while in overwhelmingly pro-choice forums.
(2) It's made me appreciate the value of what the courts have called time/place/manner restrictions. Not every venue is or should be treated the same. Church services are the last time/place to object to church positions, and when one does choose that it's best to take on the most obligation in terms of manner, making your case in the terms of the language, metaphors, and values of the church.
(3) Sometimes you have to risk the stakes, and the only world in which it would actually be possible for there NOT to be such stakes (and risk and conflict over them) would be one in which people have no values at all
To be clear I am 100% suggesting that advertisers, staff and others participate in silencing this speech. Reddit is actually a funny example because Reddit admins have been accused by multiple subreddits of stepping in and forcing new rules to be instituted in subreddits.
"I would like to take this time to repeat my claim that important topics are being silenced without recognition of any obligation to actually even make the pretense that I'm replying or otherwise engaging in discourse, which may be a giveaway my motives/values here are not actually about discourse."
At least, that's what my translator makes of your comment, but freedom of speech being what it is, I certainly can't compel you to acknowledge it.
I think that the viewpoints re: moderation are very accurate and insightful, but I honestly have always felt that it's been more of a red herring for the actual scary censorship creep happening in the background. Go find the forum threads and IRC logs you have from the 2000s and think about them for a little while. I think that there are many ways in which I'd happily admit the internet has improved, but looking back, I think that a lot of what was discussed and how it was discussed would not be tolerated on many of the most popular avenues for discourse today—even though there's really nothing particularly egregious about them.
I think this is the PoV that one has as a platform owner, but unfortunately it's not the part that I think is interesting. The really interesting parts are always off on the fringes.