Hacker News Reader

Comment by fluoridation | Hacker News Reader

>Basically all laws related to speech are abitrary. Can you define a clear and self-evident line between pornography and art as an example? Or do you agree with the Supreme Court that we just "know it when [we] see it"?

I'm a free speech absolutist, so I personally don't find which laws already exist on the matter to be a compelling argument. If it was up to me, I'd get rid of any such laws.

>The type of HN algorithm that serves the same content to every user based off global behavior is fine in my book because it is both less exploitative of the user base and a reflection of that user base's proactive decisions in upvoting/downvoting content.

The argument hinges entirely on the relative exploitativeness of different feed algorithms, but that metric is merely asserted with no support.

View on HN

>I'm a free speech absolutist

Typically free speech absolutism leads individuals into logical traps they find difficult to dig themselves out of.

But we don't even need that in this case. Private property can have all kinds of restrictions put on it based on the potential dangers and harms it causes. This in fact is one of the most common attacks on speech I see right now (Meta et el) that they will just put age requirements on sites.

>Typically free speech absolutism leads individuals into logical traps they find difficult to dig themselves out of.

Yes, "free speech absolutists" tend to define these terms in ways to hide the true arbitrary nature of their beliefs. The obvious test case is do they believe in legalizing CSAM. Either they answer "yes" and ostracize themselves from almost all of society or they say "no" and have to come up with arbitrary rules why this specific content doesn't count as speech. Either way, self-applying the label is its own red flag.

I don't really understand what your point is.

If I understand the point correctly, it's that regulating the algorithms of Meta et al does not curtail your free speech, so it's a moot argument

I wasn't the one who brought up free speech into the discussion; slg was. That aside, whether it curtails it or not would depend on how one defines "speech". Even if the particular way in which a website displays information is not speech, I still think it would be an overreach for a government to legislate how websites are allowed to function. If I as a user want to see a feed populated by recommended content, and the site's operators want to show it to me, what business does the government have stepping into our interaction?

Cigarettes and their externalities are analogous and that's discussed over here

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47419870

I don't believe the argument was that personalized algorithmic recommendations need be forbidden per se, but that doesn't mean that should be the default, nor that companies should be able to wash their hands (under section 230) of what they promote

Like the other person said, cigarettes are not illegal. Are we really going to pretend that whatever harm TikTok causes is comparable to lung cancer?

Like the other posts you're arguing against have said, the argument is not that social media or personalized algorithms should be "illegal"

And "are we going to pretend" is a non-argument that works both ways: "Are we really going to pretend individualized algorithmic social media hasn't caused harm to society on par with smoking?" would be equally unconvincing

There's no pretending, there. It just hasn't.

What do you think about the case of Lucy Connolly, who, during a riot where rioters were burning down hotels housing immigrants, tweeted that people should burn down hotels housing immigrants and was arrested for that?

I already stated what my position is. Why do you need to ask about specific cases? Are you trying to look for gotchas?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com