Hyman Rosen 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1141) comment rss

  • On the post: The Kids And Their Algo Speak Show Why All Your Easy Fixes To Content Moderation Questions Are Wrong

    Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2022 @ 10:16am

    Moderation

    The solution to moderation problems is for platforms to provide tools for moderation and to allow for affinity groups on the platforms to apply those tools as they wish. If a group wants to filter out "dead" and "suicide", that's fine, another group may not. Moderation at scale is solved by breaking down the large groups into smaller ones, until the scale becomes manageable for the groups themselves. The work that the platforms do now on moderation still needs to be done. It's just that rather than applying that moderation to all posts automatically, people get to choose whether they want it. The filters should be granular so that there is a panoply of options to choose from. The platforms can still make some moderation universal - illegal content, commercial spam, repetitive content - under the assumption that this is stuff that almost no one would opt into, but they should be leery of doing this too much. Facebook affinity groups already work this way beneath the overall moderation policies, although in those cases it's human moderators doing the work.

  • On the post: Elon Musk Is Now Twitter’s Largest Shareholder; And That’s Probably Not A Good Thing

    Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 06 Apr, 2022 @ 10:43am

    1. You believe that people who choose to use a public generic speech forum like to have themselves silenced, and you want a citation that they don't? You are the very model of a sealion. 2. (Former) President Trump was silenced. If that doesn't demonstrate the problem to you, then you are the problem as well. 3. What do you mean "the rules"? The rules can support free speech principles or they can violate them. We're talking about what the rules should be.

  • On the post: Elon Musk Is Now Twitter’s Largest Shareholder; And That’s Probably Not A Good Thing

    Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 06 Apr, 2022 @ 10:35am

    Neutral Platforms

    Musk wants one. The people who decamped from the establishment sites when they decided to silence a president / former president of the United States want at least a neutral site. E-mail is a neutral site. The notion that it's impossible merely serves the interest of the people who like the censorship regime because it currently favors them.

  • On the post: Elon Musk Is Now Twitter’s Largest Shareholder; And That’s Probably Not A Good Thing

    Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 06 Apr, 2022 @ 01:33am

    "citation needed" Here you go: http://wondermark.com/1k62/ "What weak point?" Gods don't exist. The Earth is a sphere. Men cannot be changed into women or vice versa. Physical reality does not care about what people wish. "It's only suppression on Twitter" We're talking about Twitter.

  • On the post: Elon Musk Is Now Twitter’s Largest Shareholder; And That’s Probably Not A Good Thing

    Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 05 Apr, 2022 @ 04:15pm

    Compelled

    Hi, how may I be of service? I don't know how useful it is to say the same thing over and over across multiple posts, but sure, I'll do it again. Platforms such as Twitter and Facebook that have hundreds of millions of users tend to be perceived by the users as neutral forums hosting the speech of their users, not places where the opinions of one side will be silenced. To the extent that one side is silenced, that violates the free speech expectation of the users, even though it is within the free speech rights of the platforms to do it. (It's not even clear that the privileged side knows that the other side is being silenced, or approves of it.) Even for the privileged side, such silencing prevents issues from being argued that expose the weak points of the privileged side, and gives the privileged side a false impression that their views are unchallenged. There is a subset of ideologues that cannot stand to have their views challenged, and are happy when statements of dissent are silenced. They are the sort of people who like to characterize dissent as hate speech. They are the enemies of free speech, and are only too pleased to outsource censorship to private entities that are not bound by the 1st Amendment. Then they pretend that such censorship is free speech, willfully failing to understand the difference between the speech of the platforms and the speech of the users, and willfully failing to understand that legal suppression of free speech is still suppression of free speech.

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 04 Apr, 2022 @ 07:06am

    So Weird

    Some people here appear to have mistakenly taken what the 1st Amendment allows as the sine qua non of free speech. Of course there is something wrong with a moderator silencing one side of a conversation. First, it prevents the conversation from happening between the people who want to have it. Second, it gives onlookers the false impression that the non-silenced side is universal or prevalent. Since when does someone being allowed to do something mean that there is nothing wrong with them doing it?

  • On the post: Why Moderating Content Actually Does More To Support The Principles Of Free Speech

    Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 31 Mar, 2022 @ 03:40pm

    Professor Kilborn presented a hypothetical case where the word was used. In his hypothetical, he expressed it as "n_____' rather than using the word itself. Then the special woke snowflakes complained about it, and as usual, the craven administrators censured him.

  • On the post: Why Moderating Content Actually Does More To Support The Principles Of Free Speech

    Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 31 Mar, 2022 @ 01:56pm

    Law and the "n word"

    https://reason.com/volokh/2022/03/31/trial-court-focused-too-much-on-racial-slurs-by-defendant-towards-police-officers/ This is an example of a legal case that must consider how a woman yelling "fuck you, nigger" at a Black police officer impacted her conviction for obstructing the police, including 1st Amendment concerns. It should go without saying that in the real world, lawyers will encounter uses of this word, no matter how tender their sensibilities. If they are to ably represent their clients, they will not have the choice of avoiding reading, writing, or saying the word. There are also fun issues around testimony. You can imagine a witness talking about the "n word" and other people not knowing whether someone literally said "n word" or the witness was using the euphemism. Finally, court reporters have to faithfully record everything said, even if it involves words they find offensive or triggering.

  • On the post: Why Moderating Content Actually Does More To Support The Principles Of Free Speech

    Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 31 Mar, 2022 @ 12:50pm

    Why do I need a second bite? That's a perfectly good example of cancel culture.

  • On the post: Why Moderating Content Actually Does More To Support The Principles Of Free Speech

    Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 31 Mar, 2022 @ 10:14am

    I have never asked that anyone be shielded from the consequences of speech. Asking not to be silenced is not the same as asking to be shielded from consequences. I am not asking trans people to stop pretending to be who they say they are any more than I am asking religious people to stop believing in gods. I am telling trans people and woke gender ideologues that trans people are not what they say they are. I am telling religious people that gods do not exist. Nothing forces them to accept that what I say is true, and I would not force such beliefs on anyone even if I could, as that would be antithetical to the principles of freedom. Even this Supreme Court has decided that the law supports the right of trans people to present on the job as the gender they wish they were. But by the same token, they cannot force their beliefs on others. The religious should not be allowed to force public schools to teach that creationism is true, and woke gender ideologues should not be allowed to force public schools to teach that woke gender ideology is true, and woke racialists should not be allowed to force public schools to teach that critical race theory is true. People who decide to kill themselves because the world refuses to affirm their false beliefs need treatment. They should not be permitted to hold the truth hostage by their threats.

  • On the post: An Increasing Number Of Cop Shops Feel The General Public Shouldn’t Have Access To Crime Stats

    Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 31 Mar, 2022 @ 09:55am

    That's why shootings and homicides are so important to catalog. These are essentially impossible to cover up, so when the woke insist that racial disparities in crime can not be laid at the feet of the perpetrators, an accounting of shootings and murders demonstrates otherwise. The website https://heyjackass.com/ does this brilliantly for Chicago, for example.

  • On the post: Why Moderating Content Actually Does More To Support The Principles Of Free Speech

    Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 31 Mar, 2022 @ 08:17am

    Mass Over Volume Attempting To Reproduce

    (To quote MM.) I have no right to free speech on someone else's property. I have every right to criticize someone for refusing to give me free speech rights on their property, and they have every right not to listen to me. I have every right to criticize someone for not upholding the principles they claim to have. They have every right not to listen to me. Telling flat-Earthers that the world is spherical is not the same as saying that flat-Earthers should be pushed off the edge. False beliefs are false no matter how much it hurts the believers to hear that.

  • On the post: Why Moderating Content Actually Does More To Support The Principles Of Free Speech

    Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 31 Mar, 2022 @ 08:05am

    Freedom

    At this point, I can only say that this word doesn't mean what you think it does. Aside from that, in the case of the Bee the satire was being applied to a highly visible public official. Mocking public figures has been part of freedom of speech since that concept existed. Aside from that, telling people that their beliefs about themselves are false is not the same as telling them to die. If you believe that Jesus loves you, I am not telling you to die when I tell you that gods don't exist. And vice versa. Furthermore, people feeling attacked by having their beliefs questioned is not sufficient reason to shut down the questioners. Aside from that, people have every right to criticize Twitter for refusing to uphold principles of free speech, and asking them to do so. That Twitter has the right not to listen doesn't change that. Finally, you get to call me "fucking dense" as much as you like. That's rather the point.

  • On the post: An Increasing Number Of Cop Shops Feel The General Public Shouldn’t Have Access To Crime Stats

    Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 31 Mar, 2022 @ 07:32am

    Race

    Another factor may be woke liberal reluctance to see crime statistics broken down by race, because it results in a narrative that they find unacceptable.

  • On the post: Why Moderating Content Actually Does More To Support The Principles Of Free Speech

    Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 30 Mar, 2022 @ 08:05pm

    Cancel Culture Harm

    See Professor Jason Kilborn, for example.

  • On the post: Why Moderating Content Actually Does More To Support The Principles Of Free Speech

    Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 30 Mar, 2022 @ 08:00pm

    When The Comments Are Toxic...

    ...don't read the comments. The Reason website, or at least a law blog hosted there, The Volokh Conspiracy, has generally well-written and interesting articles by a stable of libertarian-leaning law professors. As you say, the comments are garbage. So don't read them. It's usually the same crew going around in circles anyway, contributing nothing to the conversation. Also, not long ago, they added the ability for users to block commenters by name, so you can just prune away the idiots as you encounter them and not have to see their posts. And that way, it's users who get to moderate their own feeds instead of having others decide what they should see.

  • On the post: Why Moderating Content Actually Does More To Support The Principles Of Free Speech

    Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 30 Mar, 2022 @ 07:50pm

    Twitter's Rules

    Twitter says: "Twitter's purpose is to serve the public conversation. ... Our rules are to ensure all people can participate in the public conversation freely and safely." Twitter also says: "We prohibit ... targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals." The first statement leans toward the "neutral platforms" concept. The second leans away from it. The two positions are in conflict. The public conversation includes debate on whether transgender individuals are the gender they claim to be. Refusing to allow people to state their side of the debate is the opposite of free speech principles. Refusing to allow people to state their opinions because those opinions will make other people unhappy is the opposite of free speech principles. None of this is to say that Twitter can't do whatever it wants. But then their claim that their purpose is to serve the public conversation is a lie. Their purpose is to promote one side of the public conversation and to silence the other. And calling out their lies is not a demand that they be forced to do otherwise. It is simply a calling out of their lies. You are treating "free speech principles" at the wrong level, which is why you're in error. It is a free speech principle that a private entity can speak in any way it pleases. In that sense, free speech principles support Twitter's right to moderate as it chooses, and oppose any requirements that they do otherwise. But for the people who use Twitter as a platform to speak, free speech principles require that all sides of a debate be treated equally. When Twitter silences one side, it is using its own freedom of speech to deny freedom to their users. So Twitter is violating the principles of freedom of speech for is users while benefiting from the government adhering to the principles of freedom of speech for itself.

  • On the post: Wisconsin Supreme Court Sees Nothing Wrong With Cops Acquiring Evidence A Court Had Already Suppressed

    Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 30 Mar, 2022 @ 01:46pm

    I'm sorry, who is the innocent person who is suffering here? "Criminals belong in prison" is shorthand for "an accused person, having been given due process and found guilty of a criminal offense, should be imprisoned for such term as the law specifies". (It would be good if the law specified thay term as life for repeat offenders, since they have demonstrated an inability to live in civil society without preying on their fellow citizens, but that's a separate issue.) You seen to be assuming bad faith on the various parts of the justice system. Whether or not that's true in practice, it's not true in theory. Generally speaking, when evidence is excluded or other procedural issues affect a case, the assumption is that people have acted in error, not with malice. A system whose components are assumed to be acting in malice isn't one in which constitutional processes will help. Judges are not at war with with police or lawyers from either side. The assumption is that everyone is cooperating to achieve justice.

  • On the post: Why Moderating Content Actually Does More To Support The Principles Of Free Speech

    Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 30 Mar, 2022 @ 10:46am

    Strawman

    MM seems to think that people asking for free speech on platforms are asking for no moderation to exist. That's a strawman argument. What people want, on systems that aim to be neutral platforms for literally hundreds of millions of people to speak their minds, is for those platforms not to silence people on issues for which there are plentiful supporters on all sides. I bring up the Babylon Bee incident of "awarding" Rachel Levine as their Man of the Year as a perfectly illustrative example. Like it or not, there is a huge and robust debate between "transwomen are women" and "transwomen are men", with strong feelings on both sides. In such a debate, satire, yelling, and vituperation will naturally enter into the picture, because that's how strongly felt issues work. Twitter deciding that the Bee's satire is hate speech and demanding that it be taken down is the sort of violation of principles of free speech that people are complaining about. (To futilely try to head off replies: freedom of speech is not isomorphic to the 1st Amendment. A private company is not legally obligated to uphold principles of free speech, but platforms that serve hundreds of millions of people ought to uphold those principles anyway. Criticizing a company for not doing so is not isomorphic to demanding that the government force them to do that. Silencing one side of a debate by claiming that not doing so will drive people away is not upholding principles of freedom of speech. Yada yada.)

  • On the post: Wisconsin Supreme Court Sees Nothing Wrong With Cops Acquiring Evidence A Court Had Already Suppressed

    Hyman Rosen ( profile ), 30 Mar, 2022 @ 08:29am

    Inappropriate Triumphalism

    Criminals belong in prison. The Constitution exists to protect people from governmental overreach and abuse, but it is not a triumph for the people when the government makes a procedural error that allows a criminal to go free.

Next >>