Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Putting that kind of filter in the way of speech seems ripe for abuse.

On one hand I agree with you. Any automatic filter implemented can later be expanded to cover more and more things, such as messages from political adversaries for example. It's a slippery slope as we all know.

On the other hand I don't think it applies in this context very much. If we're talking about content published by a corporation or such (say a newspaper for example) they already filter all their gathered news themselves and have no obligation to publish things they don't feel like.

Similarly if we're talking about user uploaded content on social media I don't think they have any obligation to publish everything and anything that their users decide to upload either, and it's not the expectations of the users that anything can be hosted there for them. Users already know that youtube/facebook/tiktok/what-have-you have seemingly arbitrary rules regarding what content they're willing to host and not.

Now if for example DNS providers or ISPs decide to implement these sort of filters on the web at large that's a different matter I think. In which case I agree with you.

 help



The slope isn't slippery, it's vertical. It's always misused. Thus it needs to be completely prohibited, lest the camel get it's nose in.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: