Gresham's Law of the Internet - The Bulwark
By: Robert Tracinski (The Bulwark)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Content moderation isn't "censorship." It's what built the Internet. by Robert Tracinski January 19, 2021 5:02 am
(Photo by Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto via Getty Images) Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via emailPrint
The "chief policy officer" of Parler, the social media platform that recently got kicked off of Amazon's servers after it was exposed as a hotbed of planning for the January 6 insurrection, has been going around peddling a lot of nonsense about "censorship" and "surveillance."
What she describes as "censorship" is pressure on social media platforms "to moderate, as they call it, content on their platforms, but that would require 24-hour surveillance, and we don't think that is consistent with the principles of America."
What she describes in skeptical tones as what "they" call moderation is, in fact, moderation. "Moderation" is the proper, technical legal term for what happens when the host of a forum decides what is and is not allowed to appear on that forum. Not only is this moderation the exact opposite of censorship—private hosts making the decisions instead of government—it is also an essential function platforms serve that has helped build the modern Internet.
What she means by "surveillance" is even wackier, because she is referring simply to the hosts reading material posted publicly on their own forum, which I guess makes this "the world of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four ."
Please.
Knowing the difference between this sort of thing and "censorship" or "surveillance"—knowing the difference between the actions of a private platform and those of government—is Classical Liberalism 101, and all the people on the right who are suddenly playing dumb about it should be ashamed of themselves.
The confused mess people are making of these concepts helps explain not only why Parler doesn't have a leg to stand on in its disputes with Amazon and Google, but also why their forum was doomed to be a cesspool of racism, conspiracies, and incitement from its very conception.
First, let's be clear about the actual basis for Amazon's decision to withdraw their web hosting services from Parler. Amazon didn't target Parler because of ordinary conservative political discussion or even ordinary discussion by pro-Trump fanatics. It cut the company off because of frequent and increasing threats of political violence and insurrection which Parler failed to remove or to make any plans to remove, in direct violation of Amazon's terms of service.
If a baker shouldn't be required to bake a cake for a gay wedding—and he shouldn't—then it is even more true that Amazon should not be forced to provide technological support for incitement to violence and an attempt to undermine our political system.
This is exactly why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 gave platforms both the power and the mandate to moderate their forums. Prior to Section 230, under a dubious court ruling, any attempt to moderate a forum, to pick what could or could not be posted, made the host directly responsible as the publisher of all the content posted there. In effect, if you removed one post as inappropriate, it was assumed that you were endorsing every post you didn't remove. This made it impossible for a site with user-submitted content to grow to any significant size, since it would have to individually monitor and approve every single word posted on it. Section 230 was specifically intended to enable partial moderation, to allow a site to monitor and review the most offensive posts without having to take responsibility for everything else.
Remember that Section 230 was part of the Communications Decency Act. It was specifically a mandate for tech companies to make the Internet more family friendly by policing smut on their platforms. But is also helped make the Internet more attractive and functional for users of all ages by allowing forums to filter out the worst of the trolls and the crazies.
Far from being "censorship" or limiting discussion, this was essential to building the modern Internet.
To understand why, we have to understand some basic principles about how an Internet forum works. These are not rules about "social media" because I formalized them decades ago, way back in the olden days before the Internet had pictures. (We stared at green text on the screen of a monitor connected to the university mainframe. After walking uphill to school both ways.) What people born after the year 2000 don't realize is that there's nothing really new on 21st century social media that wasn't already happening on Usenet in 1988.
Back around that time, I came up with what I call Gresham's Law of the Internet. Named after Gresham's Law in economics, it states that bad postings drive out good. The more a forum is dominated by postings of poor quality, and particularly by postings that are rude, aggressive, insulting, and threatening, the less likely it is that decent and reasonable people will be motivated to post there. A totally unmoderated Internet forum will tend to be taken over by trolls and racists and crazy people transcribing the voices in their heads—and become useless for everybody else.
Beneath this is what I call the Inverse Square Law of the Internet, which holds that the number of a person's postings tends to be inversely proportionate to their quality. In other words, the craziest people always have more time and energy to post than you do. (If they don't, you should be worried that you are becoming one of them.) The more irrational an idea, the more obsessive its adherents become, and the less willing they are to let anyone else have the last word. Meanwhile, genuine experts and thoughtful people tend to have a lot of other, more productive things to do with their time.
If you've ever posted a comment on the Internet that is critical of the Universal Basic Income, Ron Paul, or Elon Musk, you know what I'm talking about. Or, for the matter, if you've published something critical of President Trump.
That's why social media platforms have to moderate their content, as well as supplying tools for people to moderate their own feeds and block users who offend them. And that's why it's so stupid to brand this kind of moderation, the kind of minimal maintenance a host does to allow a forum to function, as "censorship."
That's also why it was so predictable that all of the platforms that tried to compete with Twitter by proclaiming themselves as "free speech" forums were doomed to fail. Anyone remember Gab, which quickly became a hangout for white nationalists and for no one else?
A platform that really wanted to compete with Twitter would have to moderate more aggressively, in order to provide a better experience for its readers—more thoughtful expression and less yelling—and to keep from becoming a magnet for all the most obnoxious people who got kicked off every other platform.
Instead, Parler did the opposite. By loudly proclaiming their intention not to ban anyone, no matter how offensive their speech, they hung up a sign saying, "Trolls Welcome." Anyone could have predicted that this was going to become a clubhouse for white nationalists and unhinged conspiracy theorists. And it's only a short step from there to becoming a center for planning and inciting political violence.
I have criticized Google, Facebook, and especially Twitter for being ham-handed, biased, bad at moderating, and generally scared to death of their interns and of the woke mobs who coalesce on their own platforms. But do they actually seem to be in charge? Facebook has become a cesspool of conspiracy theories, and the best defense Parler has to offer is to point to all the insurrection incitement and planning that was happening on everybody else's platforms, too, despite their efforts to stop it.
My sense of the current Big Tech crackdown is that it's partly going to be politically biased overreach but is also a frantic attempt to control the worst excesses of the vast collective Id that manifests itself on their platforms. So complaining about Big Tech "censorship" seems appropriate to, say, 2015, when they were overzealously purging slightly trollish critics of feminism. But it isn't our biggest problem now, and acting as if it is seems like a politically convenient distraction.
I would like to see an effort to help Big Tech do its moderation better and more fairly, especially at a moment like now, when the conservative movement is suffering from a catastrophic self-inflicted loss of credibility that will tempt the most intolerant wing of the left to press its advantage.
But we should none of us disparage the attempt to moderate content, because it is what makes the modern Internet usable in the first place. Nor should we imagine that the need for rational political debate will be served by regulation that unleashes the crazies and the trolls.
Gresham's Law of the Internet tells us that this is a good way to debase our intellectual currency—and rather than saving our digital public squares, it will sink them into the muck.
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via emailPrintJoin Bulwark+
Robert Tracinski
Robert Tracinski is editor of Symposium, a journal of liberalism, and writes additional commentary at The Tracinski Letter .
Tags
Who is online
139 visitors
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted. Any use of the term "Brandon", or any variation thereof, when referring to President Biden, will be deleted.
Perrie...if this is better suited for Metafied would you please move it there? This article is not about Newstalkers which is why I posted it in my group. I won't argue tho
I dont know why this should be moved.
Just trying to keep the peace. And yes, I'm sucking up to the Resident Advisor
let me know how that works out. her name is all over my ticket list this month...
Haven't had a "ticket" in awhile. Guess I'm not trying hard enough.
slacker
I need a flak jacket in some places here.
I keep asking perrie to ignore some of the serial flaggers...
[✘]
... and hammer the rwnj trolls.
The hallmark of all successful media platforms is professional editorial control of content. The New York Times does not let others control its content!
Good article. Hard to argue with its conclusions.
It is a good article and I agree with it completely. Even here on NT where the moderation is fairly good but certainly not perfect, the threads often quickly devolve into name calling, whataboutisms, and vile sexually explicit jabs that aren't even on topic. That's usually when I leave hence my "silent" rating.
NV kept a tighter grip on trolls by their moderation policy of considering the use of the words you, your, and you're in a rebuttal reply as personal. it forced people to be much more creative in directing insults.
IMO it's those who bitch the most about moderation who most deserve it.
Isn't censorship really just overly biased moderation? Tracinski, the author, applies Gresham's law to forum participants but the same simile also applies to moderation. When moderation gravitates toward favored points of view, as the currency of discussion, then the bias evolves toward censorship.
Biases in moderation are almost, if not completely, unavoidable. So, attempting to remove biases from moderation would be tilting at windmills. But recognizing that biases in moderation do exist seems necessary to avoid the overly biased moderation of censorship.
But where rules are stated and available to all, then moderation of comments based upon contravention of those rules is not biased. If I were to death-wish a member of NT I do not see bias as being a reason for deleting my comment. Surely we do not need a judge and jury to determine whether or not there is bias.
And I didn't call you Shirley.
As an example: Republicans should just die and go away. Conversely: Democrats should just die and go away. Or, how about something apolitical: The Packers should murder the Vikings. And vice versa.
'Death wishing', as it is called, is part of our normal, everyday language. A bias in moderation will view one as a jibe and the other as a threat, according to the bias. That's just human nature so we aren't going to eliminate bias. But we need to recognize that such biases exist in moderating discussions and we shouldn't allow those biases to turn into censorship.
IMO that's why decentralized moderation by the participants is important. In that sort of situation, site moderation serves more as an umpire than as a censor.
Exactly. And anyone that does not admit that they have some bias should not be anywhere near a position of being able to moderate. I would rather have someone that admits they have a bias and work on not letting it sway their position than someone that insists they have no bias and just feel any of their moderation is justified and rationalized.
Sometimes I think only parents should be allowed to be moderators. But they already have enough juvenile squabbles on their plate.
Those who have not raised children don't have the experience (and, maybe, wisdom) to moderate. IMO grandparents who have learned from their parenting mistakes would be a better choice. To me it seems that moderating is a task better suited for the old than the young.
I provided a specific example of where moderation applied to contravention of a rule is applicable. Of course if you muddy the waters you can come up with different answers.
Maybe YOU do, but I don't consider death-wishing to be normal - torture-wishing maybe, but not executing. And if you want to live where there are no enforced rules for behaviour, go ahead, that's certainly not where I want to be. Maybe since there is so much concern about bias, moderation should be turned over to AI - but then it most likely requires programming by a biased person.
I agree that nobody could possibly be totally free of bias, and I'll bet that even Jesus Christ had his biases, but most people are able to control their biases and if that were not true then prepare yourself for half of the people in America being shot to death. IMO the site moderators have done a great job in controlling their biases and have been as fair as possible in their duties - although I know full well that those who most deserve being penalized don't agree with me.
To me, the author of the seed wasn't expressing concerns about people on social media threatening to kill each other. The author cites language that promotes political violence and tribal rivalry which requires moderation beyond content to moderation of points of view. The author also expressed concerns about moderation drifting toward censorship.
Hence my comment about biases in moderation being unavoidable and my response to you with examples of language that appears to promote political violence and tribal rivalries. I was attempting to comment within the context of the author's article.
As a more generic example, we're well aware of the narratives that have emerged about insurrection. But revolution is also political violence. Revolutions have proven to be just as bloody and violent as insurrections. Condemning insurrection while ignoring (or even condoning) revolution can become a systemic bias in moderation that can only result in censorship of points of view without adequately addressing the problem of promoting political violence. Moderation biased in that manner will likely exacerbate tribal rivalries, too.
IMO moderation is needed. But if not done properly, moderation can actually worsen the situation.
Just like Carter "lusted in my heart" I do my death wishing where the FBI can't hear it. I have a lengthy better dead list but won't talk about it here. Pretty sure that Perrie wouldn't like that.
Forget it. Not only are we not on the same page, we're not even in the same library.
Then don't talk about it at all.
We're not on the same continent and are not living in the same cultures. It shouldn't be too surprising that our points of view would be dissimilar on some issues. And those dissimilarities in points of view would suggest a predisposition to disagree.
So, the question becomes, which point of view should be allowed and which point of view should be censored? We could goad each other into a slap fight that justifies moderation removing one of our points of view based on language in comments. But that would still be censorship of a point of view. And it seems that sort of censorship of a point of view would not foster use of less incendiary language.
This is where we disagree. I think the vast majority of people do not see themselves as biased, they have justified and rationalized that their views are correct and unbiased. To realize one is biased there must be some introspection that I think most people avoid like the plague. Of course I don't believe this translates into violence as your comment seems to say, maybe I just misunderstood it.
As for the moderators here I think that do an admirable job (at least the ones that are not moderating their own seed). For the most part they can keep their own biases in check but every so often I notice they give one poster a little more leeway in their posts before they issue a ticket or comment that the kids are getting out of hand than others. Not often, but I do see it from time to time.
Of course that is just my semi-biased opinion.
It shouldn't be. It's certainly not a part of mine. Sometimes when Mrs. Gee watches MSNBC she will say something like "I wish he'd just die" about someone they're talking about. That's usually when I tell her to change the channel. It's not good for her hypertension.
I heartily agree.
Before decent access to the internet, I was a voracious reader (or so I thought) and "secure" in my understanding of self, others and life in general.
I did not have a clue about how "interesting", educational, inspirational and frustrating my life could be until I started reading comments on US news articles on the internet. It was not long before I joined Newsvine and entered into the fray of making people "understand" where they had went wrong..... and got my ass handed to me. Good times! LOL! If I could, I wouldn't change a thing about the experiences that re-shaped my perspective of self, others and life.
I feel extremely fortunate that over a decade ago, I had wandered onto a site that often had a wild west atmosphere with moderation that usually kept the worst trolls from ruining all attempts at a worthwhile discussion. And when it ended, I wandered over to this site.
Kudos to Perrie and the mods for their efforts to allow members to have a voice in the rules of moderation on this site.
I am not here often, but I usually enjoy it when I am.
I had to google this to find out how normal this is in the US.
Do you really believe that "death wishing" other members, celebs, religious figures and politicians should be allowed in debates on the internet? Is it conducive to constructive discussion/debate?
The data cited in the link is almost two decades old.
Chuckles, good times, great times...good memories.
it was all of that...
Very good article, TG!
I agree with the premise of the article up to a point. Nerm has a point that moderation can become censorship, but in the case of a privately owned site, as long as the site sticks to the published rules as Buzz mentioned, then it will be the quality of the posts and other things (think marketing) that will drive the success of the site as an online place to be.
So how do we, as a community, convince people that they want to be here? Now to answer that is probably meta.
Thanks, Thomas!
As to how to convince people to be here? I'm only good at selling when I'm getting paid
Funny how so many here seem to get paid for their continual far right Heartland Institute propaganda seeds and posts. They do it all across the web.
Those who destroyed the vine are the very same who are here to destroy NT.
We all know who they are. Damn shame that Perrie won't do anything about it.
It would be nice to have rational conversations without far right fascists derailing them. That's what the Heartland Institute trains them to do.
I wouldn't say she's not doing anything about it. She got rid of XXX
I found him a year ago on another forum and visited a few times just to read the abuse he subjected himself to for being such a dipshit trumpster/thumper. it was hilarious. he got banned from that forum a couple months back for making threats.
... defending his demigod trump.
Good article and the conclusions seem to be right on target.
How to convince people to be here? Well, threats usually work.
uh, yeah...
Nope! I think I should be able to spam certain posters' articles with gay Trump/Putin porn and it should be my 1st Amendment right to do so. /s
snicker
That's the way it was before moderation and if certain populist partisans don't like moderation then we can go back to it and show them why there are rules.
I'm all for a free for all but I don't think Perrie will even entertain the thought
... there's always heated discussions.
too bad most of the cowards are afraid to go there...
"Beneath this is what I call the Inverse Square Law of the Internet, which holds that the number of a person's postings tends to be inversely proportionate to their quality. In other words, the craziest people always have more time and energy to post than you do. (If they don't, you should be worried that you are becoming one of them.)"
Yes....we see some good examples of that
[deleted]
[here.]
thanks for the applicable demonstration.
Like you?
yup
... and there's several more.