I can very much relate to the painful feeling of having a post pulled. It has happened to me too. On the other hand, this seems to be a transient state and it is not unlikely that Sam Altman will approve of it. And if he doesn’t, well. I guess that’s what you meant with “A decision that I very much support.”.
I’m curious what post was pulled. I had thought that Lesswrong was essentially free from censorship, but now I’m updating in the direction that it was just very effective at censorship, and maybe is therefore not a safe place to hang out.
Do you still endorse the thing that was pulled? Can you link to it here, or PM it to me?
Well, spam is deleted all the time. But I have never seen an article pulled completely before. In this regard what happened to my posts was different: They were demoted from main to discussions (that was before LW 2.0 when moderation worked differently). I was mostly relating to the feeling before posting.
But I have never seen an article pulled completely before.
It happened before, but it’s quite rare. Normally when I’ve done it, I’ve left a note in an Open Thread, such as this case where I moved to drafts a post that was talking about an ongoing legal case (now concluded). I think that’s the last one I did, and it was four years ago? But there are other mods as well.
I guess it depends on how you define censorship. In this case, it wasn’t pulled because the audience found it objectionable or because the owners of the medium wanted to silence the author or material. It was pulled, with the agreement of the author, because of an issue with a source.
I don’t consider it censorship if a newspaper and journalist agree to spike a story because of a legitimate issue with a source.
Newspapers are mostly garbage, and I do not, by default, admire their epistemic or typical “moral” standards.
To the degree that the first amendment is wise, it is by making sure that if evil powers are temporarily in control of the government, even then they can’t prevent the spread of the truth, because the tools for the spreading of truth are so clearly protected that even the spreaders of intellectual sewage are granted the right to operate.
Newspapers rake muck through exaggeration, and spread falsehoods, and bash people indirectly during political seasons, and build viewership via tabloid antics when no elections are at stake.
The whole thing is is essentially patrimonial with the Owner/CEOs and the CEO’s delegated Editors as the monarch-like rulers-over-the-mere-writers, with the powerful folk existing in a murky world of favors and dirty deals, and the minions towing the line as they must, because they are working stiffs who need a job, and some things are “above their pay grade”. This works for some things, like making ice cream and building houses. Capitalism, baby!
Lesswrong does not pay the writers that I’ve heard of? And Lesswrong doesn’t direct our writing. And I think probably: thank goodness for that?
You say:
I don’t consider it censorship if a newspaper and journalist agree to spike a story
Contrast this with my claim over in a cousin comment (which did not have the bold over there):
Certainly, if there is a call to be made, the call should be made by the author, not the mods.
I don’t want to harp too much on this bit, which feels close to the crux for me…
Reading above, Ruby claims to have the final say… and used her final say to say that it was the author’s say…
This is a beautiful waffle, and Ruby perhaps deserves a very prestigious and beautiful Reagan Clinton Trump Teflon Waffleiron Award for wiggling out of this mess without ceding power or offending very many people <3
But like: If Lesswrong was just definitely and clearly a patrimonial system, and the mods often spiked stories as a favor to rich guys, because maybe the mods want to make the rich guy comfortable, because the rich guys have power and could do favors in return...
...then I think maybe I would be done with Lesswrong?
I wrote a lot more words about the abstract principle here, but I think they can be boiled down to:
(1) Sending written things down the memory hole is a bad policy for a platform that isn’t just for commerce and shilling.
I can very much relate to the painful feeling of having a post pulled. It has happened to me too. On the other hand, this seems to be a transient state and it is not unlikely that Sam Altman will approve of it. And if he doesn’t, well. I guess that’s what you meant with “A decision that I very much support.”.
I’m curious what post was pulled. I had thought that Lesswrong was essentially free from censorship, but now I’m updating in the direction that it was just very effective at censorship, and maybe is therefore not a safe place to hang out.
Do you still endorse the thing that was pulled? Can you link to it here, or PM it to me?
Well, spam is deleted all the time. But I have never seen an article pulled completely before. In this regard what happened to my posts was different: They were demoted from main to discussions (that was before LW 2.0 when moderation worked differently). I was mostly relating to the feeling before posting.
It happened before, but it’s quite rare. Normally when I’ve done it, I’ve left a note in an Open Thread, such as this case where I moved to drafts a post that was talking about an ongoing legal case (now concluded). I think that’s the last one I did, and it was four years ago? But there are other mods as well.
This was new to me too, and I didn’t like how muddy it made the waters. Thank you for the information! It bounds the badness, which is comforting <3
I guess it depends on how you define censorship. In this case, it wasn’t pulled because the audience found it objectionable or because the owners of the medium wanted to silence the author or material. It was pulled, with the agreement of the author, because of an issue with a source.
I don’t consider it censorship if a newspaper and journalist agree to spike a story because of a legitimate issue with a source.
Newspapers are mostly garbage, and I do not, by default, admire their epistemic or typical “moral” standards.
To the degree that the first amendment is wise, it is by making sure that if evil powers are temporarily in control of the government, even then they can’t prevent the spread of the truth, because the tools for the spreading of truth are so clearly protected that even the spreaders of intellectual sewage are granted the right to operate.
Newspapers rake muck through exaggeration, and spread falsehoods, and bash people indirectly during political seasons, and build viewership via tabloid antics when no elections are at stake.
The whole thing is is essentially patrimonial with the Owner/CEOs and the CEO’s delegated Editors as the monarch-like rulers-over-the-mere-writers, with the powerful folk existing in a murky world of favors and dirty deals, and the minions towing the line as they must, because they are working stiffs who need a job, and some things are “above their pay grade”. This works for some things, like making ice cream and building houses. Capitalism, baby!
Lesswrong does not pay the writers that I’ve heard of? And Lesswrong doesn’t direct our writing. And I think probably: thank goodness for that?
You say:
Contrast this with my claim over in a cousin comment (which did not have the bold over there):
I don’t want to harp too much on this bit, which feels close to the crux for me…
Reading above, Ruby claims to have the final say… and used her final say to say that it was the author’s say…
This is a beautiful waffle, and Ruby perhaps deserves a very prestigious and beautiful Reagan Clinton Trump Teflon Waffleiron Award for wiggling out of this mess without ceding power or offending very many people <3
But like: If Lesswrong was just definitely and clearly a patrimonial system, and the mods often spiked stories as a favor to rich guys, because maybe the mods want to make the rich guy comfortable, because the rich guys have power and could do favors in return...
...then I think maybe I would be done with Lesswrong?
I wrote a lot more words about the abstract principle here, but I think they can be boiled down to:
(1) Sending written things down the memory hole is a bad policy for a platform that isn’t just for commerce and shilling.
(2) I’m an inclusionist. Good people, cooperating to build pro-social communications infrastructure, should treat the censorship of truth as damage, and route around this damage.
(3) Lesswrong should not use people who aren’t actually that good (like most for-profit news organizations and those who work in them) as role models.