The thing is you are "promoting distribution of what you think is right" literally right now. Like, with this very comment right here, you are being politically active!
So, assuming you are acting rationally, you are right now promoting what you think is "right" ("anything legal", "1st amendment" eg the United States's Constitution), while countering what you think is "wrong".
If you didn't believe in the promotion of what you think is right, then you wouldn't be posting to argue against what you think is wrong! You would never upvote (bias) or downvote (censorship) and so on. Sure, you could argue that your style of promotion (comments on HN), or that promoting your worldview in general is better for certain outcomes, but ultimately your still just arguing for "freedom" in your particular definition of "freedom" (still promoting or opposing distribution of right/wrong)
I think you are equivocating. I don’t oppose the distribution of any other opinion. I don’t like those opinions, but I’m not trying to make it harder for anyone to say them. And trying to change someone’s mind about it is not at all the same as “opposing distribution” regardless of whether it has the same intent or potential effect.
I'm not trying to equivocate here (or be combative, I hope this is an interesting discussion for both of us!). I'm being serious: I consider downvoting to be "opposing distribution" of a statement by definition, since it limits the distribution, although perhaps not very effective if done by yourself.
> regardless of whether it has the same intent or potential effect.
I disagree, and I think I'm in the majority to have more outcomes-based ethics [1]
What I'm trying to get across is that you are "politically active", whether you think you are or not. "Activism" can literally involve just a bunch of friends on an online platform upvoting and downvoting. Even just a small group of people doing this can even be effective censorship in certain contexts, such as local elections. Sure, Google may have more cost-effective means of censorship --- larger political campaigns have to pay firms LOADS to bury stories or control online discourse without access to the power Google has --- but it's still the same result, just a matter of who calls the shots and cost-efficacy.
You might argue that controlling discourse like this is not censorship or unethical based on your definition, but as you said it can have the same intent and has the same potential effect, so to another perspective, perhaps one that places less value on the USA constitution, it most certainly is.
How would my being mildly politically active on HN contradict my belief that it is rational for me to encourage the distribution of legal speech, without regard for agreement with the content? I feel like you’re trying to chide me by reminding me that I’m engaging in politics. Yes, I’m engaging in politics. I just don’t see what that has to do with the thrust of my objection.
Your point about downvotes being censorship is troubling and gives me pause. I think it’s only censorship because of how HN fades the comment towards illegibility. But I have always thought that is a user-hostile design choice. I’d much rather you could see the score, but still be able to read them easily. I have spent enormous amounts of time carefully reading people I disagree with.
(FWIW, I did not downvote you, and I do so rarely.)
> I’d much rather you could see the score, but still be able to read them easily.
I agree. Actually I'd almost forgotten they did that since I use the StyleBot extension and have ".commtext { color: black; }" in the CSS for this site, which overrides the fading. I also enabled the setting to show "dead" comments; they aren't always worth reading, but it happens more often than you might think.
Actually that's another aspect in its own right—HN doesn't just fade downvoted comments but removes them altogether if they're downvoted enough. And sometimes comments are actually deleted by the administrators and not just marked as "dead" and hidden from the page by default. It's their site, and I would uphold their right to not be forced to host comments they object to against their will, but there is some actual censorship going on and not just convenient "curation" of what shows up clearly in the default view.
I don't see downvotes as censorship when the downvoted comment is still available for those who care to read it, and not actually deleted. To me it's more of an indication that, in the reader's opinion, the comment was perceived as not contributing to the discussion. In general I prefer to upvote the good comments and save the downvotes for trolling, flamebait, etc. which would be likely to derail the thread. To put it in words, an upvote is like saying "check this out" while a downvote is either "don't waste your time" or "this thread belongs somewhere else". But you can still see the downvoted comments if you want.
> How would my being mildly politically active on HN contradict my belief that it is rational for me to encourage the distribution of legal speech, without regard for agreement with the content? [...] I just don’t see what that has to do with the thrust of my objection.
Yeah I'm not really making my point clear here, sorry.
My point is that a "values-neutral" platform doesn't exist, and every attempt to build such a thing is usually only "values-neutral" from the perspective of it's creator. For example, I'd argue there's a contradiction even in the way you phrased it here: "Legal speech" implies you are indeed giving "regard for agreement with the content", since this would imply suppressing content that is not in agreement with some legal framework you have in mind.
> I think it’s only censorship because of how HN fades the comment towards illegibility.
It's not just that. Upvotes promotes one position over the other, so when one considers statistical properties of how far people scroll down, or how likely people are to expand low-voted comments or go to another page (for platforms like Reddit, HN, etc), the effect can be the same.
It's interesting to see that as online platforms gradually replace "traditional" journalism for how people get information, we're rehashing a some of the same old arguments about what is "objective" journalism. Publishing ANYTHING, whether physical documents (eg newspapers) or HTML documents (eg HN, Facebook), will always promote some worldview and censor another based on what is included in the publication, and the ordering of the topics.
Sometimes this censorship is explicit (eg nixing a story, Google taking down a search result), other times it's done statistically (eg putting stuff "below the fold", a search result being on page 10), but our informational world is perpetually being shaped like this. Pretending that's it's even logically possible have unbiased platforms "without regard for agreement with the content" --- as an example, not you, but elsewhere here it was claimed 2010-2016 was mostly censorship-free --- is starting off on a wrong premise. If we start on a wrong premise, any further discussion is meaningless at best, and actively manipulative at worse (Fox News' "Fair and Balanced" slogan comes to mind)
> (FWIW, I did not downvote you, and I do so rarely.)
So, assuming you are acting rationally, you are right now promoting what you think is "right" ("anything legal", "1st amendment" eg the United States's Constitution), while countering what you think is "wrong".
If you didn't believe in the promotion of what you think is right, then you wouldn't be posting to argue against what you think is wrong! You would never upvote (bias) or downvote (censorship) and so on. Sure, you could argue that your style of promotion (comments on HN), or that promoting your worldview in general is better for certain outcomes, but ultimately your still just arguing for "freedom" in your particular definition of "freedom" (still promoting or opposing distribution of right/wrong)