You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

AlexMennen comments on New censorship: against hypothetical violence against identifiable people - Less Wrong Discussion

22 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 23 December 2012 09:00PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (457)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: AlexMennen 24 December 2012 01:06:43AM 17 points [-]

I support censorship, but only if it is based on the unaccountable personal opinion of a human. Anything else is too prone to lost purposes. If a serious rationalist (e.g. EY) seriously thinks about it and decides that some post has negative utility, I support its deletion. If some unintelligent rule like "no hypothetical violence" decides that a post is no good, why should I agree? Simple rules do not capture all the subtlety of our values; they cannot be treated as Friendly.

It makes sense to have mod discretion, but it also makes sense to have a list of rules that the mods can point to so that people whose posts get censored are less likely to feel that they are being personally targeted.

Comment author: [deleted] 24 December 2012 01:23:36AM 10 points [-]

Yes. Explanatory rules are good. Letting the rules drive is not.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 24 December 2012 02:17:54AM 16 points [-]

These are explanations, not rules, check.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 24 December 2012 05:10:10AM 2 points [-]

Hence "may at the admins' option be censored"