141–150 of 304 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>How about coarse comments like telling someone to "kill themselves. I think a few conservatives were directly told to do just that due to the SCOTUS appointment furore --have there been significant calls to censor those opinions? It's like everyone is for Censorship unless they are the targets of Censorship. And in this case they are not calling out their own lot very vehemently.
I believe I saw a headline today or yesterday regarding someone being fired due to remarks along those lines. Perhaps not "kill yourself" per se. I think the remark was characterized as a call for assassination.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6255241/Special-edu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>How about coarse comments like telling someone to "kill themselves. I think a few conservatives were directly told to do just that due to the SCOTUS appointment furore --have there been significant calls to censor those opinions? It's like everyone is for Censorship unless they are the targets of Censorship. And in this case they are not calling out their own lot very vehemently.
Stuff like this is a huge indicator that whatever everyone's intent going into censorship, it will invariably end with powerful, entrenched stakeholders using the censorship tools to dig in and start purging outsiders and members of opposing factions. In politics, business, culture, you name it, this will be the end result.
I can understand why Google, as an engine, should err towards neutrality of information, without arbitrating even hideous content. But I've never really understand why social networks can't, or shouldn't, say "This is the type of community we are, and what content we find acceptable."
It's interesting that this document calls Arab Spring "the high point in positivity" of the internet. From what I understand, most countries are even worse off now. Libya in particular is still stuck in civil war to this day.
It’s not that things weren’t awful then just people didn’t know what was going on or how things would turn out, so we were all upbeat about the internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Kids' click patterns reward more video themes like "Elsa tied up on train tracks kissing Spiderman", so the content industry crams more of that stuff into its new content. To be fair many of the Tex Avery and Tom and Jerry cartoons with which almost everyone grew up with were a lot more wild than that, thankfully they weren’t censored back when we were kids.
How were Tom and Jerry cartoons "wild"? Genuinely curious.
Slide 66 is particularly interesting, and articulates an observation that I've made: > Tech firms are performing a balancing act between two incompatible positions > 100% commit to the American tradition that prioritises free speech for democracy, not civility > 100% commit to the European tradition that favors dignity over liberty, and civility over freedom It is a very American view that unrestricted freedom of spe…
Is "against freedom of speech" a freedom of speech?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stuff like this is a huge indicator that whatever everyone's intent going into censorship, it will invariably end with powerful, entrenched stakeholders using the censorship tools to dig in and start purging outsiders and members of opposing factions. In politics, business, culture, you name it, this will be the end result.
Yep. That was exactly my argument a month ago here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17926316
* "2.6 million tweets contained anti-Semitic speech during the US presidential election" - how many conversations there where, in real word, about the same topic and contained anti-Semitic speech?
* "26% of American users are victims of internet trolling" - how many are victims of trolling in real word? Or in schools?
* "40% of internet users have been harassed online" - how many persons have been harassed at work places? Bars?
* Governments under cyber attack? How many of them are targets of espionage? Or have many companies are targets of espionage?
I'm not saying that these are not bad things, nor that those shouldn't be addressed - I'm just wondering if these things are as bad as they might seem to be, when compared to "the real world".
It's interesting that this document calls Arab Spring "the high point in positivity" of the internet. From what I understand, most countries are even worse off now. Libya in particular is still stuck in civil war to this day.
In all seriousness, it's quite abhorrent how foreign policy interventions by progressive leaders are shoved down the memory hole while we are always wide awake when a conservative does something.