161–170 of 304 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. That was exactly my argument a month ago here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17926316
People universally believe they are better than their historical counterparts, that they will succeed where history has failed, that this time it will be different . When really all they're doing is carving another notch on fascism's belt.
Has anyone else ever wondered how some of the numbers about internet compares to a real world? Like, * "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?…
In what sense is what happens online not part of the real world? If nobody reads a tweet, did it really happen? If nobody hears me hurl racist abuse at my lawnmower, did it really happen?
This is mainly the reason why the last "real world" was in quotes. When you take statistics of something, you usually want to compare them to something. For me, a natural comparison for internet statistics is some physical places like offices, public streets, schools, bars. "a real world" - I'm not saying that the internet is not part of it.
Instead of thinking so linearly along these two dimensions, I would suggest using a wider lens. Instead of striving for some of both in a common platform, we should strive for some of both concurrently. I was encouraged by the example of Twitter unverifying accounts, but not banning them, but even that suffers from the single platform effect since unverification is objectively harmful.
Those with qualms concerning unfavorable content should ask themselves whether the concern is that it's promoted/visible by default or that it exists at all. The latter is too hard line of a stand to be seen as anything but censorship and should only be applied in the most extreme cases. But the former is something we can tackle. Simply default to safe and let the user opt in to increasing levels of unsafe. You'll always have the problem of being the arbiter of what resides at which levels (granted you can ask content creators to self-categorize with threats of violation for clear miscategorization) but at least it's better than outright banning/deleting. Just make sure that whatever level the user has set, content that is visible is all treated equally under the algorithms (i.e. no demotion). I personally would turn favorability filters off and encourage others to do the same, but at least defaults exist and levels of moderation can be chosen.
Finally, to shift the rant a bit, I just want to say I welcome self-imposed solutions over legal requirements. I am encouraged to know that, while it's hard to compete with a behemoth (why would you try), you can still legally publish your own content sans filter on your own site or a site with similar views towards your own. We might prefer all the popular sites respect our views on what is allowed, but since that's obviously impossible in a global medium due to cultural subjectivity, don't attempt codify it legally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I realize its an often misused excuse for passing various bogus regulations. But your dismissive one liner is disparaging the comment while completely ignoring the massive context and reasoning provided; this is not the kind of conversation we expect of here.
"Think of the children" as a justification for censorship is still "think of the children" as a justification for censorship, regardless of the context. Dressing it up in an attempt to make it more palatable and reasonable-sounding doesn't change what is at its core. And that's a nice touch, painting me as an outsider by pointing at the sign with the rules.
I caution against latching onto the title and making assumptions. The bulk of the content is analyzing where the current censorship position came from and the conclusion is for Google to be more open with their stance and also be more equal with applying it. As for the why: Why the shift toward censorship? - User Demands - before, In the absence of rules, bad behaviour thrived - now, Appease users, maintain platform…
Yeah, honestly I don't think Breitbart and similar can really play this as negative for Google when it acknowledges many actions have been taken even against right wingers unfairly and encourages "Don't take sides" as a top point. The biggest thing to complain about would probably be the title... they couldn't have picked a worse title.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I realize its an often misused excuse for passing various bogus regulations. But your dismissive one liner is disparaging the comment while completely ignoring the massive context and reasoning provided; this is not the kind of conversation we expect of here.
"Think of the children" as a justification for censorship is still "think of the children" as a justification for censorship, regardless of the context. Dressing it up in an attempt to make it more palatable and reasonable-sounding doesn't change what is at its core. And that's a nice touch, painting me as an outsider by pointing at the sign with the rules.
This is not a generic "think of the children" reasoning to ban things that adults enjoy -- Elsagate videos are targeted at children, they exploit various mechanisms to make children watch them (some children psychology, but mostly YouTube's recommendations algorithm.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you consider American culture to be one of the more free ones? If so, then why do these conspiracies exist? Why have flat-earth conspiracies and anti-scientific dogma thrived? Why do we have a president that outright denies scientific fact? If combating false ideas with truth worked, then surely these problems shouldn't exist in America, the land of the free. In the arena of free speech, only the values with the m…
> If so, then why do these conspiracies exist? Because that's how the process works. Liars lie and evidence proves them wrong. It doesn't make them disappear from existence, it just makes it so you can discover the truth. Without free speech there are no fewer lies, all you do is suppress the truth. The Party's version is the only version even when it's fiction.
Is liars being about to lie worth a body count?
Has anyone else ever wondered how some of the numbers about internet compares to a real world? Like, * "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?…
I took that to be the point -- we tend to be at our worst online, thanks to the unique combination of anonymity (I can say whatever I want with as many accounts as I want, without meaningful consequences) and absence of social cues (there's nobody around me, so I have no incentive to soften my language or weaken my opinions). In other words, the way we talk online is not normal. Even outside of the free speech debate…
This is quite philosophical comparison, but I think its on the point.
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.
I think that’s the point. Arab spring, the chance of positive change around the world because of it, pre Snowden(!). 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.
> The Arab Spring was the the high point of this positivity - a visceral example of the power of digitalised free speech. Yes, millions of refugees is obviously not the consequence at all.