251–260 of 304 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Or because they are bots? That one.
But if the bots are intelligent enough to be a problem maybe they should have free speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm speaking for myself here but I think the Russian bots as well as astroturfing bots need to be censored. And not censored by government regulation but by the terms of service. There are many "active measure" Russian bots active on twitter. Twitter doesn't seem concerned at all mostly because those Russian bots are padding their numbers same goes for FB and reddit.
Censored for what? Being bots? Bots are programmed by humans. Humans have a right to free speech. Being Russian? Russians are also humans. Humans have a right to free speech.
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.
Tex Avery and Tom & Jerry were wild and a product of their respective era, sure, but they're definitely not as bad as some of the Elsagate videos. Did you watch them? Some of them are literally snuff, with tons of gore. The stuff of nightmares.
I don't have kids so I only watched what I could quickly find on a simple YT search, and I remember watching that spider man scene the OP mentions (hence why I commented) which I didn't find that scary (even though it was quite tasteless). The gore stuff (probably meaning blood showing and similar stuff) should probably be restricted, of that I agree.
I'm actually glad to see the conclusion. Everybody wants to censor what they don't like. There are people who believe free speech is not the ultimate value, but rather to protect people from 'harm'. In this case 'harm' being ideas they don't agree with. The best stance is not to take a side, but to make sure both sides are civil in the expression of their beliefs.
> "Everybody wants to censor what they don't like." This should be top comment on all HN discussions involving content moderation, so people can read it before they respond and think about whether what they are advocating makes sense. People these days so effortlessly are able to make that huge leap from "I don't personally like this thing" to "This thing must be suppressed/illegal for everyone."
> Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody has said anything about hurt feelings. They are speaking about the families of children killed at Sandy Hook, and the maleficent antagonists who harass them with lies.
So what’s the harm to the families, except bad feelings? Was anyone actually (physically) hurt?
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…
In Europe you are free, unless you cause other people harm. If you cause other people harm, it must be decided, whether that was justified (self-defense) or not (criminal offense).
I would say, that in the US the term "freedom" is more liberally used to make a "criminal-offense" look like "self-defense", though I am a bit cynical now.
Dignity means also, that you can speak your mind freely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what’s the harm to the families, except bad feelings? Was anyone actually (physically) hurt?
You know, it feels bad, to get physically hurt. To imply, the only damage, that can exist, would be of material nature (here: the meat of your body) gives me the shivers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm speaking for myself here but I think the Russian bots as well as astroturfing bots need to be censored. And not censored by government regulation but by the terms of service. There are many "active measure" Russian bots active on twitter. Twitter doesn't seem concerned at all mostly because those Russian bots are padding their numbers same goes for FB and reddit.
That sounds all fine and well but half the time I utter a conservative opinion I'm accused of being a "russian bot".
It's not a "conservative" opinion per se, it happens with the left too, (as opposed to (neo)liberal), think Sanders crowd being called sexist/bros by the Clinton crowd etc. Basically if it's not a centrist opinion you're out. It's called the overton window.
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.
Tunisia and Egypt are arguably doing a bit better though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a European I have to admit that the American model is vastly superior. Europe had laws to protect "civilty" even before the great wars. American democracy is also more successful in general. Europe just had the "luck" that censorship didn't become very necessary. In some places it was used extensively and those places are no more today. And lastly, stripping someones voice implicates directly stripping someones di…
As a fellow European I have to disagree. Hiostorically speaking, pernal freedoms have been alot higher in Europe than the US (since the time something like personal freedom became athing), slavery was abolished by Great Britain and France way before the War of Independance for example. Also, where exactly is the US democracy more successfull overall? We do have free election in Europe, don't we? And we don't have suc…