51–60 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only reason the valley has trumpeted the "we're just a platform" is that it was better for the bottom line and shareholders. Now it no longer is.
Reddit went through this too.
There is merit to maintaining an open environment. Censorship makes the censored content seem lucratively dangerous; it looks like the powers that be are afraid of what some people are saying. I think it is best to let bad arguments fail on their own merit. The problem is that most people are unable to recognize a bad argument.
Good to see the Valley is starting to get off its "we are just a platform, all information should be free and neutral no matter how bad, so we're not responsible" extremism of the past few years and understand that some forms of speech are harmful should not ever be encouraged and accelerated on any platform or technology, ever. To the people that say "Where does it end?" – that's pretty easy. Let's start with curbin…
The only reason the valley has trumpeted the "we're just a platform" is that it was better for the bottom line and shareholders. Now it no longer is.
This is a category of labor that formerly wasn't necessary, and yet somehow now it is. Why is that? How can we make it go away?
Perhaps the monetary incentives will provide motivation to solve it.
This is good. I am, though, concerned about the negative externalities that could arise. Will this lead to new and stranger commercial activities?
If you want a negative example, check out Voat. It started as a "less moderated/censored reddit" and quickly filled with actual nazis and other vitriol. A business cannot survive on "We accept hate speech" in the same way 4chan has never really been a business proposition; Nobody wants to look like they are supporting hate speech so advertisers won't go near it with a ten foot pole. IMO, this is a good thing, and imp…
Good to see the Valley is starting to get off its "we are just a platform, all information should be free and neutral no matter how bad, so we're not responsible" extremism of the past few years and understand that some forms of speech are harmful should not ever be encouraged and accelerated on any platform or technology, ever. To the people that say "Where does it end?" – that's pretty easy. Let's start with curbin…
"Speech that harms people" and "speech that hurt people's feelings" are so closely related and sometimes people (intentionally or unintentionally) mix them up.
Why not ban all racism, all hate, everything? Doing just one is PR only.
They are all valid topics to discuss civilly, but some believe that even having a discussion is racist/homophobic/sexist. My fear is that it will move beyond what we've legally defined as hate speech and into "don't hurt people's feelings" territory.
Good to see the Valley is starting to get off its "we are just a platform, all information should be free and neutral no matter how bad, so we're not responsible" extremism of the past few years and understand that some forms of speech are harmful should not ever be encouraged and accelerated on any platform or technology, ever. To the people that say "Where does it end?" – that's pretty easy. Let's start with curbin…
> To the people that say "Where does it end?" – that's pretty easy. Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others. This may come as a surprise to you, but this response will not be comforting to those with genuine concerns about civil liberties. Avoiding the question of where to draw the final line with the question of where to draw the first one just implies that you intend to draw more lines in the…