51–60 of 258 posts
Censorship is so repugnant, yet so complicated. What should be prohibited to be said, if anything? Who draws the line?
Very glad I'm not Facebook. No matter what choices you make, millions (or billions) will hate you. Is decentralization the only solution, if it even is one?
Very glad I'm not Facebook. No matter what choices you make, millions (or billions) will hate you. Is decentralization the only solution, if it even is one?
Are you sure about that? Being Facebook also comes with billions of dollars.
Very glad I'm not Facebook. No matter what choices you make, millions (or billions) will hate you. Is decentralization the only solution, if it even is one?
We need to think federation here. Some websites have more racist content. Some have more porn. We can choose to visit a website which sorry suits our sensibilities. That's not the case with a social network. They have to apply one set of policies to all. The problem though is that there is no business model that supports federated social networks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We need to think federation here. Some websites have more racist content. Some have more porn. We can choose to visit a website which sorry suits our sensibilities. That's not the case with a social network. They have to apply one set of policies to all. The problem though is that there is no business model that supports federated social networks.
That doesn't help much that the problem here is people objecting to the content hosted, regardless of whether they view it or not.
Twitter used to be always about who you choose to follow is what you see, or what tags you click on, it was opt-in and it was great. The popular feed wasn't your feed by default (via other peoples friends of friends which you have zero control over nor blue checkmarks being heavily promoted - which are usually the most tribalistic and FUDy).
Follow the links to older articles, and several of them have at their end the original court decision. The latest one (found at https://www.conjur.com.br/2020-jul-31/moraes-aumenta-multa-f...) is https://www.conjur.com.br/dl/decisao-alexandre-moraes.pdf and the previous one seems to have been (found at https://www.conjur.com.br/2020-jul-31/facebook-informa-nao-c...) https://www.conjur.com.br/dl/decisao-alexandre-moraes-twitte...
Finally, the original decision seems to have been (found at https://www.conjur.com.br/2020-jul-24/decisao-alexandre-twit...) https://www.conjur.com.br/dl/inq-4781.pdf (a cleaner copy of this last one can also be found at the Brazilian Supreme Court website: http://www.stf.jus.br/arquivo/cms/noticiaNoticiaStf/anexo/ma...).
Censorship is so repugnant, yet so complicated. What should be prohibited to be said, if anything? Who draws the line?
This means that the truly delusional can spread their conspiracy theories and get people to believe them. But it also means that people caught within exploitative power structures can spread their stories - see MeToo as an example.
The strife stems from the very old, very firm order collapsing under this assault of free information. It's a little scary, to be honest, but I also believe it has the potential to be create a more just world.
Facebook's role, in my view, should be to ensure that this information remains truly free. The old order still tries to influence the spread of this free information (bot farms, paid influencers, etc.). If you can stop this, I think you're doing a good job.
Very glad I'm not Facebook. No matter what choices you make, millions (or billions) will hate you. Is decentralization the only solution, if it even is one?
We need to think federation here. Some websites have more racist content. Some have more porn. We can choose to visit a website which sorry suits our sensibilities. That's not the case with a social network. They have to apply one set of policies to all. The problem though is that there is no business model that supports federated social networks.
Many subreddits have different sets of rules & restrictions. If these options were significantly expanded, could that ever meet the requirements?
Another interesting niche example is stackexchange.com, which isn’t a social network in the traditional sense (yet), but it has many different communities with different rules where a single identity, but variable set of privileges, follow you around.
Could these evolve into what you consider federated social networks, or are there more strict separation requirements (such as different login / identity providers among sub-communities)?
[edit: typo]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't prohibit speech. That's it. Repugnance is part of life. If you suppress speech, you only push it underground. Light is the best disinfectant. Daryl Davis, a black musician, attends Klan rallies ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORp3q1Oaezw ). By knowing who to speak with, he's helped people out of that racist pit. I extend speech so far to include calls to violence. Then you know who to watch and who to protect…
What about spam? Scams? Child porn? Doxxing? People's very personal data? A bounty to hurt a specific person, with included address and identifying information? There's always an exception. Some amount of moderation is always necessary, and naturally there will always be gray area cases.