21–27 of 27 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Murder is illegal but its illegality matters nothing to victims after the fact.
I think you missed my point. If there was a call for violence like in your hypothetical scenario, then the tweet should be removed and legal action taken. It is not covered under any free speech protections.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a valid question, and brings up that whole question of "Where do you draw the line?" We've already allowed the government to define what's legal and what isn't - which obviously differ from country to country. Now it seems private companies also want to weigh in and define their own kinds of "allowed and not allowed". I honestly do think we're damned if we do (allow FB to censor) and we're dammed if we don't (al…
Mark Cuban had an interesting response. The algorithm is editorializing, even if it's driven by AI. FB either needs to show everything in chronological order, or face the burden and liability of the content it promotes. It might be a bizarre, yet moderating force to online discussion if a cottage industry of civil/personal injury lawyers pops up around FB content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mark Cuban had an interesting response. The algorithm is editorializing, even if it's driven by AI. FB either needs to show everything in chronological order, or face the burden and liability of the content it promotes. It might be a bizarre, yet moderating force to online discussion if a cottage industry of civil/personal injury lawyers pops up around FB content.
That's not really interesting as it's not at all practical. The deluge of spam will render these platforms completely devoid of value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is ISPF some kind of technology? I googled it, and the first few pages were all non-technical things. I searched for it on GitHub, and the first few pages had nothing to do with social media, P2P, distributed services, federation, nor anything else that could be relevant. Please provide a link if you can.
https://ipfs.io/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a valid question, and brings up that whole question of "Where do you draw the line?" We've already allowed the government to define what's legal and what isn't - which obviously differ from country to country. Now it seems private companies also want to weigh in and define their own kinds of "allowed and not allowed". I honestly do think we're damned if we do (allow FB to censor) and we're dammed if we don't (al…
Mark Cuban had an interesting response. The algorithm is editorializing, even if it's driven by AI. FB either needs to show everything in chronological order, or face the burden and liability of the content it promotes. It might be a bizarre, yet moderating force to online discussion if a cottage industry of civil/personal injury lawyers pops up around FB content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you missed my point. If there was a call for violence like in your hypothetical scenario, then the tweet should be removed and legal action taken. It is not covered under any free speech protections.
I think it's rather you who missed my point. Once it's out there, it's out there. They may take it down but it'll be too late.
I remain convinced that the only real solution to the twin problems of content moderation and freedom of speech rests in decentralized services (such as https://joinmastodon.org ).
I run a Mastodon instance. The creator of Mastodon is actively against the concept of free speech. When Gab tried to join the fediverse I remember there was a mass effort by developers of Mastodon clients and instance owners to prevent this. IIRC the creator of Mastodon supported this and cited the fact that he was German and that German law outlawed various speech related to Nazism.
So do I! fist-bump
> ...cited the fact that he was German and that German law outlawed various speech related to Nazism.
This would be relevant for any Mastodon service hosted in Germany right?
> The creator of Mastodon is actively against the concept of free speech....
Woah, you lost me there. Free speech (at least within a common society) cannot be the irrevocable right to say whatever you want with no consequences. If people do not want to hear what you have to say, why should they be forced to listen? My understanding of Gargon's (creator of Mastodon) position is that he prioritizes localizing moderation responsibilities so that the decision of what kind of speech should be "free" is not made centrally. That seems like a reasonable position to me.
Honestly I was fascinated by how the drama of Gab and the fediverse played out. It seemed like a really good test of the core goals and ideals of the whole Mastodon/fediverse project. No one could stop Gab from creating a Mastodon instance (per the decentralized design and open source software). However, other Mastodon servers moved quickly to block any interaction between Gab.com and their servers. This was decentralized moderation at work. Each instance could make the decision for themselves.
The various client apps that chose to explicitly refuse to connect to accounts on Gab's instance was another really interesting move to me. Personally, I don't generally like to try and tell users of the apps I develop how they should or should not be used. However, I respect the rights of other project maintainers to develop their apps as they see fit. And once again, the beauty of open source software is that if you don't like how a certain project is being maintained, you can fork it! (And that is just what happened with those Masto apps, where several were forked to reenable access to Gab accounts).