41–50 of 969 posts
If people had called one another to prepare this, would we say that the phone was responsible for the attack? And would we try to ban phones?
I would have no problem banning certain phone numbers that only exist to incite violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like some serious mental gymnastics to me. And also not provable with any specific metrics.
> Sounds like some serious mental gymnastics to me. And also not provable with any specific metrics. It's not really, it just takes the concept of collateral damage into account. Should a billion Grandmas be denied their baby picture fix on account of a moderation team missing a few thousand users' insurrectionist and para-insurrectionist posts? Obviously not, since that action is high on collateral damage. That said…
Cool...
If people had called one another to prepare this, would we say that the phone was responsible for the attack? And would we try to ban phones?
Still in the app stores I see.
I'm sure public support for removing Facebook from app stores wouldn't be too different than Parler. If we are principled people, and FB is failing to moderate, then any reasonable person who supported Parler's removal would support Facebook's. What would be different between the two decisions is the sheer magnitude of money on the line, in the case of Facebook's removal -- in capital markets, in employment, etc.
If people had called one another to prepare this, would we say that the phone was responsible for the attack? And would we try to ban phones?
The phone network is useful for other uses society deems to be net-negative, such as spammy calls. As a result, technical and legal barriers were erected to curtail such abuses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure public support for removing Facebook from app stores wouldn't be too different than Parler. If we are principled people, and FB is failing to moderate, then any reasonable person who supported Parler's removal would support Facebook's. What would be different between the two decisions is the sheer magnitude of money on the line, in the case of Facebook's removal -- in capital markets, in employment, etc.
A decent distinction to make is Facebook on the face of it tries to moderate they're just bad at it and make decisions a lot of people aren't happy with where Parler's moderation system was almost entirely pro forma relying largely on showing reports to a panel of random users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sounds like some serious mental gymnastics to me. And also not provable with any specific metrics. It's not really, it just takes the concept of collateral damage into account. Should a billion Grandmas be denied their baby picture fix on account of a moderation team missing a few thousand users' insurrectionist and para-insurrectionist posts? Obviously not, since that action is high on collateral damage. That said…
Moral of story: FB and Twitter can do whatever they want, because they have more baby pictures. Any new social network has fewer baby pictures, and therefore can be held to a higher standard, to the point that it will be obliterated before it has a real chance to compete.
Eh, not really. You're forgetting the other half of the equation: Parler's niche was the stuff Facebook and Twitter had either banned or discouraged (like false claims of election fraud).
The real moral of the story is: don't try build your social network from Facebook and Twitter's concentrated dross.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Still in the app stores I see. That's because this stuff was a tiny fraction of the activity on Facebook (it's HUGE, and still mostly for baby pictures), but a substantial fraction of the content on Parler and Gab (they're tiny , and mostly for the stuff that Facebook and Twitter ban). A lot of people who object to Parler's treatment want this conceived as a simple binary, but it's more of a matter of degree an pro…
Apple’s reasoning was their incapacity to moderate violent messages, not their ratio of violent messages.