Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

Post by miguelmota » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 4:35 AM UTC

emptyparadise wrote: post #79

bawolff wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What tools are these actually - the delete button? When it comes down to it - i like moderated spaces on the internet. I dont want to wade through spam, not to mention violent and abusive content. I don't like seeing shock images. So yes, i support having moderation. The question to me is not: yes/no moderation, its where you draw the line; what are your policies and how are they enforced. Fundamentally i think the s…

>Fundamentally i think the solution is competitors. This was a much easier position to take when the web did not just have a few social media giants with network effects, but still: if youtube becomes to dranicon, start a new website. The tools to stream video (albeit not at scale) are just an apt-get away. I agree. I wouldn't have a problem with YouTube doing anything if YouTube wasn't the video website. We need dec…

Post by opendysphoria » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 4:36 AM UTC

peytn wrote: post #114

Barrin92 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>are you prepared to have these tools fall into the wrong hands? Yes, because society has a plurality of institutions that constrain power. Restrictions (even speech restrictions themselves) are subject to the court of public opinion (we're talking about them right now), there's the judiciary, political opposition and so on. This argument never had any pull for me for the same reason I'm against abolishing the police…

Aren’t those institutions sort of circumventable by lying? Can’t I just say “Barrin92 is a bastard, so I’ve banned them from speaking. Look no closer lest I ban you, too.” Feels like we might be better off in the long run by agreeing on ground rules ahead of time and then sticking to them, no?

Post by opendysphoria » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 4:37 AM UTC

mercurialshark wrote: post #119

emptyparadise wrote: post #46

My question to everyone supporting restrictions on speech and supporting privacy violations, even for good reasons, is this: are you prepared to have these tools fall into the wrong hands? The same methods used to quickly shut down a dangerous website or to track down a terrorist by their online posts can be used to silence protests and to hunt down political opposition.

Yes, and I fundamentally reject the premise that inaccurate expression should be censored or moderated without a proximate cause to a specific harm or credible imminent apprehension of harm. I do not think censorship is justifiable for potential or non-quantifiable, collective psychic harm.

Post by chroem- » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 4:40 AM UTC

Post by thisiscorrect » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 4:41 AM UTC

scrollaway wrote: post #63

emptyparadise wrote: post #46

My question to everyone supporting restrictions on speech and supporting privacy violations, even for good reasons, is this: are you prepared to have these tools fall into the wrong hands? The same methods used to quickly shut down a dangerous website or to track down a terrorist by their online posts can be used to silence protests and to hunt down political opposition.

I would agree with you in the context of a government or public body. But in the context of private companies, these "tools" were always available. The wrong hands were always able to use them. And did, many times, in fact. Like, the problems you're describing are real but they aren't new, and aren't particularly a bigger threat now than they were before.