The people on the "right side of history" are usually fighting for freedom and liberty, not censorship and re-education camps
People on the right side of history are the ones who won the war period.
Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
91–100 of 600 posts
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
> factually incorrect, scientifically illiterate, conspiratorial, harmful crank ideas There are indeed some factual mistakes floating around, mostly around covid-is-just-a-flu and the-earth-is-flat discussions. But usually shit hits the fan in social issues of poverty, homelessness, abortion rights and such. Alas, there's no hard science in most of these issues. There is a bunch of plausible-looking speculations, phi…
I don't know, I genuinely don't have a good solution - I'm pretty sure "ban it" is not one. But I think we need to recognise, when we try to address this stuff, that our current picture of speech online is suffering not just from deplatforming, but also domination of some narratives by high volumes of motivated bullshit. > usually shit hits the fan in social issues of poverty, homelessness, abortion rights and such.…
> and such views actually start to impact the uptake
I’m not sure that’s how the chain of causality works. We have 80s-style public health communication that isn’t effective today. People are looking for a reason to reject it. If not the 5G chip stuff, it’d be something else.
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#93Those who's looking to censor the information for the sake of the greater good:
USA. Little to no censorship (yet). Vaccination rate: 55%
Russia. Mass media is controlled by the state. Vaccination rate: 20%
Hmmmm...
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such a vetting would be (1) extremely expensive and (2) in most cases the decision would "well... We don't know for sure"
The worst part is that people will be told "You don't know for sure" rather than people using their brain and come to the conclusion that they dont know for sure. Which is actually the default for any critical thinking person. And it helps a lot to not fall for extremist views or ideas which are usually presented oversimplified and thus fool people who usually quickly pick sides rather than accepting the default of n…
> Rather than a fact checker maybe an algorithm could find opposing content and present this. That would force the user to make some "fact"-checks aka to think. needed to say that such an algorithms could/would be biased as well.
What do you think of a small social network composed of vetted (and always subject to review) reasonably trustworthy and fairly unbiased but definitely open minded users who decompose, fact check, and deeply debate very small volumes of stories, using a platform more sophisticated than nested discussions with voting? Something with structures like a "points for" and "points against" format, among many other novel (as far as social media goes) features, where "it is not really known for sure" is a perfectly acceptable conclusion, subject to review as new information becomes available?
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Winners usually frame their fights as ones for freedom and liberty, and emphasize their enemy's use of censorship and re-education camps.
Something is either being censored or it's not. Regardless of the issue, I'll side with the side that is not censoring information.
[deleted]
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
This applies to policing in general of all kinds? Isn't this literally an "abolish the police" argument? After all, imagine the police used against you in the worst possible way ..
Surely one can conceive of effective ways to limit to damage the police can do to people short of abolishing the police. For example, disarm the police and they can’t shoot you.
Well, yes, that's kind of my point; strawmanning all sorts of scenarios distracts from taking a look at what's actually happening and creating meaningful checks and balances.
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#97>First of all, the internet’s “marketplace of ideas” is severely lopsided at the platform level The marketplace of ideas itself has been show to be a bust in recent years, IMHO. Better ideas, better models of truth and reality don't win out. People have not shown themselves interested in intellectual debate or argument. We do not see the 'best' ideas rise to the top. And before anyone asks who I am to judge the best…
Missing from this discussion is the understanding that speech is an inalienable right.
It does not need to be justified on consequentialist grounds, nor on the basis of the more pernicious metric of harm reduction.
Pointing a gun at someone to silence her is a form of censorship, and so is quietly erasing her from the most prevalent communications channels (deplatforming).
Figure out a way to achieve harm reduction without grotesque violations of natural rights. Until then, there will always be people who prefer dangerous speech to the safety of slavery.
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Will facebook be forced to show its users the same nastiness it just booted off, because of the interop necessities? Facebook should be forced to show me the feeds I choose to subscribe to. I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself whether I find something nasty, and I find the idea of Zuckerberg as an arbiter of morality both absurd and dystopian.
You seem to want some sort of aggregator ... ? I'm not sure facebook's the best model to start with there. I think you'd be happier with a third-party service that could receive from FB, and then we wouldn't get into forcing facebook to carry stuff.
I don't want to force FB to do anything. I want to require all social media companies to allow aggregation (though ActivityPub etc) but if Zuckerberg/Facebook decide they don't want to be in that industry, I would have no problem with them simply closing down.
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Will the services be forced to accept whatever unmoderated feed of filth the linked to service sends their way? I was kinda wondering that. If a user gets banned, and moves off-platform to continue the behaviour there, but is somehow magically still linked to everyone they were linked with before... has anything really changed? Will facebook be forced to show its users the same nastiness it just booted off, because…
> Will facebook be forced to show its users the same nastiness it just booted off, because of the interop necessities? Facebook should be forced to show me the feeds I choose to subscribe to. I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself whether I find something nasty, and I find the idea of Zuckerberg as an arbiter of morality both absurd and dystopian.
So, you are in favor of things like pedophilia/child grooming online, revenge porn, defamation, false advertisement, fraud, etc. because YOUR moral may approve of it regardless of laws or harm to others. Got it.
The idea of no-regulation free for all is childish/sick nonsense. If you want to have your own nazi-phedo site/feed, host it yourself and face the cost and consequences yourself, don't force private for profit companies to do it for you for free at the expense of their brand and their advertisers.
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't downvote but I read twice and I don't understand what you're saying. Maybe you could try and rephrase to make your point clearer?
* Problems with fake news, censorship etc are much bigger outside of big tech than inside (media monopolies and propoganda like fox news for a start). * so if you actually care about those issues (rather than just hating big tech) you need to fix things beyond big tech * that means reform of the 1st amendment * I suspect that no one actually wants that, they just don't like Facebook etc but they're used to Tucker Car…
Yes I understand now thanks!