I wish this attitude was more prevalent. The most dangerous thing we can do is turn a non-partisan issue into a partisan one. As soon as it becomes about right vs. left, you have an army of people on Twitter, etc. who are ready to mindlessly shill a viewpoint, not because they know anything about it, but because it aligns with their political identity.
Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
421–430 of 600 posts
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#422Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps our generation must suffer during an evolutionarily difficult time so that we do not end up in 1984?
Perhaps our generation must rely less on ridiculous hyperbole whose only benefit is to drive engagement and instead consider more compromise solutions to situations like this?
What is given up in the compromise?
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#423Big tech censorship will not solved without addressing the other half of a problem with two sides. Without systems that promote quality, non-ideological, nuanced, original, tolerant dialogue we will keep running into the false dilemma of unmoderated cess pools or heavy handed moderation. If we are to avoid this dilemma we need systems that organically promote constructive, tolerant and inclusive communication, and or…
I like your comment and think it could potentially approach the broader problem in a roundabout way, but it does feel like a separate thing. But ignoring that, I run a forum and so think a lot about ways of encouraging decent conversation. I think Reddit mostly does pretty well in that (in my experience) the junk is hidden and requires effort to read. Hacker News pushes it down the page, but it's trivial to scroll down and see who's in the naughty corner out of curiosity.
I mostly read r/NBA and find the quality very decent. I'm sure there are trolls and racist rants and so on, but unless I expand comment branches, I don't see any of them. I find that the branches being pruned/hidden helps manage how much time I spend on a discussion too. On HN, I often feel like I want to read or skim every comment in a discussion which is rarely a great use of time.
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#424Take what you support and imagine it used against you in the worst possible ways. Do you still support it? If yes, then it is worth supporting. If it's not, then maybe you're only supporting it because of who it currently helps or harms. This exercise also works with things that you don't support.
This is very insightful. I've seen too many employees in big tech continue to shill their products and services because it helps their CEO or it helps their immediate team -- without thinking about who is being hurt (e.g. end users consuming snake oil) or how the product can be weaponized against the people it is supposed to be helping. This is as true for small startups as it is for companies with millions of end users.
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#425Big tech censorship will not solved without addressing the other half of a problem with two sides. Without systems that promote quality, non-ideological, nuanced, original, tolerant dialogue we will keep running into the false dilemma of unmoderated cess pools or heavy handed moderation. If we are to avoid this dilemma we need systems that organically promote constructive, tolerant and inclusive communication, and or…
"Without systems that promote quality, non-ideological, nuanced, original, tolerant dialogue we will keep running into the false dilemma of unmoderated cess pools or heavy handed moderation." - it is impossible to measure the qualifiers "quality", "nuanced", "tolerant", "original", "non-ideological" while still being objective. Thus, whatever implementation for enforcing these qualifiers you choose, it will inevitably lean towards some ideology. Hence, contradiction.
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#426Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I find the idea of Zuckerberg as an arbiter of morality both absurd and dystopian This is a very common characterization that I find frustratingly absurd. Zuckeberg is not "an arbiter of morality" in any respect, the contents of Facebook is a corporate business decision, not a reflection on morality.
> the contents of Facebook is a corporate business decision, not a reflection on morality. Are you suggesting business decisions are exempt from having moral consequences? Are the decision makers somehow less culpable as long as it is "just business"?
Of course business decisions have moral consequences. Does this imply that all business leaders are arbiters of morality, or is it only Zuckerberg--who is just making business decisions like the rest--who is an arbiter of morality?
The answer is, he's not. He's just a greedy person with a powerful company. There are no real moral decisions to be found here, hyperbole notwithstanding.
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#427Take what you support and imagine it used against you in the worst possible ways. Do you still support it? If yes, then it is worth supporting. If it's not, then maybe you're only supporting it because of who it currently helps or harms. This exercise also works with things that you don't support.
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 ..
No, since you are forgetting to take into account the probability of an outcome/risk analysis.
The probability of the local police being used against your city is so low, that the benefits are deemed to outweigh the risks. On the other hand, imagine software that lets you spy on all your employees' personal opinions, being sold as a way to "help strengthen culture-fit". That is something where the negatives may vastly outweigh the positives.
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#428Earlier 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.
> I find the idea of Zuckerberg as an arbiter of morality both absurd and dystopian This is a very common characterization that I find frustratingly absurd. Zuckeberg is not "an arbiter of morality" in any respect, the contents of Facebook is a corporate business decision, not a reflection on morality.
If yellow journalism can stampede a nation into war (e.g. "Remember the Maine") through presenting a slanted view of the situation, well, Facebook and however it chooses to editorialize what it allows to be presented to its users has a vastly bigger audience than the newspapers of old. There's nothing "absurd" about that.
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#429Earlier 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.
>Facebook should be forced
I would consider this sentiment more absurd and dystopian than Facebook freely removing content from its own website.
Re: Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship
#430Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this gets you into really weird places really quickly. How do you not end up with a censorship department of the government, that is tasked with writing moderation rules? It probably wouldn't be called a censorship office, but that's what it would be: a government office determining what can and can't be posted on social media. This seems entirely antithetical to the idea of the first amendment. Do you have a…
The legislatures are already the "censors" and the executive the once enforcing "censorship". And there is an "appeal" process to some degree in the judiciary branch. The legislatures already write the "moderation rules" for entire societies. Unlike the big companies who are only beholden to their share holders - and sometimes only really that one shareholder called Mark - the legislatures are beholden at least in th…
Having the government writing censorship rules sounds absolutely dystopian to me.
There are plenty of ways to get information on the internet - just because Facebook says "no porn" doesn't mean you can't get porn on the internet, you know?
But there's only one government (per country, of course). If your government says no porn... What then?