71–80 of 330 posts
Banning hate communities does work though [0]. I assume that the results are similar for twitter and facebook. "Hateful" Reddit or FB communities also don't allow "free speech". The moderators will ban people who go against the grain. There is no free exchange of ideas or disputing as if you're going against the grain you'll just get banned from that community (but not the platform). As such, either the platforms all…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the state's going to host it, then their bar should be whether it's legal or not. If they want to put scary warnings around certain content or lock some of it behind age restriction, sure, fine. But if they are going to use public funds to host a government run publicly available video sharing platform, they should be very cautious about removing any content that doesn't violate actual laws. Free speech and all th…
Yes, exactly. And deciding legality should be done better than current automatic moderations that punish innocent content without a working appeals process.
It made politics much more boring.
As it should be.
This is also why there may be a problem with the truism "the best way to counter bad speech is by allowing more speech". Well, what if the engagement algorithsm cause the bad speech to get amplified 1000x more than the speech which has objectively verifiable truth claims? Free speach assumes that truth and lies would be treated more or less equally --- but that's not necessarily true on modern platforms.
So it's not only a question of whether people have the "right" to publish whatever they want on a platform. Sure, you can stand on a public street corner and rant and rave about whatever you want, including "stop the steal", or "the world is about to end". But you don't have the right to do that with an amplifier which causes your speech to blare out at 100 decibels. Similarly, platforms might want to _not_ amplify certain pieces of content that are killing people by spreading misinformation, or destroying democracy, or encouraging genocide. And that might very well be the best thing platforms can do.
But now we have the problem that content can be shared across platforms. So even if one platform doesn't cause information about vaccines causing swollen testicles from showing up on millions and millions of News Feeds --- what if that same information, posted on one platform, is shared on another platform which is much less scrupulous?
So for example, suppose platform Y decided not to amplify videos that they decided was scientifically incorrect, because they didn't want to have the moral stain of aiding and betting people from killing themselves by not being vaccinated, or not allowing their children from being vaccinated. But another platform, platform F, which had done the research indicating this would happen, but actively decided that $$$ was more important than silly things like ethics or destroying democracy, might promote content that by linking to videos being posted on Platform Y. Maybe the best thing Platform Y could do would be to remove those videos from their platform, since even though they were no longer amplifying that information, it was being amplified by another platform?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"Hateful" Reddit or FB communities also don't allow "free speech". The moderators will ban people who go against the grain. Which is fine I think, but why have Reddit or FB do the censoring (aside from things that are outright illegal). I don't much care if a bunch of Nazis or tankies are busy planning world domination on Reddit while sharing recipes. Why do you care?
> Why do you care? Because zero moderation beyond criminal content is 8chan, which arguably inspired mass shootings. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/04/three-m...
Banning hate communities does work though [0]. I assume that the results are similar for twitter and facebook. "Hateful" Reddit or FB communities also don't allow "free speech". The moderators will ban people who go against the grain. There is no free exchange of ideas or disputing as if you're going against the grain you'll just get banned from that community (but not the platform). As such, either the platforms all…
Sure it worked at reducing hate speech on reddit , but is that the right objective? It's not implausible to think that the resentment from such local measures could cause hate to increase in a more global sense. Kind of like entropy in thermodynamics: local work can reduce local entropy, but at the expense of causing a global increase in entropy. If the real objective should be a global decrease in hate, then maybe l…
A lot of people moved over to telegram channels because you could actually ask questions without getting banned for concern trolling, misinformation or incitement - e.g. asking where protests were happening which is what got me banned finally. Ironically I was asking where they were happening so I could avoid them.
The result of that policing is that I now have a telegram account and regularly scan a dozen right wing channels so I know if I can buy groceries without getting tear gassed.
If this is what winning looks like for the left we don't need help in losing.
2020-2021 has shown me that most people happen to be 'fair weather fans' of civil rights. Everyone claims to love free speech but when suppression of speech opposing their own worldview comes into play, they suddenly dither and fall back on other rationalizations to justify the censorship. Well, it's not free speech being violated when it's 'hate speech'. Well, it's not free speech being violated when it's 'misinform…
Although I don't fundamentally disagree with your point, I don't think you're framing the issue fairly. It's not a matter of most people being enemies of free speech, it's just that this is an inherently difficult problem. Everyone draws the line differently on what's acceptable and what isn't, and every platform is trying to foster a different kind of community.
I disagree. If you believe in censoring opinions and ideas, you do not believe in free speech. Period.
2020-2021 has shown me that most people happen to be 'fair weather fans' of civil rights. Everyone claims to love free speech but when suppression of speech opposing their own worldview comes into play, they suddenly dither and fall back on other rationalizations to justify the censorship. Well, it's not free speech being violated when it's 'hate speech'. Well, it's not free speech being violated when it's 'misinform…
The tyranny of the majority has already decided it's OK to require a license to exercise a right, in many US jurisdictions.
2020-2021 has shown me that most people happen to be 'fair weather fans' of civil rights. Everyone claims to love free speech but when suppression of speech opposing their own worldview comes into play, they suddenly dither and fall back on other rationalizations to justify the censorship. Well, it's not free speech being violated when it's 'hate speech'. Well, it's not free speech being violated when it's 'misinform…
> 2020-2021 has shown me that most people happen to be 'fair weather fans' of civil rights. A close read of the constitution itself shows that this has been the case since the very founding of the united states. > The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure it worked at reducing hate speech on reddit , but is that the right objective? It's not implausible to think that the resentment from such local measures could cause hate to increase in a more global sense. Kind of like entropy in thermodynamics: local work can reduce local entropy, but at the expense of causing a global increase in entropy. If the real objective should be a global decrease in hate, then maybe l…
I suppose to the extent these channels of communication recruit and radicalise, if they are shut down they will not be able to recruit and radicalise. The act of shutting them down might infuriate regular users of these channels, but they’re already radicalised anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, exactly. And deciding legality should be done better than current automatic moderations that punish innocent content without a working appeals process.
The USA used to have a Fairness Doctrine. It required political viewpoints to have equal air time. It made politics much more boring. As it should be.