171–180 of 330 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
source?
Have you read the conclusions of the study? Do they comport with events of the past 5 years? Not at all
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you want Reddit to literally adopt 8chan's moderation policy, meaning that Reddit now will become the place that inspires mass shooters instead of 8chan (which by the way, is no longer a place that inspires mass shootings, since it was killed by Cloudfare after the last one, and replaced with the impotent and unpopular 8kun).
>Reddit now will become the place that inspires mass shooters instead of 8chan I can guarantee that there are plenty of evil doings on Reddit and Facebook. One argument, and a more honest one, that people can make is that (a) social media is toxic and (b) it should be made illegal generally. Bingo bango, no mass shootings I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot fewer people smoke now in the US than several decades ago. So let's do it. Let's isolate and restrict the hateful, the angry, the irrational EXACTLY like we did smoking.
This seems like a decent idea until someone in power decides that you are hateful, angry, or irrational.
> Making bad things illegal seems like a decent idea until they make something you like doing illegal
Therefore just have no laws, I guess?
Sometimes an imperfect, abusable system is better than no system. In fact, I'd wager that's usually the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes? I understand what courts do, my only point was that setting out two extreme situations where a certain right may be suspended doesn't constitute "fair weather" in my eyes.
The founders allowed for rights to be revoked when the "weather" got extremely bad: agree or disagree?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And when you ban misinformation on your platform, that "anti-vaxxer" instead goes to 8chan where by your argument might inspire them to shoot people up.
But you want Reddit to literally adopt 8chan's moderation policy, meaning that Reddit now will become the place that inspires mass shooters instead of 8chan (which by the way, is no longer a place that inspires mass shootings, since it was killed by Cloudfare after the last one, and replaced with the impotent and unpopular 8kun).
I want reddit to adopt the public square's policy of allowing any content that isn't illegal, which also happens to be pretty much synonymous with 8chan's policy.
Do you consider the town square (which has the policy of allowing content that is not illegal) a center of inspiration for mass shootings? Could it be that the public square is not viewed as a place for inspiration of mass shooting, have anything to do with integration of many ideas and the fact that someone bringing bad ideas might actually be challenged in an environment where they are exposed to the general ideas of the community rather than an echo chamber of fellow nazis or whatever?
The nazi hall may have the same moderation policy as the town square, that doesn't mean I expect the same inspirations to come out of the nazi hall. The issue with the nazi hall is the powder-keg full of people reinforcing bad ideas, whereas a nazi in a more "normal" place like the public square might have some chance of being shamed or convinced their anti-social ideas are undesirable (despite the nazi hall and public square having same moderation policy). I don't want to shove more people into the nazi hall by banning them from the public square (especially when they're only being banned from the square because they have unconventional views on vaccines.)
---------------
In the censor's world, the people with undesirable ideas in the public square are kicked into 8chan where instead of their ideas being challenged they all end up in a self reinforcing chamber. The proportional amount of people wanting a mass shooting may be tenfold that in the public square, leading to more compressed exposure including by other people who were originally just anti-vax or whatever. And the people running the public square turn around and say "see, 8chan allows any ideas, and that's what happens when you do that!"
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…
This paper is trash. On defining hate speech, "we focus on textual content that is distinctively characteristic of these forums", so, yes, banning specific subreddits resulted in less of that content in the overall Reddit. Did it make Reddit a more friendly place? Probably not as tensions have never been higher.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like a decent idea until someone in power decides that you are hateful, angry, or irrational.
You could use the same reasoning like > Making bad things illegal seems like a decent idea until they make something you like doing illegal Therefore just have no laws, I guess? Sometimes an imperfect, abusable system is better than no system. In fact, I'd wager that's usually the case.
No. But have a system where some single powerful person can't just make up laws on a whim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
source?
Have you read the conclusions of the study? Do they comport with events of the past 5 years? Not at all
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Banning hate communities does work though [0] That's like saying banning smoking in the park reduces smoking because nobody's smoking in the park any more.
A lot fewer people smoke now in the US than several decades ago. So let's do it. Let's isolate and restrict the hateful, the angry, the irrational EXACTLY like we did smoking.
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 last few years have shown me how many people are willing to believe utterly stupid things, and how easy it is to make people turn against each other. I knew this in the abstract, but watching it happen in real time is something else. The human mind (myself included) has some serious bugs, and "we" as a society - with help from technology - are getting better and better at exploiting these bugs at scale. I don't t…
If anyone wants some good examples of this, go to Reddit and read the posts /r/HermanCainAward that are marked "Awarded". No need to read the comments there--they are often rather mean. Just take a look at the submissions themselves.
For those not familiar with /r/HermanCainAward, the typical submission is a gallery of screenshots of someone's social media posts, usually full of memes about why they are not masking/distancing/getting vaccinated and invariably ending with them getting COVID, asking for prayers, and then someone else announcing that the person has died and often asking for donations to help their widow and/or children get buy (because apparently the kind of person who feels that they should get get all their COVID advice from stupid memes and conspiracy theories is also the kind of person who does't believe in life insurance...).
> The human mind (myself included) has some serious bugs, and "we" as a society - with help from technology - are getting better and better at exploiting these bugs at scale. I don't think censorship is a solution, but I don't know what IS a solution.
This too is illustrated nicely on /r/HermanCainAward. Before all this I would have thought that if I needed to convince a lot of people to make the kind of mistakes that the HCA winners do I would need to carefully craft an individual plan for each one of them. I would have never guessed that just making a dozen or so memes would be enough.