Private censorship is not the best way to fight hate or defend democracy (2018)

Post by boogies » Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 4:15 AM UTC

N00bN00b wrote: post #259

belltaco wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Servers and bandwidth are not free. People maintaining them need to eat too.

Computation, bandwidth and (open source) software is so cheap these days that it approaches free for many people (but not all). It's just a matter of coming up with a functioning model. Ad supported is just one such model and it's not a very new one at that. Remember, you made this comment on server that was provided to you for free without the need of ad support.

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 4:43 AM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #271

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure I follow the reasoning here. If we say that I posted the video (which falls under "imparting") and you intentionally searched for that video and viewed it (which falls under "seeking and receiving"), that seems like voluntary communication between us I would think. Fred may not want to see that video but that's a separate interaction between myself and him; I would wholeheartedly support Fr…

Well but did I intentionally search for that video , or did I search for, say, content about vaccines? If you're saying the video is unlisted/private and sent to people on a mailing list over email, that's one thing, but I think you're arguing that YT should act as a distributor as well, and there's no way to "impartially" order search results.

Post by joshuamorton » Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 4:54 AM UTC

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #274

joshuamorton wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well but did I intentionally search for that video , or did I search for, say, content about vaccines? If you're saying the video is unlisted/private and sent to people on a mailing list over email, that's one thing, but I think you're arguing that YT should act as a distributor as well, and there's no way to "impartially" order search results.

Nobody is forcing the searcher to view any of the content presented as search results and I think it's hard to make the case that mere exposure to unwanted search results is anything other than a minor irritation. I think we would be in agreement that improvements in search and algorithmic identification of content would be a great thing so that people who don't want to see fringe content can be helped to avoid recei…

Post by Barrin92 » Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 5:33 AM UTC

naasking wrote: post #54

faet wrote: post #6

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…

Post by inglor_cz » Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 6:37 AM UTC

gremloni wrote: post #246

inglor_cz wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If ISIS can recruit in person by talking to vulnerable people in the right mosques, surely other extremists have backup channels as well.

The more someone has to rely on backup channels and then backups of the back channel, the less likely you enroll new members.