Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

891–900 of 975 posts

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#891

Post by vasvir »

brigandish wrote: post #859
vasvir wrote: post #839

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the underlying problem is the actual human programming deep in our genes. People tend to get organized in clans (i.e. football teams in Europe, political parties etc) and to host polarized opinions such as conspiracy theories that tend to question the status quo. There are two reasons for that: 1. Psychological Reason: It is tempting for an non educated man to adopt an opinion that derides existing knowledg…

This seems to imply that the educated man is always right and should not be questioned by others. Regardless of the education level of the questioner (or of the educated man), I can't see that being a good thing.

I didn't want to imply that.

Educated people can be wrong alright. However really educated people are rarely absolute in their positions because they know that the world is not black and white and almost always the answer is "it depends" and "let's see it from the other side".

However polarizing views are attracting to non educated minds because they often give their believers simplistic views, potential enemies and pseudo-arguments that can nail the other "educated" or even just common-sense people. It's frightening really to see in action the amount of flattering it goes on in such cases.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#892

Post by robertlagrant »

coldtea wrote: post #875
piskerpan wrote: post #758

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It lies in us. As despicable as Facebook is, I wish someone there would just come out and say “have you looked at yourself in the mirror?” It’s mindboggling to see them passively accept the questioning without mentioning that people are wolves and sheeples, and you don’t really need Facebook to join the two. Platforms like Facebook only bring us closer but the rotten core is within us.

> As despicable as Facebook is, I wish someone there would just come out and say “have you looked at yourself in the mirror?” That's orthogonal. Human nature is what it is, we have to work with what we have, and at best change that slowly within a culture/society. Facebook on the other hand, and how it operates, is almost infinitely malleable, and can be changed with just programmers working on the change. And it's n…

Well, it's more like giving everyone a Green Lantern ring. You can do whatever you imagine with it.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#893

Post by mistermann »

anthropodie wrote: post #804
JauntyHatAngle wrote: post #779

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People act based on circumstance. If there is a lot of food, people will lean towards sharing their food, and helping others - even anonymously in a truly "altruistic" sense. If everyone is starving, people will lean towards violence and stealing. Does this "expose the rotten core within us?", or is it just saying we have the capacity for both? If we were truly completely rotten we wouldn't share in either case. The…

I agree people are not rotten to the core but we keep blaming system and thus get rid of any personal accountability. Both are important. But so far it seems people have forgotten "looking at mirror". Everyone keeps blaming everyone else. So many conflicts would automatically get diffused if people looked within. Nobody wants to do that because it's hard. Blaming others and system is easy. Platforms providing healthy…

What if people don't know how to look within?

If you think about it, not only do we not teach such things, these sorts of ideas very often get mocked and dismissed as "woo woo".

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#894

Post by mistermann »

vasvir wrote: post #891
brigandish wrote: post #859

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to imply that the educated man is always right and should not be questioned by others. Regardless of the education level of the questioner (or of the educated man), I can't see that being a good thing.

I didn't want to imply that. Educated people can be wrong alright. However really educated people are rarely absolute in their positions because they know that the world is not black and white and almost always the answer is "it depends" and "let's see it from the other side". However polarizing views are attracting to non educated minds because they often give their believers simplistic views, potential enemies and…

Do you think you (and your ingroup members) do not suffer from any of these sort of problems, or suffer from them substially less on an absolute scale?

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#895

Post by bombcar »

TMWNN wrote: post #573
bombcar wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Web of trust works too well and unfortunate ideas can be entertained by someone you trust, which is a no-no once you have top-down ideas. Almost everyone has someone they trust so much that even the most insane conspiracy theory would be entertained at least for awhile if that trusted person brought it up.

>Almost everyone has someone they trust so much that even the most insane conspiracy theory would be entertained at least for awhile if that trusted person brought it up. What's wrong with that? If someone you trust brings up a crazy idea, it should be considered. Maybe for a day, maybe for an hour, maybe for a half second, but it shouldn't be dismissed immediately no matter what.

There's nothing wrong with it, but it is NOT desired at scale.

And as individuals we should build up those relationships in reality (not online) because they're incredibly helpful.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#896

Post by motohagiography »

danans wrote: post #784
motohagiography wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How can you identify this systematically (vs it being just your opinion), but not identify hate speech? What I think distinguishes malice is the prosecution example. Where if someone makes an argument about you personally, and they are unable to abstract the idea from you personally as an individual, that is acting with malintent toward you. Antagonizing someone personally by trying to scandalize them in the eyes o…

> Hate is something we only recently started accusing others of. Because hate was normalized before, just like child abuse, spousal abuse, and any number of other terrible things that we call out by name now. Just because we didn't have a general word for what inspired lynchings doesn't mean it didn't exist.

What was normal was not hate, and hate - as an extreme emotion - was never normal, but if belief in hate is the root of one's entire ontology, there isn't common ground with someone who doesn't have that princple. Acts of hate absolutely occurred, especially systemic ones that resulted in genocides, but what was considered normal was not hate. We have adapted the word to mean something it did not previously. Just like we don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity, I'd say the same thing about modern hate and self-interest.

The instances of the other examples have only barely been reduced by identifying them, and in many cases, it has licensed behaviours that don't fit the definition, and it has empowered a layer of people who have jobs effectively managing and extracting value from them now, imo. Like malice, I reject hate, and in doing so, I also reject indexing on it as the axiom for a positive morality.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#897

Post by coldtea »

robertlagrant wrote: post #892
coldtea wrote: post #875

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As despicable as Facebook is, I wish someone there would just come out and say “have you looked at yourself in the mirror?” That's orthogonal. Human nature is what it is, we have to work with what we have, and at best change that slowly within a culture/society. Facebook on the other hand, and how it operates, is almost infinitely malleable, and can be changed with just programmers working on the change. And it's n…

Well, it's more like giving everyone a Green Lantern ring. You can do whatever you imagine with it.

It would be, if the Green Lantern ring came with teams doings psychological studies how to fuck with your mind for profit and increase your spending time with it, and if its business model was dependent on framing how you discuss and what news and stories you see...

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#898

Post by filoleg »

threeseed wrote: post #627
filoleg wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

L'Oreal didn't pull their twitter ad spend[0]. 0. https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/loral-suspe...

FT disagrees: https://www.ft.com/content/17281b81-b801-4a8f-8065-76d3ffb40...

The Reuters article I linked was literally in response to the (false) claim by FT about the cancelation.

FT had "sources", while Reuters had a direct statement from L'Oreal itself, confirming that there was no pull of ad spending.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#899

Post by Izkata »

> Spam actually passes the test of “allow any legal speech” with flying colors. Hell, the US Postal Service delivers spam to your mailbox.

We're not yet in I, Robot territory; bots don't get freedom of speech.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#900

Post by elevation »

Izkata wrote: post #899

> Spam actually passes the test of “allow any legal speech” with flying colors. Hell, the US Postal Service delivers spam to your mailbox. We're not yet in I, Robot territory; bots don't get freedom of speech.

The constitutional "freedom of the press" allows all citizens to use machinery to mass produce their written messages for distribution to others; the initial realization of such a machine being the printing press.

So the freedom of speech doesn't belong to the bots but to the citizens who control them.

Post reply on HN