We want protocols, not platforms.
People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
141–150 of 152 posts
Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people in the western world are more frequently harmed by words than by physical violence. Way more frequently. You're fired is just words, your health insurance is denied is just words, we don't accept your type here is words, you're being sued by someone with effectively infinite means is just words. But those words that will drastically change the course of your life. While I abhor physical violence, I do als…
The examples you're listing aren't just words. They're actions. I could say I'm going to deny your health insurance, or deny entry of your type to my group, or sue you for something. But notice how me saying any of these things don't actually have any immediate effect on you, because I don't control your health insurance or moderate a group you want to be in, or know who you are to sue you. I can use words to convinc…
They're words with consequences, backed by law and the freedom of companies doing all they're permitted to do; but fundamentally just words. Contracts are just words, but words with meaning and power, because we all agree to play by those rules.
Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#143Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
A regime attempting to kill a large group of people is also oppressive and much worse. If the regime is able to do this because of speech then people are choosing the least worst option.
> A regime attempting to kill a large group of people is also oppressive and much worse. Indeed. But one should realize that thorny words are precisely what replaces physical violence. Human nature doesn't change in a democratic society that allows free dialogue, what changed is the way it is expressed. If you erase the horrible parts of ourselves we worked hard to banish onto paper, they will eventually remanifest t…
>If you erase the horrible parts of ourselves we worked hard to banish onto paper, they will eventually remanifest themselves in reality.
What does this mean? That if people aren't able to express or relieve themselves of some horrible act then some people will be more likely to do something bad?
Like if a person can't be racist against Muslims on Facebook (due to it being illegal) they will be more likely to harm Muslims physically?
Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
An opinion can't be falsified. "The sun is a giant ball of fusing hydrogen" has the possibility of being proven false. This means it's either a true or false fact. If I said "NYC is the capital of the United States"* I'm either lying or mistaken What makes it a lie vs mistaken? Whether it's a genuine belief, that I have a reason to have the belief. For example if I made the assumption it's the capital because it's th…
Right; and there are things which fall into the "true or false" category that are difficult to get clear answers for; economic policy is something that there are just too many confounding factors to prove to the same degree you can prove the laws of physics, for example. And even for claims which are in the realm of "fact", which are false, but which are truly believed, we need to be careful about suppressing truth.…
>Where do we draw the line between "healthy skepticism" and "dangerous falsehood"
The line is whether the person is genuine in belief and the potential harm. There's no direct harm if someone believes the sun revolves around the earth.
Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a private entity enforcing rules for what they're willing to host and distribute on the platform what becomes of the public square under this doctrine tho? There cannot be more than one public square, as it's a natural monopoly, so a platform that turned itself into a public square (and extracting rents from doing so) means they get to control a narrative displayed in public (presumably suitable to their agenda). A…
Except the "public square" thing isn't real. You do not get to say whatever you want in the local pub, the local library, the local mall, the local grocery store (even if it is the only one!) or the local town hall! You can be trespassed explicitly for your speech in any of them, or even for no reason . The only grocery store in town can say "You aren't allowed here anymore because fuck you", and as long as you canno…
What you're describing isn't a free speech concern. Free speech was always meant to be a protection from government limiting speech.
You can be trespassed from public property like a library but the bar is very high and simply saying something they don't like will not hold up in court.
Electric companies, social media companies, grocery stores, etc can do whatever they want with regards to limiting speech. The only issue would be if the government compelled those organizations to limit speech, see the Twitter files for an example of government overreach almost certainly violating free speech protections or finding just how far they can go before legal liability.
Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#147Several European governments have jailed people for social media posts. Many Europeans support this - they don't understand how government censorship can quickly get out of hand. As for falsehoods: some people will be mistaken, some people will lie, and sometimes sarcasm will be misunderstood. Why should anyone be liable? It is on each individual to inform themselves, and to decide what to believe and what to disrega…
>Several European governments have jailed people for social media posts. Many Europeans support this - they don't understand how government censorship can quickly get out of hand. I think quite a few Europeans have lasting and direct experience with totalitarian, oppressive regimes. Which might also explain why they have stricter (or simply more precise) laws governing expression – not as an oppressive tool, but as a…
Nope, that's giving them too much credit. Censorship is oppressive except in very narrow circumstances. Free speech is actually the safety valve in society. Censorship is one of the hallmarks of a tyrannical regime, and is incompatible with democracy.
Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A regime attempting to kill a large group of people is also oppressive and much worse. Indeed. But one should realize that thorny words are precisely what replaces physical violence. Human nature doesn't change in a democratic society that allows free dialogue, what changed is the way it is expressed. If you erase the horrible parts of ourselves we worked hard to banish onto paper, they will eventually remanifest t…
Most people in the western world are more frequently harmed by words than by physical violence. Way more frequently. You're fired is just words, your health insurance is denied is just words, we don't accept your type here is words, you're being sued by someone with effectively infinite means is just words. But those words that will drastically change the course of your life. While I abhor physical violence, I do als…
>You're fired is just words, your health insurance is denied is just words, we don't accept your type here is words, you're being sued by someone with effectively infinite means is just words. But those words that will drastically change the course of your life.
None of these is "just words" lol. The words just convey something that will or won't be done. All of these examples are overly dramatic too. I too wish I lived in a world where nobody could tell me "no" but that'll never happen. If someone has lots of money and you don't, they probably won't sue you. Especially for a petty reason. There's not enough to gain from that.
>While I abhor physical violence, I do also realize some words are also a type of violence in and of themselves.
Violence is physical. People are only trying to claim a connection because they want to censor their enemies using one of the exceptions to free speech, which is when there is threat of imminent violence. As nasty or unpleasant as words may be, they bear no resemblence to actual violence. And no, you don't get to censor people because they say stuff that you feel bad about. The whole point of free speech is to allow the expression of unpopular and unpleasant words. Please get your language right and stop trying to gaslight the rest of us into a censorship program. Thank you for your attention to this matter lol
Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right; and there are things which fall into the "true or false" category that are difficult to get clear answers for; economic policy is something that there are just too many confounding factors to prove to the same degree you can prove the laws of physics, for example. And even for claims which are in the realm of "fact", which are false, but which are truly believed, we need to be careful about suppressing truth.…
>Where do we draw the line between "healthy skepticism" and "dangerous falsehood" The line is whether the person is genuine in belief and the potential harm. There's no direct harm if someone believes the sun revolves around the earth.
> There's no direct harm if someone believes the sun revolves around the earth.
No direct harm; but it may be comorbid with other things that cause harm, like vaccine skepticism.
There is a question about what the best response is. Just censoring disinformation like this may cause people who notice / experience the censorship to give more credence to the disinformation. But as is apparent from the whole "flat earth" fiasco, there are a large number of people who seem simply incapable of understanding basic math or scientific principles. The earth can be proven round by personal observations made by anyone. If people still cannot be convinced the earth is round, how are they to be convinced about things that they cannot collect personal observations, like vaccines, or the holocaust, or January 6th?
At any rate, I'm glad I'm not running a platform like YouTube; it's not an easy problem.
Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
Child sexual abuse material is evidence of violence, and act of violence, all at once.
So are videos of people being punched and stabbed. Those are legal
The sharing and owning of those videos aren't part of the violence as they are with CSAM. That feels evident, right?