171–180 of 225 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
when considering the context from above, what do you think they were implying?
Nothing. Looking for subtext is an error on your part. The words they wrote were what they meant.
i asked specifically so we could remove subtext.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People who don't fear physical violence make this argument all the time. They don't know why it's wrong, because again, they do not fear violence. Speech is just things on the internet, that aren't actually real. They don't get doxxed, they can't be identified in a crowd, they can blend with whatever the majority is. It is very easy to defend "free speech absolutism" when you're not the target of hate speech. When yo…
This is a complete strawman. I'm muslim, born in a muslim country, and am living in the west yet I absolutely agree with the person you are replying to. Muslims are targeted by hate speech constantly, and there was a period in time (like, 3-4 years ago) when that was particularly intense. Much more so than almost any other minority, and in a much more concrete way (christchurch, travel bans, secret prisons, etc) Yet,…
What were you prevented from saying "because it was hate speech" with no extra deliberation? It's almost like the content matters.
Most Twitter users, as best I can tell, aren't actually complaining about what they see. They are complaining about what others see. In their view, they have the "correct opinions" and have not been biased by any algorithms or moderation. Meanwhile, the people that disagree with them are the ones being duped by algorithms, bad moderation, and bad actors. That's why there's a huge censorship movement right now in the…
> Most Twitter users, as best I can tell, aren't actually complaining about what they see. They are complaining about what others see. FWIW this doesn't match my experience at all, but I've hardly made a study of it. What I mean by that is that the limited complaints I have heard are mostly about a) bad quality advertisement targeting and b) political targeting, also mostly bad quality. "quality" here meaning accurac…
But I think the reason they push against this is that is risks people losing interest as the sort of people I follow aren't strong/consistent content creators. They're just people I know personally and want to stay in touch with. Twitter wants to be a firehose of stuff that fires me up. Instagram wants to be endless TV channels of constant content. Whereas I like being able to get up to date on everything my friends have posted, and then go back to what I was doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most Twitter users, as best I can tell, aren't actually complaining about what they see. They are complaining about what others see. FWIW this doesn't match my experience at all, but I've hardly made a study of it. What I mean by that is that the limited complaints I have heard are mostly about a) bad quality advertisement targeting and b) political targeting, also mostly bad quality. "quality" here meaning accurac…
Oh come now. I constantly hear this concern from my friends (almost exclusively left-of-center). And they aren't totally wrong? I have a qanon-er in my family; she's carefully curated her media sources to guarantee a pure, steady stream of nutjob garbage. The thing is, censoring twitter/facebook/youtube makes no difference - these people will find their fringe no matter how hard they have to look. At least on youtube…
Dislike button does nothing.
Hide because I don’t like this video option does nothing. It hides that video and keeps recommending competing channels on the same topic.
Don’t recommend channel button blocks the channel so that three more competing channels on the same topic take its place
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> (parent) Right but I don't want some wanker at Twitter or Facebook office decide that. > What's legal or illegal evolves with politics and culture. So there's no fundamental purchase there for the kind of moral conversation you were trying to elicit. If in a few years the people you accuse of wanting to control other people's speech are able to get some laws passed making the speech they want controlled properly il…
Copyright violations are a violations against a legal abstraction. Deepfakes are a new form of deception (I didn't imply sexual deepfakes). I used the language of "minors" to explicitly reference those gray legal areas around boundaries and teens sexting each other (which has landed those children in legal quagmires). None of those examples are "abhorrent" as much as "complicated". > "Site deciding this or that polit…
An algorithm that I can tune by having private +1, -1, and "hell no" buttons would be helpful. If I follow too many people and/or hashtags, I will end up with so many posts/toots that I spend a bunch of time reading through things that really aren't that interesting. If I had a way to easily mark content as interesting or not, an algorithm could construct my feed such that the things that I find interesting are more…
I think it's actually important for you to see all the sick shit. I think it's worth rubbing your nose in it. It's amazing how many technologists have a strong preference for truth in so many areas, but choose not understanding things they find disgusting and why they find them disgusting.
By being able to declutter my feed of things I don’t find interesting, I am likely to follow more people and hashtags, exposing me to more voices. With some effort and luck that includes more diverse voices.
Alternatively, I could just not follow people that have a low signal to noise ratio (per my interests) and I could block or mute those that frequently post uninteresting things to hashtags that I follow. I think this approach exposes me to less diversity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> (parent) Right but I don't want some wanker at Twitter or Facebook office decide that. > What's legal or illegal evolves with politics and culture. So there's no fundamental purchase there for the kind of moral conversation you were trying to elicit. If in a few years the people you accuse of wanting to control other people's speech are able to get some laws passed making the speech they want controlled properly il…
Copyright violations are a violations against a legal abstraction. Deepfakes are a new form of deception (I didn't imply sexual deepfakes). I used the language of "minors" to explicitly reference those gray legal areas around boundaries and teens sexting each other (which has landed those children in legal quagmires). None of those examples are "abhorrent" as much as "complicated". > "Site deciding this or that polit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> (parent) Right but I don't want some wanker at Twitter or Facebook office decide that. > What's legal or illegal evolves with politics and culture. So there's no fundamental purchase there for the kind of moral conversation you were trying to elicit. If in a few years the people you accuse of wanting to control other people's speech are able to get some laws passed making the speech they want controlled properly il…
Copyright violations are a violations against a legal abstraction. Deepfakes are a new form of deception (I didn't imply sexual deepfakes). I used the language of "minors" to explicitly reference those gray legal areas around boundaries and teens sexting each other (which has landed those children in legal quagmires). None of those examples are "abhorrent" as much as "complicated". > "Site deciding this or that polit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> (parent) Right but I don't want some wanker at Twitter or Facebook office decide that. > What's legal or illegal evolves with politics and culture. So there's no fundamental purchase there for the kind of moral conversation you were trying to elicit. If in a few years the people you accuse of wanting to control other people's speech are able to get some laws passed making the speech they want controlled properly il…
Copyright violations are a violations against a legal abstraction. Deepfakes are a new form of deception (I didn't imply sexual deepfakes). I used the language of "minors" to explicitly reference those gray legal areas around boundaries and teens sexting each other (which has landed those children in legal quagmires). None of those examples are "abhorrent" as much as "complicated". > "Site deciding this or that polit…
> None of those examples are "abhorrent" as much as "complicated".
Uhh, if you say so. They are your words after all, not mine.
> So is violent revolutionary religious politics the boundary?
I think the parent commenter's point was that you were both pretty much on the same page as far as being fine with illegal content being moderated, but the one thing they absolutely were not okay with is when powerful political entities (read: social networks) censor their political opponents in order to consolidate power for their own party.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You probably should read Popper before dismissing his ideas. If you don't want to, it's fine, but in that case it's hard to take your dismissal seriously. Like more or less anything real, this is not a simple binary problem.
I've read him, thank you, quite a few years ago. Wasn't impressed. Some of people here who take free speech for granted do not know its value. I live in a very authoritarian country, that once had free speech, and I have seen how restrictions on it creep in. And what I see happen in US and Europe follows a far too familiar path.