Do we need Twitter that much? Is it worth ruining the society in the name of having twitter or a similar social media? 90s and 00s with all sorts of independent discussion boards were great. Somehow moderation kept up without crappy AI. I can’t see a single benefit of Twitter/FB/etc over fragmented forums as a user.
I’m guessing the “somehow” has something to do with the order of magnitude fewer users on the internet.
More like forums were fragmented. Topics, geographically etc. And politics was either sophisticated forums or just a byproduct of those fragmented topics.
More users, many of them lurkers, would just result in more fragmentation and niches in that old world.
The old forums was safe from feeling of censorship too. If you didn’t like mods too much, you could not easily go to another forum or start your own.
Thailand has laws about how one can talk about the king, right? Maybe there's no safe harbor provisions for websites, and a site this size is too small to fight, but big enough to attract attention?
It sounds like they aren't basing it on how much regulation the jurisdiction has, but whether the jurisdiction brings in enough revenue to justify reviewing the regulation in the first place. Even if there is no regulation, you need a lawyer to tell you that.
What's the threat of not loving up to their regulation when not being located there? Isn't the worst scenario that they just block your website on their end?
Every time I read about these dystopian deplatforming events on Hacker News, my first reaction is to write a comment on how we could find our way out of this. Then the term "Web3" comes up in my mind, and then I think "Oh now, this is HN, they will burn you alive" and I turn to other things again. But right now, for some reason I feel so strongly about, I'll give it another try. Wouldn't it be great if we could tackl…
But a true web3 is possible: not through blockchain and things like that, but through things like WebRTC, Bittorrent and protocols of that sort. Peertube is one example of something of that sort.
A revival of a noncommercial, and uncommercializable web.
This is how big tech does damage to humans. Love it or hate it, the online world is our current public square. A public square, in the united states, has typically been an area where people can shout out their concerns or whatever they want to anyone who can listen and the government cannot stop it. Currently, our public squares are owned by private megacorporations that not only ban people for reasons many people ag…
The public square argument is a distraction and it goes nowhere. What needs to be called out is Twitter just being terrible at enforcing their own TOS, and the human review process apparently having no oversight or consequences for responses like the author received. This is a straightforward problem of bad and inconsistent service quality.
And the only way to fix it is regulation — with teeth — of privately-owned public communications platforms. Does anyone see another way that could work?
Here's a fun story. I see that this post is from fanbyte.com. Existing got me banned from fanbyte.com and all of the websites they own. Specifically, existing in a particular country. Not an exotic or unusual one on an embargo list or something -- just some country that Fanbyte felt they weren't earning enough profit from. They banned the entire populations of about ten countries from their entire network of websites…
This is how big tech does damage to humans. Love it or hate it, the online world is our current public square. A public square, in the united states, has typically been an area where people can shout out their concerns or whatever they want to anyone who can listen and the government cannot stop it. Currently, our public squares are owned by private megacorporations that not only ban people for reasons many people ag…
>I would love to know a way this can be solved as its painting a depressing picture. I don't like how this makes me feel. Easy. Stop banning people unless the content is illegal. Stop acting as moral police. Let the community police itself by burying offensive content. Give users absolute control over what they see. And ban bots. This “problem” only exists because Twitter wants to control what you see.
The video in question seems to have been (incorrectly) flagged as either a revenge porn or upskirt video, which people have struggled to get taken down before the damage was done.
This is how big tech does damage to humans. Love it or hate it, the online world is our current public square. A public square, in the united states, has typically been an area where people can shout out their concerns or whatever they want to anyone who can listen and the government cannot stop it. Currently, our public squares are owned by private megacorporations that not only ban people for reasons many people ag…
> A public square, in the united states, has typically been an area where people can shout out their concerns or whatever they want to anyone who can listen and the government cannot stop it. Growing up in Birmingham, AL I had a couple teachers who had dog bites and remembered the hoses from when they tried to shout out whatever they wanted in public squares. It's always interesting how people have such a rosy view o…
They remember the dog bites because its cases where the government acted illegally and were taken to task.
Today, the governing actor of our virtual public squares are corporations - and a significant amount of people (maybe not you) seem to be ok with them taking what actions they wish.
This is how big tech does damage to humans. Love it or hate it, the online world is our current public square. A public square, in the united states, has typically been an area where people can shout out their concerns or whatever they want to anyone who can listen and the government cannot stop it. Currently, our public squares are owned by private megacorporations that not only ban people for reasons many people ag…
> A public square, in the united states, has typically been an area where people can shout out their concerns or whatever they want to anyone who can listen and the government cannot stop it. Growing up in Birmingham, AL I had a couple teachers who had dog bites and remembered the hoses from when they tried to shout out whatever they wanted in public squares. It's always interesting how people have such a rosy view o…
It's better to face opposition like that than to be disappeared from the public square.
This is how big tech does damage to humans. Love it or hate it, the online world is our current public square. A public square, in the united states, has typically been an area where people can shout out their concerns or whatever they want to anyone who can listen and the government cannot stop it. Currently, our public squares are owned by private megacorporations that not only ban people for reasons many people ag…
Worth pointing out that more life exists outside the corporate run stages. Part of their trick is to make you think that the only way of life is via their platforms. I’m not and never have been a Twitter or or TikTok or Facebook member.
I don’t think it’s a trick at all, it’s actually much worse than being kicked out of a public square. Making YouTube videos or Tweets or Facebook posts can be your job and facilitate your entire form of income. You spend 10 years cultivating a following and if you say or do the wrong thing, you don’t just lose the public square, you basically get fired. Yea you can try to diversify but the average person doesn’t do this, they build something somewhere specific. These platforms are tremendously important, both for speech and for peoples livelihoods. Banning people and the appeals should be much more of a delicate process than currently. Right now these moderators are akin to police departments with no court system. One day we will enact laws that force companies of certain sizes to have an appeal process, or in some way dedicate resources to accurate appeals, or maybe just force companies to keep records of the ban and give users the right to sue for mistakes, similar to workers have for with employers. We almost need an entirely new public court system to manage that process so the burden isn’t on companies or users. I don’t have the answers but at some point consumer rights will be needed to stop abuse or lethargy in moderation of important decisions.
Interesting that another commenter got a similar clip banned from same source that also ended in a middle grey blank screen. I have a feeling that the algorithm is using luma only without color information, and in the absence of contrast (blank middle grey) it trips the first check it comes across. Would be interesting to test.