391–400 of 600 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Erdogan and his ilk single-handedly made me hesitant about donating, that regardless who I donate to, they’ll find a way to line their pockets. I ended up donating, do the same, but Erdogan is a bastard man.
I thought Dennis was the bastard man?
Turkey should not be considered a democracy anymore, that's the sad reality. A country becoming a de factor dictatorship should not stay in NATO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is one of many, many reasons why western countries and social media companies should not normalise censorship re-branded like "fighting disinformation".
Curiously, all the people that support such censorship in western countries are actually against it in this instance. Almost like whether or not they choose to support a policy depends not on what it does but instead on who it’s being done to.
Erdogan's first speech was almost 2 days after the earthquake and he said "We are monitoring who said what on the social media and tried to provoke the people. Today it's not the day to go after those but we take notes and when the day comes, we will go after them". Just look at his face when delivering this speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doy38aKbMw4 It's like from V for Vendetta. The lighting choice is very…
This is one of many, many reasons why western countries and social media companies should not normalise censorship re-branded like "fighting disinformation".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly this. Censorship should be a nuanced topic if anyone gives it any serious thought. Not all censorship is at the same level, and there is obviously a difference between shutting down Twitter and not letting folks criticize the government and, say, not telling folks misinformation that can lead to another's harm or death (fake cures, for example).
The problem with allowing the interpretation of whether something should be censored be based on the obvious nuances that it entails is that the exact nuance is not universal among all people. This is why ZERO censorship is the only reasonable form of censorship.
It is the case that unless you are a polymath with copious amount of time and money, you will never be able to accumulate sufficient information to make fully educated decisions in a world truly devoid of censorship.
By fully educated I mean starting from the bottom up and going all the way through to reach a conclusion.
This means that every single resource you will use has to be verified, all experiments need to be conducted and evaluated.
If we don’t censor anything, then there is no point in books because editors are censoring information there.
What’s the point of journals and publications without a review process to filter out the garbage?
You could very well be a reasonable person, but without censorship to varying degrees your capacity filter garbage is hindered by simply not knowing anything to a reasonable degree of certainty exactly because no form of censorship exists. Thus your capacity to limit information based on prior knowledge is hindered as there is not an authority of any kind that you may trust exactly because there is no way to measure quality of one’s speech outside the scrutiny it passes through through established channels and authorities that already have a reputation and we may trust.
The reason we do censorship is because not all speech is benevolent, useful, or true. People will abuse the absence of censorship to attack “unwanted” people, to push lies, to misrepresent information, and to push an agenda instead of letting facts do the talking.
Why is it difficult for facts to do the talking?
> Brandolini's law, also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle, is an internet adage that emphasizes the effort of debunking misinformation, in comparison to the relative ease of creating it in the first place. It states that "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it."[1][2]
Now, the more bullshit that floats the more bullshit propagates and thus the less true information exists, eventually suffocating us in information garbage.
If you wish to see this in action, look into antivax groups convinced that vaccinated individuals will start dropping like flies within the next $LATEST_GOALPOST.
Or, take a look at how long it took me to explain why absolute absence of censorship simply does not work just from a view of having a consistent world model and having nobody to trust and no way of doing so.
One could extend my comment to include damage done to people or entities intentionally or otherwise. Notice how Musk pivoted out of absolute free speech when advertisers left?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've missed the point. It's not desirable to have listings which contain false advertising; the remedy for that is to restrict false advertising, not make every buyer chase the seller in a contract dispute after the fact. That would be insanity.
Nope, your comparison is just not equivalent. A sale is a transfer of property. We enforce the implicit contract that goes along with that. The buyer will pay, the seller will deliver, the product is accurate, etc. This discussion is about speech, for which no such contract exists. If you disagree, then you should have no problem arresting people for showing off a 3 watt bulb they claim to be 5 watts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would only be the solution if the problem was bad speech. The problem is that algorithms optimise for engagement and therefore amplify increasingly extremist views. You cannot talk your way out of that position, it surely must include intervention?
These algorithms are a multiplier to the problem, but they aren't the root cause. You can find plenty of misinformation on cable news and you can't blame that exclusively on algorithms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly this. Censorship should be a nuanced topic if anyone gives it any serious thought. Not all censorship is at the same level, and there is obviously a difference between shutting down Twitter and not letting folks criticize the government and, say, not telling folks misinformation that can lead to another's harm or death (fake cures, for example).
The problem with allowing the interpretation of whether something should be censored be based on the obvious nuances that it entails is that the exact nuance is not universal among all people. This is why ZERO censorship is the only reasonable form of censorship.
Turkish here. This is unbelievable, but totally expected from the current "democractic" government. Social media usage is very high in Türkiye and people are coordinating using social media (mainly Twitter) for rescue operations in near realtime. I'm pretty much sure some people will literally die under wreckage because of communication interruptions as the result of this block. (For anyone telling to use VPN, yeah,…
When you use quotes around “Democratic” do you mean the elections are rigged? I’m not familiar with the legitimacy or lack thereof of Turkish elections.