61–70 of 337 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US would be a laggard here regardless, given its enshrinement of free speech
Perhaps. Unfortunately absolute enshrinement of anything and the inability to critically evaluate when to allow for common-sense deviation from such enshrinement is a bit of a progress-stopper.
This is a very hard problem that YouTube and Facebook made for themselves by becoming the world’s largest advertising platforms. They depend on engagement for ad revenue, they designed world-class algorithms to promote this engagement, and it turned out that extremist content happens to be very engaging. And so the problem is, building an algorithm that blindly promotes whatever keeps users on the site, for all its c…
> They had the technology to create a monster, but don’t have the technology to stop it. At first I was going to argue that they could stop it and that they did have the "technology" to do so, but the more I thought about it the more I concluded that in the system we have built, they really cannot. Profitable ideas are unstoppable until they are proved less profitable than some other idea, or regulated out of existen…
The US once again a laggard. Unfortunate but not surprising given the current tenants of the WH.
The US would be a laggard here regardless, given its enshrinement of free speech
Utterly nonsensical. You don't need the internet to be radicalized, people have been willing to kill in the name of their convictions for as long as humans have existed. I predict even if somehow every white supremacist were booted off the internet, no lives at all would be saved, as they just don't need the internet to kill people, or to learn to hate. This is purely giving up rights for the sake of security theatre…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought that (as an example) the pioneering video recording of the Vietnam war was essentially in shaping the US American public opinion on the war matter. I could be wrong, but it wasn't seen as something horrifying back then. It's of course the actual murder which is horrifying. The problem isn't the documentation, but how we as a global society chooses to work with those documents. I'm not particularly deep into…
In your view journalists doing their jobs and putting all of the information in the proper context versus some nazi doing it for the lulz are exactly equivalent things?
The documentation itself just isn't the issue. I in fact wanted to highlight that context is a key factor by writing:
> The problem isn't the documentation, but how we as a global society chooses to work with those documents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moderating discussion forums is not censorship.
It is, by definition, censorship. It's not _government_ censorship, but it's still censorship.
Companies need censorship to make money. They shouldn't have to lose money simply to satisfy your or my idea of not censoring.
Now the government? Yeah. That's a whole other issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 1st amendment also only applies in the US, in this case the US has essentially decided that it likes nazis and doesn't want to get involved with this international coalition
[flagged]
>The conditions that must be met to impose criminal liability for speech that incites others to illegal actions are imminent harm, a likelihood that the incited illegal action will occur, and an intent by the speaker to cause imminent illegal actions. This precedent remains the principal standard in this area of First Amendment law, since the Supreme Court has not revisited it.
[0] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/
[1] https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/free-speech-can-be-mes...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moderating discussion forums is not censorship.
It is, by definition, censorship. It's not _government_ censorship, but it's still censorship.
"The censor was a magistrate in ancient Rome who was responsible for maintaining the census, supervising public morality, and overseeing certain aspects of the government's finances." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor
When its not government censorship it's called self-censorship or something entirely different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 1st amendment also only applies in the US, in this case the US has essentially decided that it likes nazis and doesn't want to get involved with this international coalition
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US would be a laggard here regardless, given its enshrinement of free speech
The US has plenty of laws against the use of speech to promote violence. The Netherlands has, in practice, some of the most expansive free speech rights of any corner of the planet, yet they had no problem signing on (to this non-binding agreement).
What laws are you talking about?