[deleted]
The decentralized web and the future of Section 230
61–70 of 108 posts
Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230
#62> If a user engages in trolling, criminal activity, or abuse, they will be identified and ostracized. Furthermore, they will incur a financial loss, as their reputation will be ruined. Thus content moderation problems are addressed without ill-fitting and abusable corporate or government interventions. I'm sure that won't go wrong or impact certain groups at all. There's a lot of content on the internet today that I…
I googled Robin DiAngelo and expected to read about a far-right Jordan Peterson type. Instead I found that she's the person who created the term "white fragility". From her wiki page, I don't see any reason to compare her to a flat earther
Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
How?
DiAngelos book focuses on painting a monoculture out of white people with unilateral experiences. It also turns race into what closely mimicks a religion and amplifies the concept. Intersectionality acknowledges race as a component of struggle but more aptly paints a picture of class issues. It's a far healthier way to look at the world.
Maybe you're both wrong
Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's how we got flat Earth Come on, is there any evidence this isn't just a group of trolls? Don't feed the trolls people!
Even if it started that way, who is to say life hasn't imitated art to the point that now people truly believe it because they can't tell the different between a straight-faced joke that's only detectable because of the ridiculous content when they don't understand enough to identify the content as obviously fake?
I'm a fan of giant tree truth. It's often hard to tell who are true believers and who are trolls. I love it
Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Others are under no obligation to entertain your beliefs and and yet they have every right to occupy same sphere. No they don't, full stop. You don't own Twitter, you don't own YouTube, you don't own any of these platforms. Flat Earthers can say whatever the hell they want, but they don't have the "right" to force YouTube to carry their speech. It is a simple fact that these bans are effective at preventing toxic b…
Hey now.. are you saying they got kicked out from ? Because that would put us halfway there. I would still disagree with you on a host of other issues, but at least you would admit your initial statement was not accurate ( paraphrased as 'they left to form their own communities'). Also, who made you the authority of who gets to be toxic and who is not? I find you toxic. Do I get to ban you? I don't like your fringe t…
I'm pretty sure the constant repetition in trad media - especially for-profit noise machines like Fox and Infowars - had a lot more to do with that than any ban.
I read the Financial Times and there was a constant stream of obvious troll accounts trying to force the laptop narrative into threads, whether they fitted or not.
Moderation is a small element of a cultural immune system which exists to protect everyone from organised - actually industrialised - bad actors.
No one really cares if a few individuals believe something weird about UFOs or whatever. But when those beliefs are encouraged as part of a deliberate campaign to undermine scientific authority and replace it with irrational emotively charged authoritarian conformity, that's a very different game.
And that is exactly what's been happening with the anti-vax and anti-masking campaigns around Covid, and even more obviously with all things QAnon.
The latter has been incredibly toxic and destructive to families and individuals, and it only spreads because Q content is easily accessible on popular trad and social media channels.
The harder it is to spread and access this content, the less effective it is.
Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230
#66Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reddit is my go-to example for effective moderation. Here's how they do it: every so often, they straight up ban entire communities from the platform.
Yeah they do that too, but that's what I don't like, because I don't think opinions should be regulated by corporations. Also I can't tell if you're sarcastic. In case not, what is it effective at? Silencing people with bad opinions?
I've moderated a number of internet forums. And at the end of the day, you have a choice:
1. You can keep the deliberate assholes, the abusers, the white supremacists, the people with actual swastikas in their profile photos, etc. (Some of these people are much worse than others, obviously.)
2. Or you can keep the nice, pleasant people you want to hang out with.
If you choose to keep (1), you'll eventually lose a significant fraction of (2).
I have zero desire to participate in unmoderated internet communities. Social spaces require some basic norms of behavior, and there has to be some mechanism for kicking people out.
If you want to encourage successful communities, people need to have the freedom of association.
Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230
#68> If a user engages in trolling, criminal activity, or abuse, they will be identified and ostracized. Furthermore, they will incur a financial loss, as their reputation will be ruined. Thus content moderation problems are addressed without ill-fitting and abusable corporate or government interventions. I'm sure that won't go wrong or impact certain groups at all. There's a lot of content on the internet today that I…
>That's how we got flat Earth to get so big.
What evidence do you have for the causality here? I'm not convinced that's what has fueled the surge of anti-science movements like flatearthism.
Please share with us why you are so confident of this assertion!
Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230
#69> If a user engages in trolling, criminal activity, or abuse, they will be identified and ostracized. Furthermore, they will incur a financial loss, as their reputation will be ruined. Thus content moderation problems are addressed without ill-fitting and abusable corporate or government interventions. I'm sure that won't go wrong or impact certain groups at all. There's a lot of content on the internet today that I…
> That's how we got flat Earth Come on, is there any evidence this isn't just a group of trolls? Don't feed the trolls people!
Inside a Flat Earth convention, where nearly everyone believes Earth isn't round - https://youtu.be/1gHbwT_R9t0
This is not "just a group of trolls."
Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
How?
DiAngelos book focuses on painting a monoculture out of white people with unilateral experiences. It also turns race into what closely mimicks a religion and amplifies the concept. Intersectionality acknowledges race as a component of struggle but more aptly paints a picture of class issues. It's a far healthier way to look at the world.
I found "White Fragility" provided an interesting insight into a blind spot in my view of the world but I don't see how her abusive-sounding corporate seminars are supposed to help anything. Even as she described them in the book they sounded disastrous.