881–890 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counterpoint: Molly Russell. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Molly-Ru...
Certainly poor molly russell does not appear to have seen this cintent occasionally, which is just my point. There is no mention of how she accessed this content either: was it a message board, or was it served algorithmically, which is important to the contention here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The reversibility of puberty blockers is highly disputed. Whether and under what circumstances trans women have no advantage over cos women is a highly complex question. We already have men who freely admitted to claiming to be trans solely for the purpose of accessing women’s locker rooms.
I'd like to hear an informed take from anybody who thinks that Facebook's fact-checkers were a better product feature than Community Notes. All of the articles I'm seeing about this online are ideological, but this feels like the kind of decision that should have been in the works for multiple quarters now, given how effective Notes have been, and how comically ineffective and off-putting fact-checkers have been. The…
My take is that while it must have been a potential plan for some time and switching to this plan can't have just been an “overnight” decision since the election, the timing suggests that either they were waiting for the outcome of the election and using that result in the decision-making process, or that the election result pulled the decision¹ forward.
----
[1] Or the implementation, if the decision had already been made. They may have already moving towards this happening, purely as a business decision based on internal effectiveness studies, no matter who was in power, but given the election result there are some political benefits to rolling the plan out now instead of in Q2 or Q3.
They've also said there will be more harmful (but legal) content on there as they'll no longer automatically look for it, but require it to be reported before taking action. As someone who worked on harmful content, specifically suicide and self injury, this is just nuts - they were raked over the coals in both the UK by an inquest into the suicide of a teenage user who rabbit holed on this harmful content, and also…
Counterpoint: censorship inherently harms everyone. People I follow on Youtube have repeatedly had their ability to discuss topics such as suicide seriously interfered with. It actually gets in the way of factual reporting when a suicide occurs in the community and of discussing the facts of the situation so that people can learn from it and possibly prevent future deaths. Not to mention, people just straight up have…
I'm talking about graphic images of self harm, suicide, eating disorders. And at some point you have to weigh the maximalist interpretation of free speech "you have to host whatever I want, as long as it's not illegal" with "promoting this stuff causes active harm, no".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are we arguing that graphic images of suicide and self injury are required for open discourse?
Freedom of speech is not about what's "required". That's why pornography is allowed to exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I haven't seen a single discussion be worse off due to fact checking The idea that there is some official governing body that has access to undisputable facts and they have the power to designate what you or I or anyone else can talk about is preposterous and, frankly, anyone on a site called Hacker News should be ashamed for supporting it.
>The idea that there is some official governing body Platforms were encouraged to create their own departments, and have. There is no "one" or "governing" body here, so this is more hyperbole in this already flagrantly absurd discussion. >have the power to designate what you or I or anyone else can talk about is preposterous No one is stopping you from posting bullshit, fact checkers simply post the corresponding cha…
> Finally, in the midst of operating or considering up to three different avenues of “misinformation reporting” (switchboarding, EI-ISAC, and the “misinformation reporting portal”), by early 2020, CISA had dropped any pretense of focusing only on foreign disinformation, openly discussing how to best monitor and censor the speech of Americans.
That's a quote taken directly from the House Judiciary report on "disinformation", page number 31 - https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-j...
Here's another one
> The EIP repeatedly used its fourth category, in particular, to justify the censorship of conservative political speech: the “Delegitimization of Election Results,” defined as “[c]ontent that delegitimizes election results on the basis of false or misleading claims.”166 This arbitrary and inconsistent standard was determined by political actors masquerading as “experts” and academics. But even more troubling, the federal government was heavily intertwined with the universities in making these seemingly arbitrary determinations that skewed against one side of the political aisle.
So please, let's not pretend that the fact-checking organizations, the information streams they themselves depended upon and the pressure that was applied to all of the social networks was organic "encouragement" meant to challenge bullshit posted online - it was a censorship campaign by the United States government, plain and simple.
Companies like Facebook pretending they are not publishers, people posting content believing they should be able to publish anything without consequences, and professional weather makers ( PR/comms/lobbyists etc ) using this confusion to get around traditional controls on their dark arts.
In the end I think the only solution that works in the long term is to have everything tied back to an individual - and that person is responsible for what they do.
You know - like in the 'real' world.
That does mean giving up the charade of pseudo-anonymity - but if we don't want online discourse dominated by bots controlled by people with no-conscience - then it's probably the grown up thing to do.
The challenge here is three fold. Companies like Facebook pretending they are not publishers, people posting content believing they should be able to publish anything without consequences, and professional weather makers ( PR/comms/lobbyists etc ) using this confusion to get around traditional controls on their dark arts. In the end I think the only solution that works in the long term is to have everything tied back…
The challenge here is three fold. Companies like Facebook pretending they are not publishers, people posting content believing they should be able to publish anything without consequences, and professional weather makers ( PR/comms/lobbyists etc ) using this confusion to get around traditional controls on their dark arts. In the end I think the only solution that works in the long term is to have everything tied back…