A Framework for Moderation
stratechery.com
A Framework for Moderation
1–10 of 78 posts
Re: A Framework for Moderation
#2> Stand on the street corner all you like, at least your terrible ideas will be limited by the physical world. The Internet, though, with its inherent ability to broadcast and congregate globally, is a fundamentally more dangerous medium.
The notion behind this seems to be:
"We must protect the idiots of the world from terrible ideas."
Why does this rub me the wrong way so much? I guess it's such a depressing view of our fellow humans?
Re: A Framework for Moderation
#3> Stand on the street corner all you like, at least your terrible ideas will be limited by the physical world. The Internet, though, with its inherent ability to broadcast and congregate globally, is a fundamentally more dangerous medium. The notion behind this seems to be: "We must protect the idiots of the world from terrible ideas." Why does this rub me the wrong way so much? I guess it's such a depressing view of…
It’s not implying that many or most people are idiots or untrustworthy. But that there are extreme outliers at the fringes.
Before the internet, they’d mostly be unable to find each other. With the internet, they can build self-reinforcing “communities” on the basis of hate, intolerance, or really anything. If they just stayed in that bubble it’d be fine, but unfortunately sometimes they bring machine guns to department stores.
Re: A Framework for Moderation
#4> Stand on the street corner all you like, at least your terrible ideas will be limited by the physical world. The Internet, though, with its inherent ability to broadcast and congregate globally, is a fundamentally more dangerous medium. The notion behind this seems to be: "We must protect the idiots of the world from terrible ideas." Why does this rub me the wrong way so much? I guess it's such a depressing view of…
It’s not implying that many or most people are idiots or untrustworthy. But that there are extreme outliers at the fringes. Before the internet, they’d mostly be unable to find each other. With the internet, they can build self-reinforcing “communities” on the basis of hate, intolerance, or really anything. If they just stayed in that bubble it’d be fine, but unfortunately sometimes they bring machine guns to departm…
But surely this is the price we pay for the connecting abilities of the Internet? I'm not sure we can start censoring and still retain all the benefits.
Regardless of how much I hate 8chan, I'm still pretty worried about the precendent these kinds of actions set.
Re: A Framework for Moderation
#5> Stand on the street corner all you like, at least your terrible ideas will be limited by the physical world. The Internet, though, with its inherent ability to broadcast and congregate globally, is a fundamentally more dangerous medium. The notion behind this seems to be: "We must protect the idiots of the world from terrible ideas." Why does this rub me the wrong way so much? I guess it's such a depressing view of…
It’s not implying that many or most people are idiots or untrustworthy. But that there are extreme outliers at the fringes. Before the internet, they’d mostly be unable to find each other. With the internet, they can build self-reinforcing “communities” on the basis of hate, intolerance, or really anything. If they just stayed in that bubble it’d be fine, but unfortunately sometimes they bring machine guns to departm…
> Before the internet, they’d mostly be unable to find each other. With the internet, they can build self-reinforcing “communities” on the basis of hate, intolerance, or really anything. If they just stayed in that bubble it’d be fine, but unfortunately sometimes they bring machine guns to department stores.
I don't think the internet is fundamentally different here. You could have made the same argument when the printing press came out.
Re: A Framework for Moderation
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not implying that many or most people are idiots or untrustworthy. But that there are extreme outliers at the fringes. Before the internet, they’d mostly be unable to find each other. With the internet, they can build self-reinforcing “communities” on the basis of hate, intolerance, or really anything. If they just stayed in that bubble it’d be fine, but unfortunately sometimes they bring machine guns to departm…
> Before the internet, they’d mostly be unable to find each other. With the internet, they can build self-reinforcing “communities” on the basis of hate, intolerance, or really anything. If they just stayed in that bubble it’d be fine, but unfortunately sometimes they bring machine guns to department stores. I don't think the internet is fundamentally different here. You could have made the same argument when the pri…
The printing press is heavily moderated.
Re: A Framework for Moderation
#7> Stand on the street corner all you like, at least your terrible ideas will be limited by the physical world. The Internet, though, with its inherent ability to broadcast and congregate globally, is a fundamentally more dangerous medium. The notion behind this seems to be: "We must protect the idiots of the world from terrible ideas." Why does this rub me the wrong way so much? I guess it's such a depressing view of…
It’s not implying that many or most people are idiots or untrustworthy. But that there are extreme outliers at the fringes. Before the internet, they’d mostly be unable to find each other. With the internet, they can build self-reinforcing “communities” on the basis of hate, intolerance, or really anything. If they just stayed in that bubble it’d be fine, but unfortunately sometimes they bring machine guns to departm…
Counterpoint: BoingBoing recently reported on French politicians trying to get "stigmatizing agricultural activities" covered by their proposed hate speech laws. As ever, if it can be abused, it will be abused.
Re: A Framework for Moderation
#8> Stand on the street corner all you like, at least your terrible ideas will be limited by the physical world. The Internet, though, with its inherent ability to broadcast and congregate globally, is a fundamentally more dangerous medium. The notion behind this seems to be: "We must protect the idiots of the world from terrible ideas." Why does this rub me the wrong way so much? I guess it's such a depressing view of…
It’s not implying that many or most people are idiots or untrustworthy. But that there are extreme outliers at the fringes. Before the internet, they’d mostly be unable to find each other. With the internet, they can build self-reinforcing “communities” on the basis of hate, intolerance, or really anything. If they just stayed in that bubble it’d be fine, but unfortunately sometimes they bring machine guns to departm…
Considering now that many 8chan users have moved to ZeroNet and Tor based sites, what would shuttering such things mean? I worry that it sets an extremely dangerous precedent, I don't want a Chinese-style great firewall, blocking all peer to peer and anonymization services just to keep out some channers, the vast majority of whom are relatively harmless.
I think attacking this from the access to guns angle seems far preferable than access to information.
Re: A Framework for Moderation
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not implying that many or most people are idiots or untrustworthy. But that there are extreme outliers at the fringes. Before the internet, they’d mostly be unable to find each other. With the internet, they can build self-reinforcing “communities” on the basis of hate, intolerance, or really anything. If they just stayed in that bubble it’d be fine, but unfortunately sometimes they bring machine guns to departm…
> Before the internet, they’d mostly be unable to find each other. With the internet, they can build self-reinforcing “communities” on the basis of hate, intolerance, or really anything. If they just stayed in that bubble it’d be fine, but unfortunately sometimes they bring machine guns to department stores. I don't think the internet is fundamentally different here. You could have made the same argument when the pri…
When a problem gets orders of magnitude bigger, it can be considered a fundamentally different thing. Requiring different solutions.
Re: A Framework for Moderation
#10A very good article, with a very poor title.
It's actually a summary of the legal regimes involved, and some thoughts on the ethics of moderation, as it applies to entities at different places in the stack.