5 ms·

This is where we walk a fine line around intentions and usage. The app that was banned was using the information to direct hate speech towards people. Your goal

This is where we walk a fine line around intentions and usage. The app that was banned was using the information to direct hate speech towards people. Your goal was probably just to navigate social interactions more fluently or sensitively. One is racist, the other is fine. The difference is in how you're using the information. The line is harder to draw when you're talking about automated tools, where something that automatically identifies Jews could be used in either way, and now you have to decide whether a blanket ban is worth it to stamp out the bad usages.

randyrand 10y ago
It's trivially easy for bad actors to instead install a grease monkeyscript that does the same thing. The effect it has on making anti-antisemitism harder to carry out is very, very, literally negligible. This is about PR. If anything we should be talking about the merits for and against this PR move, Software Freedom, PR freedom, etc. As a PR move, some people will like it, some wont. I personally don't like this PR move because I relatively care more about software freedom, and I think it's undesirable to censor apps based on the majority use case of it, instead of what the app actually does.
- munchbunny 10y ago
  I don't think it's really a PR move. Certainly it could be a PR move, but whether or not GreaseMonkey exists, banning this plugin is perfectly justified on moral grounds. I don't disagree with you about software freedom, but this plugin sounds like it was specifically intended to direct hate speech. Another commenter in the tree included a link to a different posting about how the ((())) is used as a marker to target people online. This app injects the ((()))'s. If the plugin had used a less loaded indicator, I might see this situation differently. However, since the plugin is using an indicator specifically intended to mark people for abuse online, I have no doubt about its intentions. Edit: Link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11826647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11826647
  - randyrand 10y ago
    Moral grounds and PR are one in the same. It's your companies morals that are most important to PR. PR is all about communicating your companies morals. Your morals are your PR. Perhaps I'm taking a broader definition of PR than you. I'm not just including money actively spent on PR, PR reps, etc. I'm talking more fundamentally than that - the way your company conducts it's business. I understand your point. You care more about Google discouraging negative racial speech (I don't like the phrase hate speech as its used too subjectively) than you do software freedom. And from that perspective google made the right PR move. But, as someone that cares more about software freedom, freedom of speech, etc, I think it's a bad PR move. In the end, Google will do whatever it think is best in its opinion.
    - munchbunny 10y ago
      Your definition of "PR move" seems quite different from the common usage, which comes with a strong connotation of "we are doing this primarily for public image reasons," which is different from "we are doing this because we think it's the right thing to do." > I understand your point. You care more about Google discouraging negative racial speech (I don't like the phrase hate speech as its used too subjectively) than you do software freedom. And from that perspective google made the right PR move. That's not quite my point. In most situations where this is an issue, it's a judgement call on balancing freedom with ethical/moral concerns. I believe in neither extreme because they both represent systems that are broken in very obvious ways. Title IX and the various Civil Rights Acts are pretty good examples where freedom of speech (and some other freedoms) are explicitly limited for worthwhile reasons. In this situation, even in its most charitable interpretation, it's probably a tool for directing unambiguously negative racial speech that's tied to a social agenda that is unhealthy for our society's cohesion. My point is that in this case, the balance of considerations puts this app clearly on the "unambiguously bad" part of this spectrum, and it's quite possible to value software freedom or freedom of speech and still think that Google made the right PR move.

randyrand 10y ago

It's trivially easy for bad actors to instead install a grease monkeyscript that does the same thing. The effect it has on making anti-antisemitism harder to carry out is very, very, literally negligible. This is about PR. If anything we should be talking about the merits for and against this PR move, Software Freedom, PR freedom, etc. As a PR move, some people will like it, some wont. I personally don't like this PR move because I relatively care more about software freedom, and I think it's undesirable to censor apps based on the majority use case of it, instead of what the app actually does.

munchbunny 10y ago
I don't think it's really a PR move. Certainly it could be a PR move, but whether or not GreaseMonkey exists, banning this plugin is perfectly justified on moral grounds. I don't disagree with you about software freedom, but this plugin sounds like it was specifically intended to direct hate speech. Another commenter in the tree included a link to a different posting about how the ((())) is used as a marker to target people online. This app injects the ((()))'s. If the plugin had used a less loaded indicator, I might see this situation differently. However, since the plugin is using an indicator specifically intended to mark people for abuse online, I have no doubt about its intentions. Edit: Link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11826647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11826647
- randyrand 10y ago
  Moral grounds and PR are one in the same. It's your companies morals that are most important to PR. PR is all about communicating your companies morals. Your morals are your PR. Perhaps I'm taking a broader definition of PR than you. I'm not just including money actively spent on PR, PR reps, etc. I'm talking more fundamentally than that - the way your company conducts it's business. I understand your point. You care more about Google discouraging negative racial speech (I don't like the phrase hate speech as its used too subjectively) than you do software freedom. And from that perspective google made the right PR move. But, as someone that cares more about software freedom, freedom of speech, etc, I think it's a bad PR move. In the end, Google will do whatever it think is best in its opinion.
  - munchbunny 10y ago
    Your definition of "PR move" seems quite different from the common usage, which comes with a strong connotation of "we are doing this primarily for public image reasons," which is different from "we are doing this because we think it's the right thing to do." > I understand your point. You care more about Google discouraging negative racial speech (I don't like the phrase hate speech as its used too subjectively) than you do software freedom. And from that perspective google made the right PR move. That's not quite my point. In most situations where this is an issue, it's a judgement call on balancing freedom with ethical/moral concerns. I believe in neither extreme because they both represent systems that are broken in very obvious ways. Title IX and the various Civil Rights Acts are pretty good examples where freedom of speech (and some other freedoms) are explicitly limited for worthwhile reasons. In this situation, even in its most charitable interpretation, it's probably a tool for directing unambiguously negative racial speech that's tied to a social agenda that is unhealthy for our society's cohesion. My point is that in this case, the balance of considerations puts this app clearly on the "unambiguously bad" part of this spectrum, and it's quite possible to value software freedom or freedom of speech and still think that Google made the right PR move.