5 ms·

Much of it depends how public it is. For instance something like whisper needs to remove nudity/hate speech else they'll be kicked off iOS/playstore. But, you c

by faet 9y ago

Much of it depends how public it is. For instance something like whisper needs to remove nudity/hate speech else they'll be kicked off iOS/playstore. But, you can still send it directly without issue.

axaxs 9y ago
Let's take Torba out of the equation and just say innocent Dev A wants to create a truly free speech platform, where anything goes and only illegal things get removed. Like voat, per se. We all see how that turned out. I'm kind of curious why we can't have an uncensored platform that represents both sides. Is it because good people prefer censorship?
- taneq 9y ago
  Good analysis on SSC: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centralized-web/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centrali...
- Overtonwindow 9y ago
  It's because when a mob is at your door, regardless of the issue, you have two choices: Stand and fight, or cave in to the mob. Silicon Valley is being bullied and forced into making a choice. They have chosen to preserve their business and promote PR, rather than fight.
- jszymborski 9y ago
  Sorry, but while speech is protected, not all speech is protected. Hate speech and incitement of violence is a felony in most free democracies that protect speech.
  - Overtonwindow 9y ago
    That is incorrect, and I respectfully disagree. You're half-way there. Hate speech is protected speech. Incitement of violence is completely different from hate speech, and it is absolutely illegal. Consider the following scenarios: 1) Standing up and saying "I hate black people. I wish they would all die." 2) Standing up and saying: "I hate black people, if you see them, kill them." There's a clear difference here. The first is speech, an opinion, not directing action, advocating for violence, or to break a law. I say that's protected, as distasteful as it may be. The second is clearly criminal, and illegal. It is speech, but it is directing violence, and a law to be broken. That is the incitement of violence and a crime.
    - jszymborski 9y ago
      You're correct, I was mistaken. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/30/hate-speech-is-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment-oregon-mayor-says-hes-wrong/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/30/ha...
  - madengr 9y ago
    Hate speech is protected in the USA.
- cookiecaper 9y ago
  It's because: a) there's a lot more demand for alternatives among groups that have been kicked off analogous platforms. You almost have to hide them to avoid the stain. And of course, when a Buzzfeed editor asks why you haven't kicked off $UNPOPULAR_GROUP_X, they're not going to convey your actual principled response; they're going to convey that you're a closet $BAD_THING. b) people remember offense and want to stay very far away from things that have offended them. Most judgments, by necessity, are made subconsciously. The association between "Reddit Name and Mascot" and "Bad Thing I Saw on the Front Page" is going to be made automatically and take many times more effort to undo. "Don't shoot the messenger" is a phrase because our inclination is to lash out at the perceived vessel. It requires additional abstraction to take the immediate/physical association out of the mental blame loop. This is why Facebook starts totally empty. It's why Twitter starts totally empty and then suggests the most banal/run-of-the-mill initial follows. It's why reddit can't shake the edgy atheist college sophomore as it's primary demographic (that demographic upvotes things that appeal to their niche only to the front page, scaring away everyone else). People don't want a neutral point of view, they don't want both sides. They want their views reinforced and their egos stroked. Nothing else will suffice. Consumers are very unforgiving. The fact that we can now retreat into an infinite echo chamber via the internet has had highly deleterious effects on civility.
- sakabasataka 9y ago
  Because the last time we let nazis spew their bile unchecked it led to a world war and millions of innocent people murdered. We're not going down that road again. End of discussion.
  - bloobloobloo 9y ago
    Communists are still okay though, right? We still all agree that Communism's little "quirk" of killing millions every time it's tried is user error or whatever? Right?
- benjaminjackman 9y ago
  For public forums it may be that People just prefer to be isolated from the other side by a barrier larger than a single platform and therefore a single overarching takedown policy can provide. I think Facebook skirts it because it doesn't really have a public forum rather it has a large buffet of build your own forums that are not publicly visible from each users friends feed and a "let's solve for a feed of content likely as possible to keep said user on our site using as much history / personal information we can datamine about them, their k-nn's, and users in general" For example "how voat turned out" seems to be ideal for a certain portion of internet users unwelcome by other sites and so perhaps they congregate there thus skewing the sample towards the way it turned out.
- mcphage 9y ago
  > I'm kind of curious why we can't have an uncensored platform that represents both sides. Is it because good people prefer censorship? It's because most people fall into 3 camps: - those who want an uncensored platform so they can be assholes - those who want an uncensored platform, without wanting to be an asshole (many of the people on this site) - those who don't want to be on a platform where random people can be assholes to them The third camp is the largest, and it doesn't take many people in the first camp to make the platform not worth using for them.
MollyR 9y ago
Even "meme" apps like 9gag ran into the same nudity/censorship issue. They worked around it, or at least the users did.

by faet 9y ago

axaxs 9y ago

Let's take Torba out of the equation and just say innocent Dev A wants to create a truly free speech platform, where anything goes and only illegal things get removed. Like voat, per se. We all see how that turned out. I'm kind of curious why we can't have an uncensored platform that represents both sides. Is it because good people prefer censorship?

taneq 9y ago
Good analysis on SSC: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centralized-web/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centrali...
Overtonwindow 9y ago
It's because when a mob is at your door, regardless of the issue, you have two choices: Stand and fight, or cave in to the mob. Silicon Valley is being bullied and forced into making a choice. They have chosen to preserve their business and promote PR, rather than fight.
jszymborski 9y ago
Sorry, but while speech is protected, not all speech is protected. Hate speech and incitement of violence is a felony in most free democracies that protect speech.
- Overtonwindow 9y ago
  That is incorrect, and I respectfully disagree. You're half-way there. Hate speech is protected speech. Incitement of violence is completely different from hate speech, and it is absolutely illegal. Consider the following scenarios: 1) Standing up and saying "I hate black people. I wish they would all die." 2) Standing up and saying: "I hate black people, if you see them, kill them." There's a clear difference here. The first is speech, an opinion, not directing action, advocating for violence, or to break a law. I say that's protected, as distasteful as it may be. The second is clearly criminal, and illegal. It is speech, but it is directing violence, and a law to be broken. That is the incitement of violence and a crime.
  - jszymborski 9y ago
    You're correct, I was mistaken. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/30/hate-speech-is-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment-oregon-mayor-says-hes-wrong/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/30/ha...
- madengr 9y ago
  Hate speech is protected in the USA.
cookiecaper 9y ago
It's because: a) there's a lot more demand for alternatives among groups that have been kicked off analogous platforms. You almost have to hide them to avoid the stain. And of course, when a Buzzfeed editor asks why you haven't kicked off $UNPOPULAR_GROUP_X, they're not going to convey your actual principled response; they're going to convey that you're a closet $BAD_THING. b) people remember offense and want to stay very far away from things that have offended them. Most judgments, by necessity, are made subconsciously. The association between "Reddit Name and Mascot" and "Bad Thing I Saw on the Front Page" is going to be made automatically and take many times more effort to undo. "Don't shoot the messenger" is a phrase because our inclination is to lash out at the perceived vessel. It requires additional abstraction to take the immediate/physical association out of the mental blame loop. This is why Facebook starts totally empty. It's why Twitter starts totally empty and then suggests the most banal/run-of-the-mill initial follows. It's why reddit can't shake the edgy atheist college sophomore as it's primary demographic (that demographic upvotes things that appeal to their niche only to the front page, scaring away everyone else). People don't want a neutral point of view, they don't want both sides. They want their views reinforced and their egos stroked. Nothing else will suffice. Consumers are very unforgiving. The fact that we can now retreat into an infinite echo chamber via the internet has had highly deleterious effects on civility.
sakabasataka 9y ago
Because the last time we let nazis spew their bile unchecked it led to a world war and millions of innocent people murdered. We're not going down that road again. End of discussion.
- bloobloobloo 9y ago
  Communists are still okay though, right? We still all agree that Communism's little "quirk" of killing millions every time it's tried is user error or whatever? Right?
benjaminjackman 9y ago
For public forums it may be that People just prefer to be isolated from the other side by a barrier larger than a single platform and therefore a single overarching takedown policy can provide. I think Facebook skirts it because it doesn't really have a public forum rather it has a large buffet of build your own forums that are not publicly visible from each users friends feed and a "let's solve for a feed of content likely as possible to keep said user on our site using as much history / personal information we can datamine about them, their k-nn's, and users in general" For example "how voat turned out" seems to be ideal for a certain portion of internet users unwelcome by other sites and so perhaps they congregate there thus skewing the sample towards the way it turned out.
mcphage 9y ago
> I'm kind of curious why we can't have an uncensored platform that represents both sides. Is it because good people prefer censorship? It's because most people fall into 3 camps: - those who want an uncensored platform so they can be assholes - those who want an uncensored platform, without wanting to be an asshole (many of the people on this site) - those who don't want to be on a platform where random people can be assholes to them The third camp is the largest, and it doesn't take many people in the first camp to make the platform not worth using for them.

MollyR 9y ago

Even "meme" apps like 9gag ran into the same nudity/censorship issue. They worked around it, or at least the users did.