5 ms·

Censorship is one of those really hard social problems. A completely open web will be inundated with spam, pornography and propaganda. A completely gated web wi

by NTDF9 9y ago

Censorship is one of those really hard social problems. A completely open web will be inundated with spam, pornography and propaganda. A completely gated web will only serve the gatekeepers. What really solves the problem is a 3rd party gatekeeper composed of "Council of Wise People".(henceforth referred to as gatekeepers). Movie rating board is an example. This leads to the age old question, "Who will monitor the gatekeepers?" This leads to democracy, where the gatekeepers only have a 4 year period and new gatekeepers are elected again. The government should have been the gatekeepers. But turns out, these gatekeepers care more about their own pockets (filled by the same corps they are gatekeeping). Humans suck :P

otakucode 9y ago
Why is it you are alive? I mean, it would be trivially easy for anyone to kill you. You have to work to keep yourself alive. Some random person walking up to you on the street and pushing a little blade into your neck is all it would take to end you. Or start your house on fire while you're asleep. Or a million other things. But... you're alive. Laws don't stop crime, they can only punish it afterwards. Deterrence doesn't work, there are still plenty of crimes under even the most capricious regimes that hand out death penalties for the slightest infractions. So why are you alive? Because no one is willing to kill you. They're able. They're ALL able. Every single person, young or old, you have ever met or walked past could have killed you. Every last one of them was able. But not one has been willing. Humans aren't as bad as you might be tempted to think.
- NTDF9 9y ago
  Killing other humans. It's not necessary in an abundant society. In a mismanaged/unequal/resource crunched society, like Somalia, it happens routinely. You give far too much credit to humans following the rule of law. There's a fine balance between humans using their abilities for their own desires.
- pjc50 9y ago
  The force multiplier arithmetic of the internet changes this. Almost all people are fine, but some are not. It was only last week that we had some idiots put another bomb on a tube train, for example. On the internet, if you can attack once you can attack everywhere. If you could put a bomb on every train at once with ctrl-c ctrl-v, we'd probably all be dead. America has a mass shooting every week. If the real world was as reprisal-free as the internet, and people could just keep shooting, how many casualties would there be?
  - otakucode 9y ago
    Don't use the word 'force' when no force is involved. On the Internet, if you "attack", you send words or pictures. You send ideas. A bomb blows people apart. You do not have to, either intentionally or accidentally, train yourself to respond negatively to a bomb. A bomb blows you apart no matter who you are. An idea does not. Only you can control how you react to any given idea. And I don't think it's likely that if everyone could cause indiscriminant destruction it would be likely to occur because that is already the case and has been for a very long while. Killing people is NOT hard. Just look at what people do with a car when they want. How many cars are there? How many angry, desperate people with access to them? And how common is it for them to drive it into a crowd and kill and injure people? Run the numbers. You're more likely to die from being hit by a meteor, so concern yourself with that instead.
    - abiox 9y ago
      > Only you can control how you react to any given idea. this is a bit simplistic. receiving information is a physiological process and not purely a cold and analytical affair. that's why a particularly vicious insult can drive some into a fit of violent irrational rage. > And how common is it for them to drive it into a crowd and kill and injure people? Run the numbers. You're more likely to die from being hit by a meteor, so concern yourself with that instead. there is a tremendous amount security work that contributes to this. many billions of dollars (possibly into the trillions, worldwide). a lot of dissuading machinery in legal and social systems. however you quantify them, the dangers people face are not a simple consequence of unwilling perpetrators.
- graphitezepp 9y ago
  I'm down with the whole "lets be optimistic and say humans are good" mindset, and of course MOST people are not interested in causing serious harm to there peers. But the mere fact that someone hasn't put themselves at extreme risk to kill you isn't very convincing in the face of societies large scale corruption. Humans, at least when it comes to producing sustainable organizations that behave altruistically, indeed suck.
  - otakucode 9y ago
    What extreme risk? I mean, I'm a skinny weakling. I've pretty much always been a skinny weakling. I've had threats, but always been able to talk my way out of things. I don't really base my personal view so much on the fact I've never been in a fight, or that I live in the world with the lowest incidence of violent crime since the advent of agriculture or any of those sorts of things. I base it on neuroscience. We're built to NOT hurt people. We have to be pushed pretty far to be made to hurt people, and even then we usually can't go through with it. Mirror neurons work. They reflect what you do to others on yourself, and it doesn't feel good at all. If you're trained to kill on reflex, as soldiers are, and your body goes ahead and does it before your conscious mind can catch up... once it does, that causes a neurological cataclysm that manifests as PTSD and can take years to recover from. The 'producing sustainable organizations' changes the topic completely. Human beings, as individuals, are absolutely and fundamentally different from human beings as a group. America went to war with Vietnam in the 1960s. That is a true statement. Even though there were tons of protestors who had no desire to fight Vietnam. Talking about groups and about people as individuals is starkly and completely different. People in groups can be easily driven by 'mob mentality', especially if they have been trained to be especially susceptible to this by things like team-based competitive sports in their formative years. Acting in a group 'disables' a great deal of a persons individual moral code. The same is true of people in a position of subservience. "I was just following orders" makes sense to the person pulling the trigger because they earnestly feel no moral responsibility for their actions - it's how they protect themselves. It's a dangerous defense that needs to be consciously acknowledged and resisted by all people. Failure to do so makes people very dangerous. And it is not an easy thing to do at all. Organizations also pretty much always form to facilitate some form of control. And control is poison. It is inherently harmful, regardless of either the aim, intention, or end result of it. It is also, I think, cumulative. There's no one law that turns a country into an oppressive regime, it's an accumulation. And it doesn't matter if every single one of the restrictions is "for your own good". Unless the 'good' produced by the restriction outweighs the cumulative damage it does by inflicting the control upon each individual in the society, it is overall harmful. People often ask ridiculous questions like "Why should X be legal?" which pre-supposes that everything ought to be illegal unless there is a 'good reason' to permit it. They ask "Why should you be allowed to X?" as if every action a person takes needs to be justified as beneficial in some meaningful way. It's a very dangerous mindset that has undone many societies in the past. And control poisons not just the people being controlled, but those dishing it out as well. I'm uncertain whether their damage is greater than the damage to those controlled or not. As far as I know it's not been studied and that sort of thing would be hard to quantify. I mean, prison guards are killing themselves in massive numbers and always have for a reason, obviously, but the prisoners are tattooing themselves, joining gangs, and fighting as well, so which is having more harm inflicted? They're both responding in pretty extreme ways (ways identical to how people in oppressive nations, in oppressive cults, in high-control prisons everywhere, and increasingly in American high schools respond).
- abiox 9y ago
  > Laws don't stop crime (..) is this statement based on some kind of study? > Deterrence doesn't work, there are still plenty of crimes (..) not terribly convincing... 'crimes happen' doesn't seem to sufficiently demonstrate that 'deterrence doesn't work'. > Humans aren't as bad as you might be tempted to think some aren't. some are much, much worse.
  - otakucode 9y ago
    >is this statement based on some kind of study? It's based on the law. They punish crimes after they have been committed. Where is the law that doesn't say "if you murder, you go to jail" but instead sets things up so you physically can not murder? >not terribly convincing... 'crimes happen' doesn't seem to sufficiently demonstrate that 'deterrence doesn't work Yeah, the part you cut out is the important bit. Sure you could argue 'oh well people are willing to steal a pair of shoes because they only get punished with 3 days in jail so they make a value judgement' if that's what we were talking about. But it's not. I pointed out the case of extreme punishment, death, not even THAT being capable of preventing the simple stupid crimes like stealing a pair of shoes. >some aren't. some are much, much worse. 'Some' are individuals. I was speaking of humans overall. They're two very different things. Individually humans are impossible to predict, in groups they're among the most predictable things around. 'America went to war with Vietnam in the 60s' is not false simply because there were a bunch of protestors that opposed it. A statement about a group is not a statement about all of the individuals within it, and language would be incapable of functioning if that was the standard you attempted to apply.
    - abiox 9y ago
      > Where is the law that doesn't say "if you murder, you go to jail" but instead sets things up so you physically can not murder? is the only way to prevent murder a physical impediment? does talking an attacker out of their plans count as preventing a murder? > I pointed out the case of extreme punishment, death, not even THAT being capable of preventing the simple stupid crimes like stealing a pair of shoes. again, you seem to be suggesting that 'deterrence doesn't real' because crime still exists. it seems you're presenting deterrence as an all-or-nothing dichotomy. > 'Some' are individuals. I was speaking of humans overall. indeed, and that's the point. pointing to a vague generalization about humans doesn't keep your kids safe.
dogma1138 9y ago
The web is now filled with spam, porn and propaganda... The problem here is that Facebook seems to be choosing sides. It worth noting that this might be propaganda to begin with and many of those so called "activists" posts could likely be violating TOS at the least if not actual laws. What is going on in Burma is terrible but there has been a lot of violence from all factions the Buddhists didn't woke up one day and decided to commit genocide. Like many current conflicts these aren't black and white and the only truth is that people are dying.
- NTDF9 9y ago
  >> The problem here is that Facebook seems to be choosing sides. There is ALWAYS choosing sides. When FB decides to block pornography, they are choosing a side. When FB decides to mark some posts as spam, they are choosing a side. Could they have a platform with ZERO choosing of sides? Technically, yes! But, do you know what that would look like? My guess is more and more spam posts.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    Moderate the 'spam' per-user rather than globally. The main problem that I and most other users have with the anti-free-speech practices is bad categorization. Give users the tools to moderate their own experience (with defaults, so long as they can be disabled, and heck, disable the ability to change them in more repressive countries) and you basically have the problem solved. I don't want these companies making the "disappear this" judgment calls anymore. They've shown that making those calls dispassionately and objectively isn't all that important to them.
- ch4s3 9y ago
  >What is going on in Burma is terrible but there has been a lot of violence from all factions the Buddhists didn't woke up one day and decided to commit genocide. Like many current conflicts these aren't black and white and the only truth is that people are dying. This is a pretty ridiculous reading of events in Myanmar. Rakhine buddhists with the help of the military and police have been persecuting Rohingya since as far back as the end of WWII (the Rakhine and Rohingya fought on opposite sides). More recently since the junta took control in 1962 the Rohingya have been denied citizenship and harassed constantly by the junta. The Rohingya in the past 20 years have begun to push back and formed armed defense groups branded by the government as terrorists. Things came to a head in 2012 (after the 2011 transition to "democracy" began) when the government incited sectarian riots in Rakhine state. The government blamed the Rohingya and began driving them out of their villages in recent years to "fight terrorism". Some Rakhine buddhists have used this as an opportunity to burn those villages and attack fleeing Rohingya. Yes there are armed Rohingya groups, but they were trapped between an encroaching military and until this year a border with Bangladesh they couldn't cross. The government and Rakhine are absolutely, unquestionably committing genocide. Basically everyone in the world other than the Burmese government and you agrees with this designation.
zeveb 9y ago
Well, there's also the problem that it's very difficult to change your 3rd party gatekeeper to one you trust & agree with, and the gatekeeper function is tied up with a lot of unrelated stuff (maybe I like the policing of Dallas, Tx. but the community standards of New York City, the firearms law of Vermont, the health care of Canada, the food policy of France & the speed limits of Germany — there's no way to get all that in one bundle).
snakeanus 9y ago
> A completely open web will be inundated with spam, pornography and propaganda I doubt that. In fact, from my experience in a "completely open" I would say that this is false.
yahna 9y ago
You create 2 sets of gatekeepers who have the job of not only gatekeeping, but also taking the other group of gatekeepers down. Keep both honest.
- NTDF9 9y ago
  You mean like Republicans vs Democrats?

by NTDF9 9y ago

otakucode 9y ago

Why is it you are alive? I mean, it would be trivially easy for anyone to kill you. You have to work to keep yourself alive. Some random person walking up to you on the street and pushing a little blade into your neck is all it would take to end you. Or start your house on fire while you're asleep. Or a million other things. But... you're alive. Laws don't stop crime, they can only punish it afterwards. Deterrence doesn't work, there are still plenty of crimes under even the most capricious regimes that hand out death penalties for the slightest infractions. So why are you alive? Because no one is willing to kill you. They're able. They're ALL able. Every single person, young or old, you have ever met or walked past could have killed you. Every last one of them was able. But not one has been willing. Humans aren't as bad as you might be tempted to think.

NTDF9 9y ago
Killing other humans. It's not necessary in an abundant society. In a mismanaged/unequal/resource crunched society, like Somalia, it happens routinely. You give far too much credit to humans following the rule of law. There's a fine balance between humans using their abilities for their own desires.
pjc50 9y ago
The force multiplier arithmetic of the internet changes this. Almost all people are fine, but some are not. It was only last week that we had some idiots put another bomb on a tube train, for example. On the internet, if you can attack once you can attack everywhere. If you could put a bomb on every train at once with ctrl-c ctrl-v, we'd probably all be dead. America has a mass shooting every week. If the real world was as reprisal-free as the internet, and people could just keep shooting, how many casualties would there be?
- otakucode 9y ago
  Don't use the word 'force' when no force is involved. On the Internet, if you "attack", you send words or pictures. You send ideas. A bomb blows people apart. You do not have to, either intentionally or accidentally, train yourself to respond negatively to a bomb. A bomb blows you apart no matter who you are. An idea does not. Only you can control how you react to any given idea. And I don't think it's likely that if everyone could cause indiscriminant destruction it would be likely to occur because that is already the case and has been for a very long while. Killing people is NOT hard. Just look at what people do with a car when they want. How many cars are there? How many angry, desperate people with access to them? And how common is it for them to drive it into a crowd and kill and injure people? Run the numbers. You're more likely to die from being hit by a meteor, so concern yourself with that instead.
  - abiox 9y ago
    > Only you can control how you react to any given idea. this is a bit simplistic. receiving information is a physiological process and not purely a cold and analytical affair. that's why a particularly vicious insult can drive some into a fit of violent irrational rage. > And how common is it for them to drive it into a crowd and kill and injure people? Run the numbers. You're more likely to die from being hit by a meteor, so concern yourself with that instead. there is a tremendous amount security work that contributes to this. many billions of dollars (possibly into the trillions, worldwide). a lot of dissuading machinery in legal and social systems. however you quantify them, the dangers people face are not a simple consequence of unwilling perpetrators.
graphitezepp 9y ago
I'm down with the whole "lets be optimistic and say humans are good" mindset, and of course MOST people are not interested in causing serious harm to there peers. But the mere fact that someone hasn't put themselves at extreme risk to kill you isn't very convincing in the face of societies large scale corruption. Humans, at least when it comes to producing sustainable organizations that behave altruistically, indeed suck.
- otakucode 9y ago
  What extreme risk? I mean, I'm a skinny weakling. I've pretty much always been a skinny weakling. I've had threats, but always been able to talk my way out of things. I don't really base my personal view so much on the fact I've never been in a fight, or that I live in the world with the lowest incidence of violent crime since the advent of agriculture or any of those sorts of things. I base it on neuroscience. We're built to NOT hurt people. We have to be pushed pretty far to be made to hurt people, and even then we usually can't go through with it. Mirror neurons work. They reflect what you do to others on yourself, and it doesn't feel good at all. If you're trained to kill on reflex, as soldiers are, and your body goes ahead and does it before your conscious mind can catch up... once it does, that causes a neurological cataclysm that manifests as PTSD and can take years to recover from. The 'producing sustainable organizations' changes the topic completely. Human beings, as individuals, are absolutely and fundamentally different from human beings as a group. America went to war with Vietnam in the 1960s. That is a true statement. Even though there were tons of protestors who had no desire to fight Vietnam. Talking about groups and about people as individuals is starkly and completely different. People in groups can be easily driven by 'mob mentality', especially if they have been trained to be especially susceptible to this by things like team-based competitive sports in their formative years. Acting in a group 'disables' a great deal of a persons individual moral code. The same is true of people in a position of subservience. "I was just following orders" makes sense to the person pulling the trigger because they earnestly feel no moral responsibility for their actions - it's how they protect themselves. It's a dangerous defense that needs to be consciously acknowledged and resisted by all people. Failure to do so makes people very dangerous. And it is not an easy thing to do at all. Organizations also pretty much always form to facilitate some form of control. And control is poison. It is inherently harmful, regardless of either the aim, intention, or end result of it. It is also, I think, cumulative. There's no one law that turns a country into an oppressive regime, it's an accumulation. And it doesn't matter if every single one of the restrictions is "for your own good". Unless the 'good' produced by the restriction outweighs the cumulative damage it does by inflicting the control upon each individual in the society, it is overall harmful. People often ask ridiculous questions like "Why should X be legal?" which pre-supposes that everything ought to be illegal unless there is a 'good reason' to permit it. They ask "Why should you be allowed to X?" as if every action a person takes needs to be justified as beneficial in some meaningful way. It's a very dangerous mindset that has undone many societies in the past. And control poisons not just the people being controlled, but those dishing it out as well. I'm uncertain whether their damage is greater than the damage to those controlled or not. As far as I know it's not been studied and that sort of thing would be hard to quantify. I mean, prison guards are killing themselves in massive numbers and always have for a reason, obviously, but the prisoners are tattooing themselves, joining gangs, and fighting as well, so which is having more harm inflicted? They're both responding in pretty extreme ways (ways identical to how people in oppressive nations, in oppressive cults, in high-control prisons everywhere, and increasingly in American high schools respond).
abiox 9y ago
> Laws don't stop crime (..) is this statement based on some kind of study? > Deterrence doesn't work, there are still plenty of crimes (..) not terribly convincing... 'crimes happen' doesn't seem to sufficiently demonstrate that 'deterrence doesn't work'. > Humans aren't as bad as you might be tempted to think some aren't. some are much, much worse.
- otakucode 9y ago
  >is this statement based on some kind of study? It's based on the law. They punish crimes after they have been committed. Where is the law that doesn't say "if you murder, you go to jail" but instead sets things up so you physically can not murder? >not terribly convincing... 'crimes happen' doesn't seem to sufficiently demonstrate that 'deterrence doesn't work Yeah, the part you cut out is the important bit. Sure you could argue 'oh well people are willing to steal a pair of shoes because they only get punished with 3 days in jail so they make a value judgement' if that's what we were talking about. But it's not. I pointed out the case of extreme punishment, death, not even THAT being capable of preventing the simple stupid crimes like stealing a pair of shoes. >some aren't. some are much, much worse. 'Some' are individuals. I was speaking of humans overall. They're two very different things. Individually humans are impossible to predict, in groups they're among the most predictable things around. 'America went to war with Vietnam in the 60s' is not false simply because there were a bunch of protestors that opposed it. A statement about a group is not a statement about all of the individuals within it, and language would be incapable of functioning if that was the standard you attempted to apply.
  - abiox 9y ago
    > Where is the law that doesn't say "if you murder, you go to jail" but instead sets things up so you physically can not murder? is the only way to prevent murder a physical impediment? does talking an attacker out of their plans count as preventing a murder? > I pointed out the case of extreme punishment, death, not even THAT being capable of preventing the simple stupid crimes like stealing a pair of shoes. again, you seem to be suggesting that 'deterrence doesn't real' because crime still exists. it seems you're presenting deterrence as an all-or-nothing dichotomy. > 'Some' are individuals. I was speaking of humans overall. indeed, and that's the point. pointing to a vague generalization about humans doesn't keep your kids safe.

dogma1138 9y ago

The web is now filled with spam, porn and propaganda... The problem here is that Facebook seems to be choosing sides. It worth noting that this might be propaganda to begin with and many of those so called "activists" posts could likely be violating TOS at the least if not actual laws. What is going on in Burma is terrible but there has been a lot of violence from all factions the Buddhists didn't woke up one day and decided to commit genocide. Like many current conflicts these aren't black and white and the only truth is that people are dying.

NTDF9 9y ago
>> The problem here is that Facebook seems to be choosing sides. There is ALWAYS choosing sides. When FB decides to block pornography, they are choosing a side. When FB decides to mark some posts as spam, they are choosing a side. Could they have a platform with ZERO choosing of sides? Technically, yes! But, do you know what that would look like? My guess is more and more spam posts.
- Karunamon 9y ago
  Moderate the 'spam' per-user rather than globally. The main problem that I and most other users have with the anti-free-speech practices is bad categorization. Give users the tools to moderate their own experience (with defaults, so long as they can be disabled, and heck, disable the ability to change them in more repressive countries) and you basically have the problem solved. I don't want these companies making the "disappear this" judgment calls anymore. They've shown that making those calls dispassionately and objectively isn't all that important to them.
ch4s3 9y ago
>What is going on in Burma is terrible but there has been a lot of violence from all factions the Buddhists didn't woke up one day and decided to commit genocide. Like many current conflicts these aren't black and white and the only truth is that people are dying. This is a pretty ridiculous reading of events in Myanmar. Rakhine buddhists with the help of the military and police have been persecuting Rohingya since as far back as the end of WWII (the Rakhine and Rohingya fought on opposite sides). More recently since the junta took control in 1962 the Rohingya have been denied citizenship and harassed constantly by the junta. The Rohingya in the past 20 years have begun to push back and formed armed defense groups branded by the government as terrorists. Things came to a head in 2012 (after the 2011 transition to "democracy" began) when the government incited sectarian riots in Rakhine state. The government blamed the Rohingya and began driving them out of their villages in recent years to "fight terrorism". Some Rakhine buddhists have used this as an opportunity to burn those villages and attack fleeing Rohingya. Yes there are armed Rohingya groups, but they were trapped between an encroaching military and until this year a border with Bangladesh they couldn't cross. The government and Rakhine are absolutely, unquestionably committing genocide. Basically everyone in the world other than the Burmese government and you agrees with this designation.

zeveb 9y ago

Well, there's also the problem that it's very difficult to change your 3rd party gatekeeper to one you trust & agree with, and the gatekeeper function is tied up with a lot of unrelated stuff (maybe I like the policing of Dallas, Tx. but the community standards of New York City, the firearms law of Vermont, the health care of Canada, the food policy of France & the speed limits of Germany — there's no way to get all that in one bundle).

snakeanus 9y ago

> A completely open web will be inundated with spam, pornography and propaganda I doubt that. In fact, from my experience in a "completely open" I would say that this is false.

yahna 9y ago

You create 2 sets of gatekeepers who have the job of not only gatekeeping, but also taking the other group of gatekeepers down. Keep both honest.

NTDF9 9y ago
You mean like Republicans vs Democrats?