5 ms·

So it's every communication service's responsibility to keep only the people they like using their service?

meebs 9y ago
Responsibility to not allow it to be abused by Nazis at the very least.
skybrian 9y ago
Companies that try to prevent their customers from attacking each other tend to do better than companies that don't protect their customers. This isn't new. For example, Gmail hit it big in part by being better at spam filtering. The specific issues have changed, though.
- cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
  Whew lad, are Verizon and AT&T next? I heard some actual Nazis used AT&T in the past. Surely by that logic all T-Mobile customers are suspect by default.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
astrodust 9y ago
There's a difference between "communication service", as in "carrier", and "social platform" as in "community". When you run a carrier you're expected to be neutral. What people do with your service is not your responsibility. If the service is being used illegally then law enforcement can intervene. When you run a community you have an obligation to pick and choose who participates. You can strive to be inclusive, but when you start to include those that seek to exclude you'll find your community being hijacked and perverted into someting that reflects the wants and needs of a tiny, dedicated, often highly motivated minority. It's the responsibility of anyone running a community to police and weed out bad actors. I they don't the good citizens will leave and your community will be worthless. That's probably a bad thing if you've got shareholders to answer to.
- chmln 9y ago
  Yeah but discord is no hackernews. If they start arbitrarily moderating views that don't align with flavor-of-the-month ideology or even nsfw content a lot of people will be pissed too. What people talk about in Discord's independent chatrooms is their own business. I don't believe that most people advocating for strict ideological moderation on large platforms like facebook or discord understand the implications and dangers of allowing private companies such power. Today they're booting off "neo-nazis", tomorrow they'll be booting off you.
  - rxhernandez 9y ago
    "Today the teacher kicked my kid out of class for being loud and obnoxious, tomorrow they'll be kicking your kid out of the class too." Please do us all a favor and look into what a slippery slope is.
    - nyolfen 9y ago
      truly there is no historical precedent for the abuse of power along ideological lines
      - rxhernandez 9y ago
        Truly, modeling everything in life as montonically increasing functions because of exceptional historic precedences is a smart thing to do. "There's a historical precedence for people drinking water and dying because of it, so I'm not going to drink water anymore." The reasons you here about them is because they are so exceptional. People got banned from forums for being irreverent dicks before and no one batted an eye. Now because they got legitimized by gullible people, everyone screams about their lack of freedom on private platforms.
        nyolfen 9y ago
        >People got banned from forums for being irreverent dicks before and no one batted an eye. you're poorly versed in internet culture and history. many internet subcultures have axiomatically rejected moderation because, surprise, giving power to anonymous and unaccountable peers frequently results in abuses. you're confusing your own lack of concern and love of arbitrary authority with the opinions of others.

Responsibility to not allow it to be abused by Nazis at the very least.

Companies that try to prevent their customers from attacking each other tend to do better than companies that don't protect their customers. This isn't new. For example, Gmail hit it big in part by being better at spam filtering. The specific issues have changed, though.

cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
Whew lad, are Verizon and AT&T next? I heard some actual Nazis used AT&T in the past. Surely by that logic all T-Mobile customers are suspect by default.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

astrodust 9y ago

There's a difference between "communication service", as in "carrier", and "social platform" as in "community". When you run a carrier you're expected to be neutral. What people do with your service is not your responsibility. If the service is being used illegally then law enforcement can intervene. When you run a community you have an obligation to pick and choose who participates. You can strive to be inclusive, but when you start to include those that seek to exclude you'll find your community being hijacked and perverted into someting that reflects the wants and needs of a tiny, dedicated, often highly motivated minority. It's the responsibility of anyone running a community to police and weed out bad actors. I they don't the good citizens will leave and your community will be worthless. That's probably a bad thing if you've got shareholders to answer to.

chmln 9y ago
Yeah but discord is no hackernews. If they start arbitrarily moderating views that don't align with flavor-of-the-month ideology or even nsfw content a lot of people will be pissed too. What people talk about in Discord's independent chatrooms is their own business. I don't believe that most people advocating for strict ideological moderation on large platforms like facebook or discord understand the implications and dangers of allowing private companies such power. Today they're booting off "neo-nazis", tomorrow they'll be booting off you.
- rxhernandez 9y ago
  "Today the teacher kicked my kid out of class for being loud and obnoxious, tomorrow they'll be kicking your kid out of the class too." Please do us all a favor and look into what a slippery slope is.
  - nyolfen 9y ago
    truly there is no historical precedent for the abuse of power along ideological lines
    - rxhernandez 9y ago
      Truly, modeling everything in life as montonically increasing functions because of exceptional historic precedences is a smart thing to do. "There's a historical precedence for people drinking water and dying because of it, so I'm not going to drink water anymore." The reasons you here about them is because they are so exceptional. People got banned from forums for being irreverent dicks before and no one batted an eye. Now because they got legitimized by gullible people, everyone screams about their lack of freedom on private platforms.
      - nyolfen 9y ago
        >People got banned from forums for being irreverent dicks before and no one batted an eye. you're poorly versed in internet culture and history. many internet subcultures have axiomatically rejected moderation because, surprise, giving power to anonymous and unaccountable peers frequently results in abuses. you're confusing your own lack of concern and love of arbitrary authority with the opinions of others.