4 ms·

I am conflicted with this because I fall on both sides of this particular fence. On the one hand, I despise when platforms are over-run by people spouting ridi

I am conflicted with this because I fall on both sides of this particular fence. On the one hand, I despise when platforms are over-run by people spouting ridiculous things and driving everything into heated discussions. On the other hand, I place an extremely high value on individual freedom and feel that because platforms like Twitter are SO large and have SO much control over the public narrative that we can't allow the platform to start picking and choosing lest we end up with their version of the "truth" being the only available version. I wish I were smart enough to know the answer to problems like this, but my current rationale is that these platforms should only be banning genuine bots and people spouting hate speech with genuine evil intent IE - "Hang XXX person because of YYY racist/sexist/garbage tier human being reason"

yifanl 8y ago
The main issue is that it isn't possible to codify what is genuine evil intent as of yet (and perhaps, ever). So until then, everyone has to choose between erring on too much or erring on too little.
- vkou 8y ago
  > The main issue is that it isn't possible to codify what is genuine evil intent as of yet (and perhaps, ever). It won't ever be possible. This is why, when faced with these questions, platforms set it as "What is considered acceptable by most people in my society" plus/minus some amount of leeway (Which is where the platforms vary). Both the amount of leeway, and the kind of leeway is, naturally, subjective. Your newspaper's opinions column gives negative leeway. Running your own samizdat publication gives you a lot of positive leeway. Broadcasting through Twitter gives you something in between.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
abnry 8y ago
I think it's the retweets that are to blame for this. When you can act on your impulse with the simple click of a button, which in effect spreads misinformation or a negative attitude, then you have problem. Twitter became successful because of the ease with which you can act out your impulses. At this point, to remain successful, I think they've got to reimagine the site to tone this down.

yifanl 8y ago

The main issue is that it isn't possible to codify what is genuine evil intent as of yet (and perhaps, ever). So until then, everyone has to choose between erring on too much or erring on too little.

vkou 8y ago
> The main issue is that it isn't possible to codify what is genuine evil intent as of yet (and perhaps, ever). It won't ever be possible. This is why, when faced with these questions, platforms set it as "What is considered acceptable by most people in my society" plus/minus some amount of leeway (Which is where the platforms vary). Both the amount of leeway, and the kind of leeway is, naturally, subjective. Your newspaper's opinions column gives negative leeway. Running your own samizdat publication gives you a lot of positive leeway. Broadcasting through Twitter gives you something in between.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

abnry 8y ago

I think it's the retweets that are to blame for this. When you can act on your impulse with the simple click of a button, which in effect spreads misinformation or a negative attitude, then you have problem. Twitter became successful because of the ease with which you can act out your impulses. At this point, to remain successful, I think they've got to reimagine the site to tone this down.