3 ms·

I'm a huge proponent of nearly unlimited freedom of speech. What I think is a great solution is a platform that allows nearly unlimited free speech, but requir

I'm a huge proponent of nearly unlimited freedom of speech. What I think is a great solution is a platform that allows nearly unlimited free speech, but requires opt-in tags for all content. So if one wanted to talk about "highly controversial topic x" whether in a way that's neutral, flatteringly or not so flatteringly, the content needs to be tagged as "highly controversial topic x" content before it's made public or the user will get banned. The upshot here is that both users and advertisers could easily find and avoid content they want and don't want exposure to, and nobody has to be gagged and dragged down to the ministry of love.

brosirmandude 8y ago
Can't this be done using NLP, or even just pulling term frequency within content? I imagine FB (& whoever else has access to the data) has to be doing this on the backend somewhere for their own research. We essentially need a Google (the framework which they use to algorithmically understand web content) for social networks with a front-end UI for topical mapping. -- Also to add to your idea, I'd be very interested in a social network that can do that, but also requires real ID's and has some sort of public display of the topics that any user talks about and engages with often. That way if I'm talking to someone I can gauge if they're really someone I want to be talking to about a particular topic. (can also be used to better map taste to reviews of products/services/companies/etc)
- intended 8y ago
  This assumes no bots.
zrobotics 8y ago
Eh, I just think advertisers need to stop caring. In fact, the fact that advertisers care at all is due to adtech, which IMO has ruined the internet. If YouTube's algorithm recommends a hateful propaganda video to me, I shouldn't be angry at Pepsi for the preroll ad, they obviously don't specifically endorse that content. But the acceptance of targeted ads implies that endorsement. I just wish we could entirely abolish targeted advertising, it would make the internet overall a better place. And it wouldn't even make the ads less relevant, considering that Amazon and Google apparently can't recommend products I'm interested in even with all the data they've collected.
beat 8y ago
I am becoming far less a fan of "nearly unlimited freedom of speech", based on observing the results of nearly unlimited freedom of speech out in the real world. I'm quite all right forcing certain ideas underground these days. The degeneration of debate about society to "All things are opinion, and all opinions are equal" is demonstrably dangerous, and the desensitization of the public that comes with it is also demonstrably dangerous. At a certain point, the welfare of society outweighs the freedom of the individual. And you agree with me. Hence the phrase "nearly unlimited".
- lucio 8y ago
  >the welfare of society outweighs the freedom of the individual That's one of the supporting principles of all totalitarian regimes. The problem is who defines what's the "welfare of society" (Normally is "the Party" or "the Leader"). Individual freedom is an inalienable right, and should not be curtailed, unless you're physically hurting others or infringing on their own freedom.
  - beat 8y ago
    Yeah, yeah. How about if you're planning to hurt others? That's "conspiracy" in most "totalitarian regimes" (that is, societies with laws). Is it a crime to point a loaded gun at someone, or only to pull the trigger? How about incitement? Also a crime for any government. If someone encourages a murder, are they at least partly responsible for the murder? Your definitions of freedom and oppression here are trivial mental exercises that fail in real-world application. Who defines what's the "welfare of society"? Depends on the society. You're confusing who defines it with how it is enforced. Governments have a monopoly on violence in the ideal case. Who controls the government? If it's a representative democracy, then it's more or less the will of the people. I've seen this bullshit argument before, rather a lot. I saw it made when I asked if it was okay for the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville to surround a synagogue, torches in hand (which they did). And people with similarly shallow, trivialized senses of freedom and society argued that such behavior was fine, as long as they stayed on the public sidewalk. Is enabling fascism a form of fascism? That's a good question for the theorists. As a friend of mine put it, "If you have to ask what the definition of fascism is in order to argue that you're not a fascist, you're a fascist".

brosirmandude 8y ago

Can't this be done using NLP, or even just pulling term frequency within content? I imagine FB (& whoever else has access to the data) has to be doing this on the backend somewhere for their own research. We essentially need a Google (the framework which they use to algorithmically understand web content) for social networks with a front-end UI for topical mapping. -- Also to add to your idea, I'd be very interested in a social network that can do that, but also requires real ID's and has some sort of public display of the topics that any user talks about and engages with often. That way if I'm talking to someone I can gauge if they're really someone I want to be talking to about a particular topic. (can also be used to better map taste to reviews of products/services/companies/etc)

intended 8y ago
This assumes no bots.

zrobotics 8y ago

Eh, I just think advertisers need to stop caring. In fact, the fact that advertisers care at all is due to adtech, which IMO has ruined the internet. If YouTube's algorithm recommends a hateful propaganda video to me, I shouldn't be angry at Pepsi for the preroll ad, they obviously don't specifically endorse that content. But the acceptance of targeted ads implies that endorsement. I just wish we could entirely abolish targeted advertising, it would make the internet overall a better place. And it wouldn't even make the ads less relevant, considering that Amazon and Google apparently can't recommend products I'm interested in even with all the data they've collected.

beat 8y ago

I am becoming far less a fan of "nearly unlimited freedom of speech", based on observing the results of nearly unlimited freedom of speech out in the real world. I'm quite all right forcing certain ideas underground these days. The degeneration of debate about society to "All things are opinion, and all opinions are equal" is demonstrably dangerous, and the desensitization of the public that comes with it is also demonstrably dangerous. At a certain point, the welfare of society outweighs the freedom of the individual. And you agree with me. Hence the phrase "nearly unlimited".

lucio 8y ago
>the welfare of society outweighs the freedom of the individual That's one of the supporting principles of all totalitarian regimes. The problem is who defines what's the "welfare of society" (Normally is "the Party" or "the Leader"). Individual freedom is an inalienable right, and should not be curtailed, unless you're physically hurting others or infringing on their own freedom.
- beat 8y ago
  Yeah, yeah. How about if you're planning to hurt others? That's "conspiracy" in most "totalitarian regimes" (that is, societies with laws). Is it a crime to point a loaded gun at someone, or only to pull the trigger? How about incitement? Also a crime for any government. If someone encourages a murder, are they at least partly responsible for the murder? Your definitions of freedom and oppression here are trivial mental exercises that fail in real-world application. Who defines what's the "welfare of society"? Depends on the society. You're confusing who defines it with how it is enforced. Governments have a monopoly on violence in the ideal case. Who controls the government? If it's a representative democracy, then it's more or less the will of the people. I've seen this bullshit argument before, rather a lot. I saw it made when I asked if it was okay for the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville to surround a synagogue, torches in hand (which they did). And people with similarly shallow, trivialized senses of freedom and society argued that such behavior was fine, as long as they stayed on the public sidewalk. Is enabling fascism a form of fascism? That's a good question for the theorists. As a friend of mine put it, "If you have to ask what the definition of fascism is in order to argue that you're not a fascist, you're a fascist".