4 ms·

There are logical stopping points on the way from "all comments should be allowed" to "no comments should be allowed." One such stopping point could be "no com

by clucas 8y ago

There are logical stopping points on the way from "all comments should be allowed" to "no comments should be allowed." One such stopping point could be "no comments should be allowed on media with certain features that overwhelmingly tend to attract morally reprehensible comments." Another such stopping point could be "all comments should be allowed, except those which the community has decided have no merit." In fact, (almost?) all worthwhile online communities are somewhere between the two extremes you seem to advocate. They don't always call it "deplatforming," which may be where you're getting hung up, but comment moderation is everywhere, and it does work. Now, if you want to say that Youtube could handle this particular type of comment moderation in a better way, I think there are plenty of arguments to be made. But the choice isn't "all comments" or "no comments."

Mirioron 8y ago
>One such stopping point could be "no comments should be allowed on media with certain features that overwhelmingly tend to attract morally reprehensible comments." Another such stopping point could be "all comments should be allowed, except those which the community has decided have no merit." The comment chain is about whether comment sections should be available or not, not individual comments. Furthermore, down the chain you'll find a person saying that they like youtube's comment sections, because it represents the way many/most people think. The post I'm replying to is saying that deplatforming is good for stopping the spread of bad information. This does not read like the person is advocating for nuance or some in between solution, because if most people say those kinds of things, then the community would decide that they have merit. >no comments should be allowed on media with certain features that overwhelmingly tend to attract morally reprehensible comments. And who decides what is and is not morally reprehensible? If I tell Americans that letting an 8 year old play outside unsupervised, then I would be found to be morally reprehensible (as it is illegal in many places in the US). If I tell Polish people that it's okay to punish parents who let their 8 year old play unsupervised, then I would be found to be morally reprehensible. Both of the stop points you brought up are basically ways to segment communities. Reddit calls this a "circlejerk".
Kaiyou 8y ago
You may see logical stopping points, but I see a slippery slope. And at each such stopping points there will be someone having good arguments for going down just a little bit further. Interestingly, starting down that path always seems to start with something relating to pedophilia. It's unfortunate that one always has to defend scoundrels in the first stages of what will otherwise naturally snowball into something nobody at the starting line ever intended for.

by clucas 8y ago

Mirioron 8y ago

>One such stopping point could be "no comments should be allowed on media with certain features that overwhelmingly tend to attract morally reprehensible comments." Another such stopping point could be "all comments should be allowed, except those which the community has decided have no merit." The comment chain is about whether comment sections should be available or not, not individual comments. Furthermore, down the chain you'll find a person saying that they like youtube's comment sections, because it represents the way many/most people think. The post I'm replying to is saying that deplatforming is good for stopping the spread of bad information. This does not read like the person is advocating for nuance or some in between solution, because if most people say those kinds of things, then the community would decide that they have merit. >no comments should be allowed on media with certain features that overwhelmingly tend to attract morally reprehensible comments. And who decides what is and is not morally reprehensible? If I tell Americans that letting an 8 year old play outside unsupervised, then I would be found to be morally reprehensible (as it is illegal in many places in the US). If I tell Polish people that it's okay to punish parents who let their 8 year old play unsupervised, then I would be found to be morally reprehensible. Both of the stop points you brought up are basically ways to segment communities. Reddit calls this a "circlejerk".

Kaiyou 8y ago

You may see logical stopping points, but I see a slippery slope. And at each such stopping points there will be someone having good arguments for going down just a little bit further. Interestingly, starting down that path always seems to start with something relating to pedophilia. It's unfortunate that one always has to defend scoundrels in the first stages of what will otherwise naturally snowball into something nobody at the starting line ever intended for.