7 ms·

Yes, yes, ban more groups (including flat earth, climate denial and anti-vaxxers) while also killing the filter bubbles and no. These questions aren’t as hard

by quink 8y ago

Yes, yes, ban more groups (including flat earth, climate denial and anti-vaxxers) while also killing the filter bubbles and no. These questions aren’t as hard as you think.

secfirstmd 8y ago
Well they get harder when certain governments abuse that power to stifle legitimate activists and journalists though: https://www.google.com/amp/s/static.theintercept.com/amp/facebook-says-it-is-deleting-accounts-at-the-direction-of-the-u-s-and-israeli-governments.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/static.theintercept.com/amp/fac...
godzillabrennus 8y ago
Where do you stop? Who decides what is banned? That seems like a hard question.
- sampo 8y ago
  For example, there is an equally strong scientific consensus that GMO crops (and food) are safe, as there is about climate change being real. But there are lots of users right here in HN who would get upset if their anti-GMO opinions were banned the same as climate change denial and anti-vaxxer opinions.
buboard 8y ago
fine, but wouldn't you rather have all the idiots in a single walled garden? If they get out of there, it will be for a distributed platform from which nobody will be able to remove anything.
- quink 8y ago
  Not really, there’s a new particularly vicious strand of radicalisation on the Internet and having the ability to make those hosting the content traceable and responsible through a fracturing of the community would be a boon, and that’s not really been happening with Facebook. And I don’t think distributed or decentralised platforms aren’t even close to the alternative you think they are.
maxxxxx 8y ago
"These questions aren’t as hard as you think." Yes, just let's block whatever you don't like. What could go wrong?
- quink 8y ago
  That’s just coincidental, it’s just that what I don’t like and complete disagreement with scientific consensus or harming people overlap.
  - eitland 8y ago
    Go 200, 300 or 400 year back. Imagine a person like yourself, mainstream opinions, politically correct. We now know he would be wrong on a number of things. I mostly agree with you on a case-by-case basis it seems, but a little humility might be good.
    - bryan_w 8y ago
      You don't even have to go that far back. Just 20 years ago the idea that being gay was ok would get you treated like an anti-vaxer today. Go back 50 years and "race mixing" was taboo.
      - quink 8y ago
        There was no broad scientific consensus about how being gay is bad 20 years ago. Banning from one particular private platform is fine, if people want to be anti-vaccination don't do it there, maybe it'll actually encourage them to stop wasting time on Facebook and contributing to the actual science.
    - quink 8y ago
      Scientific consensus didn't exist in anything like its current form 200, 300 or 400 years ago.
austhrow743 8y ago
They're going to take their discourse elsewhere. Best to just skip the whack a mole and put them in camps.
- Pharmakon 8y ago
  Because of course, we all know that any regulation is part of an inevitable slide to “camps”. Come on, people who argue that always seem to miss just how much power a society has to change course, which is why that slippery slope is a fallacy and not predestination. I’m not hearing people opine that “today they came for the child abusers, tomorrow the Jews.” It’s a ridiculous premise, and it both oversells the threat of any action they’re ideologically opposed to, and undersells the power we all have to either promote or fight fascism.
- quink 8y ago
  Sure they will. I'm perfectly fine with the whack-a-mole but detain anyone who's a credible threat to the physical safety of others. I'm talking about limiting the freedom of anyone in theory talking about subjects in a way that results in physical violence or substantially harms society to the point of losing a substantial number of lives on one single private platform in large groups. I'm not talking about death camps, but the distinction seems to be lost on the crowd flitting down the slippery slope.

by quink 8y ago

Yes, yes, ban more groups (including flat earth, climate denial and anti-vaxxers) while also killing the filter bubbles and no. These questions aren’t as hard as you think.

secfirstmd 8y ago

Well they get harder when certain governments abuse that power to stifle legitimate activists and journalists though: https://www.google.com/amp/s/static.theintercept.com/amp/facebook-says-it-is-deleting-accounts-at-the-direction-of-the-u-s-and-israeli-governments.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/static.theintercept.com/amp/fac...

godzillabrennus 8y ago

Where do you stop? Who decides what is banned? That seems like a hard question.

sampo 8y ago
For example, there is an equally strong scientific consensus that GMO crops (and food) are safe, as there is about climate change being real. But there are lots of users right here in HN who would get upset if their anti-GMO opinions were banned the same as climate change denial and anti-vaxxer opinions.

buboard 8y ago

fine, but wouldn't you rather have all the idiots in a single walled garden? If they get out of there, it will be for a distributed platform from which nobody will be able to remove anything.

quink 8y ago
Not really, there’s a new particularly vicious strand of radicalisation on the Internet and having the ability to make those hosting the content traceable and responsible through a fracturing of the community would be a boon, and that’s not really been happening with Facebook. And I don’t think distributed or decentralised platforms aren’t even close to the alternative you think they are.

maxxxxx 8y ago

"These questions aren’t as hard as you think." Yes, just let's block whatever you don't like. What could go wrong?

quink 8y ago
That’s just coincidental, it’s just that what I don’t like and complete disagreement with scientific consensus or harming people overlap.
- eitland 8y ago
  Go 200, 300 or 400 year back. Imagine a person like yourself, mainstream opinions, politically correct. We now know he would be wrong on a number of things. I mostly agree with you on a case-by-case basis it seems, but a little humility might be good.
  - bryan_w 8y ago
    You don't even have to go that far back. Just 20 years ago the idea that being gay was ok would get you treated like an anti-vaxer today. Go back 50 years and "race mixing" was taboo.
    - quink 8y ago
      There was no broad scientific consensus about how being gay is bad 20 years ago. Banning from one particular private platform is fine, if people want to be anti-vaccination don't do it there, maybe it'll actually encourage them to stop wasting time on Facebook and contributing to the actual science.
  - quink 8y ago
    Scientific consensus didn't exist in anything like its current form 200, 300 or 400 years ago.

austhrow743 8y ago

They're going to take their discourse elsewhere. Best to just skip the whack a mole and put them in camps.

Pharmakon 8y ago
Because of course, we all know that any regulation is part of an inevitable slide to “camps”. Come on, people who argue that always seem to miss just how much power a society has to change course, which is why that slippery slope is a fallacy and not predestination. I’m not hearing people opine that “today they came for the child abusers, tomorrow the Jews.” It’s a ridiculous premise, and it both oversells the threat of any action they’re ideologically opposed to, and undersells the power we all have to either promote or fight fascism.
quink 8y ago
Sure they will. I'm perfectly fine with the whack-a-mole but detain anyone who's a credible threat to the physical safety of others. I'm talking about limiting the freedom of anyone in theory talking about subjects in a way that results in physical violence or substantially harms society to the point of losing a substantial number of lives on one single private platform in large groups. I'm not talking about death camps, but the distinction seems to be lost on the crowd flitting down the slippery slope.