4 ms·

Honestly, why do platforms need to delete anything. Why not just have options like most search engines... Let the users decide if they want to see objectional o

by anfilt 8y ago

Honestly, why do platforms need to delete anything. Why not just have options like most search engines... Let the users decide if they want to see objectional or even violent content. They are adults they can make up their own mind. Consider duckduckgo's search results you can choose: Strict *No Adult content* Moderate *No Explicit images or video* Off *Don't filter content*

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
It doesn't work. Even the US' much vaunted free speech is a myth. Not the very slow to react removal of hate, racist and extreme right supremacist groups and similar rubbish, but in the day to day. Some of that content will be illegal some places. Europe, Middle and Far East have different cultures, expectations and laws - some far more restricted than others. The USA seems to be particularly offended by, and most likely to remove, harmless breast feeding or topless images. Facebook and eBay are absurdly prudish. Much of Europe finds this odd, to say the least. At the same time will let by highly violent images, and straight up hate speech as perfectly fine. So it's not even slightly consistent. It's as daft as the US TV habit of dubbing over slightly naughty words, whilst showing people getting shot through with a full magazine in the same programme. My kids are grown now, but I would far rather have limited them from the violent and racist too soon than prudishly from an accidental nipple or baby feeding pic! Simply put they should abide by the differing standards of the places they operate. Just like all those companies selling foods, electricals, consumer goods and toys do.
- anfilt 8y ago
  What you mean what I said does not work? Let adults choose what they want to see or read. While different countries may have different laws. Do you really think the censorship that happens in China is good? If you operate in such countries you may not have a choice, but to comply or pull such local operations. The end result is content is available in one place and not another which is unfortunate.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Of course you mention the extreme example, China. However China does in one sense make it far simpler - do it their way or you're simply not permitted to operate. Which makes easy headlines. Do you really think the restriction on racist and hate speech that happens in Europe and elsewhere, and is often in legislation, is bad? Most folks in those countries don't. We're unlikely to harmonise with the US on that any time soon. Does not mean we have a Chinese internet or we lost free speech. I can speak freely against the government until the cows come home. I can chain myself to a bridge against inaction on climate, and expect a entirely non-violent police response. I just can't reduce every conversation to lowest common denominator ignorant slurs - I can criticise my neighbour or government for what they do and choices they make, but not for their colour, religion (or lack) or gender etc. Criticise the act, not the person. Personally, I think that's far more healthy. Facebook et al do next to nothing to comply, whilst continuing to operate services. It's no surprise that governments around the world are finally starting to react to that.
    - anfilt 8y ago
      I don't like racist speech, and I would say that's true for most people. Now considering laws regarding hate speech or racist speech. My first biggest reservations about such laws is it gives a government a precedent to regulate speech. Moreover, precedents may expand in the future, so one must tread very carefully to avoid unintended consequences. Secondly, human language can be quite nuanced. Speech may contain satire, irony, jokes, indirection, differences of connotation, and idioms. It may be hard determine if such line has been crossed. Applying such a law across a population is bound create some injustices by such ambiguities of human language alone. Let alone something someone typed on the internet and may have not proof read. However, countries are free to do what they want. However, I don't like seeing countries request websites be blocked ect... Again it sets a precedent that government has power to do something, and generally governments expand powers they have. So limits on what governments can do are important. About US and European views on speech. This is an interesting table. I would say the US is not far off. The averages for Europe are not what I would call a small percentage. https://www.pewglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/11/Democracy-Report-80.png https://www.pewglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/11... A company who has a presence in country should operate by the countries laws. However, for a global platform like Facebook it either means they must segment their site based off country or apply the most aggressive policy across their entire platform. Both of these have their problems.
- Tsubasachan 8y ago
  At the end of the day businesses make their own decisions. Technically Walmart CAN sell 18 rated videogames- perfectly legal. But they refuse to.
DanBC 8y ago
Imagine a website that's based on free speech. People are having conversations. But then the racists turn up, and pretty soon all converstations end up being about THE NIGGERS and the JEWS. Most people dislike this, and so they stop using the website. But the racists love it, and they attract more racists. Soon the website is full of only racists or the usful idiots who say that freedom of speech for the racists is more important than providing a welcoming atmosphere for everyone else. This extremist version of freedom of speech is only in use in the US, and it isn't even particularly popular over there (if it were Americans would have more understanding of it). Just about everywhere else realises that limits on some types of speech are an important part of a functioning democracy.
- kantos2 8y ago
  >But then the racists turn up, and pretty soon all converstations end up being about THE NIGGERS and the JEWS. You made this up so you argument look more valid.
  - colejohnson66 8y ago
    What about Gab?
    - kantos2 8y ago
      Exactly, Gab proves You made it up.
aeternus 8y ago
This does seem like a much better approach than censorship, however I still see two major issues: 1) Whatever entity determines the categorization of content wields great power over the reach of that content. In the FB case, this is likely sufficient to decide elections. Although one could argue FB has this anyway simply via control of the news feed. 2) There will likely be sufficient people who disable filtering that the amplification effect will still be present and large. Most people would agree that amplifying certain speech is dangerous. How should that be handled?
- anfilt 8y ago
  Considering, your first point. Facebook no matter what could use their platform sway elections. That's just part of the problem with centralization. At least with user selected filters there is some decentralization with decisions again. Really, your second point only applies to calls of violence. Even in the US the exceptions tend linger around violence. Then after that people worry about what is called "inflammatory speech". Mainly since it may lead to violence. However, policies to counter inflammatory speech that are punitive or censorious have problems. First it gives inflammatory speakers a potential real grievance. Secondly, and more concerning is it may limit nonviolent avenues for them to state their believed grievances or views.
bobthepanda 8y ago
The platforms entered murky waters the moment they decided to recommend content rather than just show you content from people you explicitly chose to follow. They should be held responsible not for their content, but for whatever they’re recommending (and thus tacitly endorsing) for people to watch.
- anfilt 8y ago
  Well when it was only what you followed it was a decentralized choice much like the search engine filter.
duxup 8y ago
Duckduckgo is a search engine, most people get the difference and I think Facebook ultimately wants to be something else. They don't want to be 4chan... Of course that is their problem in the end.

by anfilt 8y ago

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

It doesn't work. Even the US' much vaunted free speech is a myth. Not the very slow to react removal of hate, racist and extreme right supremacist groups and similar rubbish, but in the day to day. Some of that content will be illegal some places. Europe, Middle and Far East have different cultures, expectations and laws - some far more restricted than others. The USA seems to be particularly offended by, and most likely to remove, harmless breast feeding or topless images. Facebook and eBay are absurdly prudish. Much of Europe finds this odd, to say the least. At the same time will let by highly violent images, and straight up hate speech as perfectly fine. So it's not even slightly consistent. It's as daft as the US TV habit of dubbing over slightly naughty words, whilst showing people getting shot through with a full magazine in the same programme. My kids are grown now, but I would far rather have limited them from the violent and racist too soon than prudishly from an accidental nipple or baby feeding pic! Simply put they should abide by the differing standards of the places they operate. Just like all those companies selling foods, electricals, consumer goods and toys do.

anfilt 8y ago
What you mean what I said does not work? Let adults choose what they want to see or read. While different countries may have different laws. Do you really think the censorship that happens in China is good? If you operate in such countries you may not have a choice, but to comply or pull such local operations. The end result is content is available in one place and not another which is unfortunate.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Of course you mention the extreme example, China. However China does in one sense make it far simpler - do it their way or you're simply not permitted to operate. Which makes easy headlines. Do you really think the restriction on racist and hate speech that happens in Europe and elsewhere, and is often in legislation, is bad? Most folks in those countries don't. We're unlikely to harmonise with the US on that any time soon. Does not mean we have a Chinese internet or we lost free speech. I can speak freely against the government until the cows come home. I can chain myself to a bridge against inaction on climate, and expect a entirely non-violent police response. I just can't reduce every conversation to lowest common denominator ignorant slurs - I can criticise my neighbour or government for what they do and choices they make, but not for their colour, religion (or lack) or gender etc. Criticise the act, not the person. Personally, I think that's far more healthy. Facebook et al do next to nothing to comply, whilst continuing to operate services. It's no surprise that governments around the world are finally starting to react to that.
  - anfilt 8y ago
    I don't like racist speech, and I would say that's true for most people. Now considering laws regarding hate speech or racist speech. My first biggest reservations about such laws is it gives a government a precedent to regulate speech. Moreover, precedents may expand in the future, so one must tread very carefully to avoid unintended consequences. Secondly, human language can be quite nuanced. Speech may contain satire, irony, jokes, indirection, differences of connotation, and idioms. It may be hard determine if such line has been crossed. Applying such a law across a population is bound create some injustices by such ambiguities of human language alone. Let alone something someone typed on the internet and may have not proof read. However, countries are free to do what they want. However, I don't like seeing countries request websites be blocked ect... Again it sets a precedent that government has power to do something, and generally governments expand powers they have. So limits on what governments can do are important. About US and European views on speech. This is an interesting table. I would say the US is not far off. The averages for Europe are not what I would call a small percentage. https://www.pewglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/11/Democracy-Report-80.png https://www.pewglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/11... A company who has a presence in country should operate by the countries laws. However, for a global platform like Facebook it either means they must segment their site based off country or apply the most aggressive policy across their entire platform. Both of these have their problems.
Tsubasachan 8y ago
At the end of the day businesses make their own decisions. Technically Walmart CAN sell 18 rated videogames- perfectly legal. But they refuse to.

DanBC 8y ago

Imagine a website that's based on free speech. People are having conversations. But then the racists turn up, and pretty soon all converstations end up being about THE NIGGERS and the JEWS. Most people dislike this, and so they stop using the website. But the racists love it, and they attract more racists. Soon the website is full of only racists or the usful idiots who say that freedom of speech for the racists is more important than providing a welcoming atmosphere for everyone else. This extremist version of freedom of speech is only in use in the US, and it isn't even particularly popular over there (if it were Americans would have more understanding of it). Just about everywhere else realises that limits on some types of speech are an important part of a functioning democracy.

kantos2 8y ago
>But then the racists turn up, and pretty soon all converstations end up being about THE NIGGERS and the JEWS. You made this up so you argument look more valid.
- colejohnson66 8y ago
  What about Gab?
  - kantos2 8y ago
    Exactly, Gab proves You made it up.

aeternus 8y ago

This does seem like a much better approach than censorship, however I still see two major issues: 1) Whatever entity determines the categorization of content wields great power over the reach of that content. In the FB case, this is likely sufficient to decide elections. Although one could argue FB has this anyway simply via control of the news feed. 2) There will likely be sufficient people who disable filtering that the amplification effect will still be present and large. Most people would agree that amplifying certain speech is dangerous. How should that be handled?

anfilt 8y ago
Considering, your first point. Facebook no matter what could use their platform sway elections. That's just part of the problem with centralization. At least with user selected filters there is some decentralization with decisions again. Really, your second point only applies to calls of violence. Even in the US the exceptions tend linger around violence. Then after that people worry about what is called "inflammatory speech". Mainly since it may lead to violence. However, policies to counter inflammatory speech that are punitive or censorious have problems. First it gives inflammatory speakers a potential real grievance. Secondly, and more concerning is it may limit nonviolent avenues for them to state their believed grievances or views.

bobthepanda 8y ago

The platforms entered murky waters the moment they decided to recommend content rather than just show you content from people you explicitly chose to follow. They should be held responsible not for their content, but for whatever they’re recommending (and thus tacitly endorsing) for people to watch.

anfilt 8y ago
Well when it was only what you followed it was a decentralized choice much like the search engine filter.

duxup 8y ago

Duckduckgo is a search engine, most people get the difference and I think Facebook ultimately wants to be something else. They don't want to be 4chan... Of course that is their problem in the end.