3 ms·
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 w
by aeternus 7y 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 7y agoConsidering, 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.