10 ms·

It’s very hard to see it, but these rules facilitate bias. When I listened to the interview on Joe Rogan with the Trust and Safety officer, one of the examples

It’s very hard to see it, but these rules facilitate bias. When I listened to the interview on Joe Rogan with the Trust and Safety officer, one of the examples she gave was the Milo Youannopolis quote “the world would have been better off if your mother banged you on the rock as a baby” or something to that effect. This is gross, and offensive, but not a threat. It’s not a threat to talk hyperbolically about a hypothetical and ridiculous past event. Unless you already find a person scary. In which case it very very much sounds like a threat, or an incitement to violence. Language needs context and if you believe that people with certain characteristics (including political orientation) are more likely to be violently dangerous, it is absolutely natural to view things they say as more threatening than you might otherwise. It’s still bias. It’s bias if a policeman finds “I have a gun in the glove compartment, and a license for it” more threatening based on someone’s race. If it were based on some real or perceived fact about the world, still bias. Actually definitionally bias. Humans use bias (context) to make sense of the world. And that context (bias) is necessary for communication to makes any sense. Which means those rules can only be implemented in a way that reflects the bias of whomever is implementing them.

igorkraw 7y ago
So what's the alternative? "The rules aren't perfect, so let's get rid of all of them" is not improving things over "the rules intent is good, but humans implementing them will be biased". The solution would be a way to reduce bias. Ironically, one true solution to the problem of bias is diversity. The thing the groups who most rail against banning of misgendering or racist language despise. Get a a "good conservative" into the group which enforces the rules, as an ombudsman or a watchdog whatever, the same way we'd do for polticically other, and then it can play out. Disclosure: I am an european left of center, so from american perspective I'm basically communist. I use conservatives as an example because the seem to be the largest group complaining about things like enforcing harassment policies. To communicate my view on this debate with an example, insisting on misgendering people when that causes them pain is worse than a mere insult, it's equivalent to walking up to veteran with PTSD, pulling out a toy gun to their face and going "BANG". That shit would not offline, and it should not fly as a performative act online to normalize it either.
- GoblinSlayer 7y ago
  The alternative is to follow the law.
- Bantros 7y ago
  Clearly isn't the same
wwweston 7y ago
> Milo Youannopolis quote “the world would have been better off if your mother banged you on the rock as a baby” or something to that effect. This is gross, and offensive, but not a threat. It’s not a threat to talk hyperbolically about a hypothetical and ridiculous past event. As false positives go, if this is the one you're worried about, you can tell that your case isn't strong by asking exactly what a platform that accidentally threw out that sort of content-baby with the actual-threat bathwater would be losing. Even if "it's not a threat" were inarguably true, it doesn't make much sense as a response, because there's no discourse in there, it's simply abuse, and likely runs afoul of other rules, certainly of other sensible rules that could be established. But to say it's not a threat really stops short of thinking about what was said. “the world would have been better off if your mother banged you on the rock as a baby” is a statement that bypasses any particular criticism -- the kind of thing that might be a valuable feature in speech and discourse -- and instead simply asserts a total lack of value in someone's life. If you think that discourse is valuable, part of the reason for that has to be that you think ideas matter. What are the consequences if people believe in that idea -- the idea that some specific person's life has a total lack of value because they said something Milo doesn't like? "Not a threat" is a technical judgment, perhaps even a distinction that matters. But there's absolutely the implication of violence, and hyperbole is not an adequate defense, nor would any sensible person find it so if they were told that someone should have done the world a favor and set them on fire as a child. > rules can only be implemented in a way that reflects the bias Which is another way of saying that rules will always be about values, both of those who wrote them and those who carry them out. Whether that's a bug or a feature depends on how fit the values in play are.
- kofejnik 7y ago
  >If you think that discourse is valuable Who exactly is going to decide? Rules and values committee? > What are the consequences if people believe in that idea So people are stupid, and the all ideas should be first vetted by non-stupid people. Nice.
qtplatypus 7y ago
I'm not sure “the world would have been better off if your mother banged you on the rock as a baby” isn't a threat. For example if you remove the colourful language from it "the world would have been better off if you were dead" sounds rather threatening. Context is important "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?"
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  “The world would be better off if you were dead” is an opinion, not s threat: it states no intent of future action. > Context is important "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?" That's not a threat, it's a solicitation; it requests other to engage in rather states an intent to carry out future action. But “the world would be better off...” is neither, on its face.
  - qtplatypus 7y ago
    Just because something is an option doesn’t stop it from being threatening. A reasonable person could become afraid that they would be harmed by a person that expressed a preference for their death.

igorkraw 7y ago

So what's the alternative? "The rules aren't perfect, so let's get rid of all of them" is not improving things over "the rules intent is good, but humans implementing them will be biased". The solution would be a way to reduce bias. Ironically, one true solution to the problem of bias is diversity. The thing the groups who most rail against banning of misgendering or racist language despise. Get a a "good conservative" into the group which enforces the rules, as an ombudsman or a watchdog whatever, the same way we'd do for polticically other, and then it can play out. Disclosure: I am an european left of center, so from american perspective I'm basically communist. I use conservatives as an example because the seem to be the largest group complaining about things like enforcing harassment policies. To communicate my view on this debate with an example, insisting on misgendering people when that causes them pain is worse than a mere insult, it's equivalent to walking up to veteran with PTSD, pulling out a toy gun to their face and going "BANG". That shit would not offline, and it should not fly as a performative act online to normalize it either.

GoblinSlayer 7y ago
The alternative is to follow the law.
Bantros 7y ago
Clearly isn't the same

wwweston 7y ago

> Milo Youannopolis quote “the world would have been better off if your mother banged you on the rock as a baby” or something to that effect. This is gross, and offensive, but not a threat. It’s not a threat to talk hyperbolically about a hypothetical and ridiculous past event. As false positives go, if this is the one you're worried about, you can tell that your case isn't strong by asking exactly what a platform that accidentally threw out that sort of content-baby with the actual-threat bathwater would be losing. Even if "it's not a threat" were inarguably true, it doesn't make much sense as a response, because there's no discourse in there, it's simply abuse, and likely runs afoul of other rules, certainly of other sensible rules that could be established. But to say it's not a threat really stops short of thinking about what was said. “the world would have been better off if your mother banged you on the rock as a baby” is a statement that bypasses any particular criticism -- the kind of thing that might be a valuable feature in speech and discourse -- and instead simply asserts a total lack of value in someone's life. If you think that discourse is valuable, part of the reason for that has to be that you think ideas matter. What are the consequences if people believe in that idea -- the idea that some specific person's life has a total lack of value because they said something Milo doesn't like? "Not a threat" is a technical judgment, perhaps even a distinction that matters. But there's absolutely the implication of violence, and hyperbole is not an adequate defense, nor would any sensible person find it so if they were told that someone should have done the world a favor and set them on fire as a child. > rules can only be implemented in a way that reflects the bias Which is another way of saying that rules will always be about values, both of those who wrote them and those who carry them out. Whether that's a bug or a feature depends on how fit the values in play are.

kofejnik 7y ago
>If you think that discourse is valuable Who exactly is going to decide? Rules and values committee? > What are the consequences if people believe in that idea So people are stupid, and the all ideas should be first vetted by non-stupid people. Nice.

qtplatypus 7y ago

I'm not sure “the world would have been better off if your mother banged you on the rock as a baby” isn't a threat. For example if you remove the colourful language from it "the world would have been better off if you were dead" sounds rather threatening. Context is important "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?"

dragonwriter 7y ago
“The world would be better off if you were dead” is an opinion, not s threat: it states no intent of future action. > Context is important "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?" That's not a threat, it's a solicitation; it requests other to engage in rather states an intent to carry out future action. But “the world would be better off...” is neither, on its face.
- qtplatypus 7y ago
  Just because something is an option doesn’t stop it from being threatening. A reasonable person could become afraid that they would be harmed by a person that expressed a preference for their death.