3 ms·
> There's not a lot of ambiguity about spam so it's not a real issue. People say this, I don't think it's true. I think there is ambiguity around when marketi
by danShumway 7y ago
> There's not a lot of ambiguity about spam so it's not a real issue.
People say this, I don't think it's true.
I think there is ambiguity around when marketing crosses into spam. If you look at different communities, even HN and Reddit, you'll find different opinions about what kind of promotion crosses that line.
Individual communities need to be able to make their own decisions on that, they don't need blanket rules applied across the board to all platforms.
- buboard 7y agoreddit has already a "spam level" slider. They should allow subreddits to turn off spam filtering completely - although of course it doesnt make sense. But if they want to be classified as a simple carrier they would have to .
- danShumway 7y agoIn your definition of censorship, would it be OK for Facebook to hide some political articles behind a "filter dishonest posts" setting that was on by default for users and groups? Is it OK to do that to a marketing post?
- buboard 7y agoI think facebook should be required to have controls to turn off their various filterings. And they should be held liable if someone can prove they systematic hide certain views from searches. That would be enough for me (having them on by default is also OK). (Incidentally i started using twitter in "view latest" mode and i prefer it - turns out their expensive algorithms were pretty useless for me)