4 ms·

My opinion is based off the fact I just saw a room full of people cheer for the censorship of politicians. I'm not of the opinion that reduced visibility and a

My opinion is based off the fact I just saw a room full of people cheer for the censorship of politicians. I'm not of the opinion that reduced visibility and annotations will solve the problem. I just don't trust people like the above to know where the slope is, and so I don't trust them with tools for censorship.

tyre 7y ago
> cheer for the censorship of politicians This is almost willfully in bad faith. They didn't "cheer for the censorship of politicians", they want something done about lies that are eroding our democracy. If politicians are a part of that, well, okay! Are they "cheering for the censorship" of nation-state actors? Maybe! And that's…maybe not bad? > I just don't trust people like the above to know where the slope is, and so I don't trust them with tools for censorship. I mean, should they not remove child pornography, rape video, snuff films, or cruelty to animals? That is censorship and those things are on some part of the slope! Will there be edge cases and mistakes? Absolutely. Guaranteed. Are the risks of those edge or ambiguous cases sometimes going the "wrong" way worth so much to us that we throw up our hands and say, "Ah, shit, can't do anything about this. Literally any change at all would be treason to freedom."? I don't know. It just seems…
- Veedrac 7y ago
  “it would eject some very prominent politicians from their platform. Maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing. <crowd cheers>” I don't know how to read that as anything other than approval of political censorship. Child abuse, rape, snuff, etc. are already banned, and rightly so. The question here is whether we should ban things that are offensively incorrect.
lemmsjid 7y ago
One way of combating misinformation could be increased visibility. For example, suppose that Facebook had a policy like this: if an advertisement is deemed to have misinformation in it, or cover a particularly controversial topic, it is not allowed to be targeted. It can still be published en masse, but it cannot be targeted to a particular population. Also, there is a period of time where fact checkers and other sources have time to publish rebuttals, which will be included with the ad.
- Veedrac 7y ago
  I don't think adverts need the same freedom of speech protections that general users do. Banning factually inaccurate adverts is fine IMO.
xaedes 7y ago
"fact I just saw a room full of people cheer for the censorship of politicians." That was his point I think. I think this was just a performance to point out exactly THAT behaviour. How easy the people cheer for censorship. He even explained his doing in the beginning when he told about his other characters and what he did to the audiences. If that is true, I think its genious. He is my favorite trickster hero now.

tyre 7y ago

> cheer for the censorship of politicians This is almost willfully in bad faith. They didn't "cheer for the censorship of politicians", they want something done about lies that are eroding our democracy. If politicians are a part of that, well, okay! Are they "cheering for the censorship" of nation-state actors? Maybe! And that's…maybe not bad? > I just don't trust people like the above to know where the slope is, and so I don't trust them with tools for censorship. I mean, should they not remove child pornography, rape video, snuff films, or cruelty to animals? That is censorship and those things are on some part of the slope! Will there be edge cases and mistakes? Absolutely. Guaranteed. Are the risks of those edge or ambiguous cases sometimes going the "wrong" way worth so much to us that we throw up our hands and say, "Ah, shit, can't do anything about this. Literally any change at all would be treason to freedom."? I don't know. It just seems…

Veedrac 7y ago
“it would eject some very prominent politicians from their platform. Maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing. <crowd cheers>” I don't know how to read that as anything other than approval of political censorship. Child abuse, rape, snuff, etc. are already banned, and rightly so. The question here is whether we should ban things that are offensively incorrect.

lemmsjid 7y ago

One way of combating misinformation could be increased visibility. For example, suppose that Facebook had a policy like this: if an advertisement is deemed to have misinformation in it, or cover a particularly controversial topic, it is not allowed to be targeted. It can still be published en masse, but it cannot be targeted to a particular population. Also, there is a period of time where fact checkers and other sources have time to publish rebuttals, which will be included with the ad.

Veedrac 7y ago
I don't think adverts need the same freedom of speech protections that general users do. Banning factually inaccurate adverts is fine IMO.

xaedes 7y ago

"fact I just saw a room full of people cheer for the censorship of politicians." That was his point I think. I think this was just a performance to point out exactly THAT behaviour. How easy the people cheer for censorship. He even explained his doing in the beginning when he told about his other characters and what he did to the audiences. If that is true, I think its genious. He is my favorite trickster hero now.