5 ms·

truly wild that the fight over whether social media platforms should be held liable for speech happens the one time they actually do make a feeble attempt at mo

truly wild that the fight over whether social media platforms should be held liable for speech happens the one time they actually do make a feeble attempt at moderation.

ashtonkem 6y ago
It's almost as if this is about optics and politics, and not a good faith discussion about the power that private companies have and whether or not they're doing a good job with it.
downerending 6y ago
My sense is that moderation has been around since virtually the beginning but has been getting more heavy-handed as time goes on. Moderating political views on international-scale open fora, though, seems far newer, and far more troubling. Most of us are appalled at the censorship in China, and yet we seem to be galloping in that direction. I'd like to feel that people will get sick of it and drop off of these platforms themselves, but I'm not sure that that will happen.
- mrgreenfur 6y ago
  How is twitter labeling his lies as 'misleading' with evidence "galloping" towards china? I think they have an obligation to annotate extremely popular and dangerous comments, but they do not have an obligation to fact check everyone.
  - downerending 6y ago
    > I think they have an obligation to annotate extremely popular and dangerous comments For one, galloping in the sense that probably many Chinese citizens would agree with this sentiment. Try to imagine what Lenny Bruce or George Carlin would think of all this.
    - Gibbon1 6y ago
      I think Lenny Bruce and Carlin would say they were never dog whistling violence.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - downerending 6y ago
        If you impute nefarious motives to all around you, communication collapses, and civilization will soon follow.
        Gibbon1 6y ago
        https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-twitter-today-cowboy-democrat-dead-couy-griffin-tweets-a9537016.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic... So exactly what an I supposed to impute from that?
        downerending 6y ago
        That he's kind of a jackass sometimes.
        Gibbon1 6y ago
        Like this? https://www.nytimes.com/1933/01/31/archives/hitler-puts-aside-aim-to-be-dictator-german-cabinet-also-reveals.html https://www.nytimes.com/1933/01/31/archives/hitler-puts-asid...
  - fareesh 6y ago
    Without getting into the weeds of the discussion, is it really dangerous to suggest that there may be potential for election fraud through mail-in ballots? Is it simply assumed that this is some kind of hack-proof process? Strange to find that kind of sentiment in this community, assuming that's what being suggested. This is an election with multiple candidates, if he is lying, his political opponent can reply and point out his point-of-view as well as the lies. Given that this is possible, how is it better for the platform itself to start participating in the debate on a topic requiring some other domain knowledge?
    - mrgreenfur 6y ago
      It's fine to suggest it if you have evidence, but fearmongering baseless claims is extremely dangerous. I believe they already have terms to avoid lots of dangerous language that incites hate/violence, do you disagree with those too? I think when these platforms become mouthpieces for one way communications, like this case, they deserve criticism for what is said.
      - fareesh 6y ago
        Is it not sufficient to discuss the potential for abuse in such a scenario? Does one necessarily need evidence of prior abuse to voice their concern about a potentially broken system? For instance, in this case the ballots are being automatically mailed to everyone who is registered to vote. Today my roommate is registered to vote. Tomorrow he hypothetically dies of COVID-19. Day after tomorrow, his ballot arrives in the mail. I sign his signature and cast his vote. Fraud. We are in a status quo where otherwise healthy people are dying by the hundreds and thousands on a weekly basis, plus the other hundreds and thousands dying of typical causes. Their ballots are all being mailed out. Can you explain how the system will be protected from the abuse I am describing? Do I need to provide you with evidence that this is happening before I am allowed to criticize the proposed system? Anyway - now I have described some hypothetical ways in which the system can be abused. Now I reckon that someone who is better informed about this can reply to this comment and correct wherever I am mistaken and provide references as to how what I am saying is incorrect. Should a technology company that is running a social media platform now network with expert committees of all topics to provide arguments against electoral candidates whenever they posit something similar to what I have outlined above? Why is it not better to let their opposing candidates do it themselves? How about a feature where the opponents' replies are pinned below the tweet?

truly wild that the fight over whether social media platforms should be held liable for speech happens the one time they actually do make a feeble attempt at moderation.

ashtonkem 6y ago

It's almost as if this is about optics and politics, and not a good faith discussion about the power that private companies have and whether or not they're doing a good job with it.

downerending 6y ago

My sense is that moderation has been around since virtually the beginning but has been getting more heavy-handed as time goes on. Moderating political views on international-scale open fora, though, seems far newer, and far more troubling. Most of us are appalled at the censorship in China, and yet we seem to be galloping in that direction. I'd like to feel that people will get sick of it and drop off of these platforms themselves, but I'm not sure that that will happen.

mrgreenfur 6y ago
How is twitter labeling his lies as 'misleading' with evidence "galloping" towards china? I think they have an obligation to annotate extremely popular and dangerous comments, but they do not have an obligation to fact check everyone.
- downerending 6y ago
  > I think they have an obligation to annotate extremely popular and dangerous comments For one, galloping in the sense that probably many Chinese citizens would agree with this sentiment. Try to imagine what Lenny Bruce or George Carlin would think of all this.
  - Gibbon1 6y ago
    I think Lenny Bruce and Carlin would say they were never dog whistling violence.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - downerending 6y ago
      If you impute nefarious motives to all around you, communication collapses, and civilization will soon follow.
      - Gibbon1 6y ago
        https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-twitter-today-cowboy-democrat-dead-couy-griffin-tweets-a9537016.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic... So exactly what an I supposed to impute from that?
        downerending 6y ago
        That he's kind of a jackass sometimes.
        Gibbon1 6y ago
        Like this? https://www.nytimes.com/1933/01/31/archives/hitler-puts-aside-aim-to-be-dictator-german-cabinet-also-reveals.html https://www.nytimes.com/1933/01/31/archives/hitler-puts-asid...
- fareesh 6y ago
  Without getting into the weeds of the discussion, is it really dangerous to suggest that there may be potential for election fraud through mail-in ballots? Is it simply assumed that this is some kind of hack-proof process? Strange to find that kind of sentiment in this community, assuming that's what being suggested. This is an election with multiple candidates, if he is lying, his political opponent can reply and point out his point-of-view as well as the lies. Given that this is possible, how is it better for the platform itself to start participating in the debate on a topic requiring some other domain knowledge?
  - mrgreenfur 6y ago
    It's fine to suggest it if you have evidence, but fearmongering baseless claims is extremely dangerous. I believe they already have terms to avoid lots of dangerous language that incites hate/violence, do you disagree with those too? I think when these platforms become mouthpieces for one way communications, like this case, they deserve criticism for what is said.
    - fareesh 6y ago
      Is it not sufficient to discuss the potential for abuse in such a scenario? Does one necessarily need evidence of prior abuse to voice their concern about a potentially broken system? For instance, in this case the ballots are being automatically mailed to everyone who is registered to vote. Today my roommate is registered to vote. Tomorrow he hypothetically dies of COVID-19. Day after tomorrow, his ballot arrives in the mail. I sign his signature and cast his vote. Fraud. We are in a status quo where otherwise healthy people are dying by the hundreds and thousands on a weekly basis, plus the other hundreds and thousands dying of typical causes. Their ballots are all being mailed out. Can you explain how the system will be protected from the abuse I am describing? Do I need to provide you with evidence that this is happening before I am allowed to criticize the proposed system? Anyway - now I have described some hypothetical ways in which the system can be abused. Now I reckon that someone who is better informed about this can reply to this comment and correct wherever I am mistaken and provide references as to how what I am saying is incorrect. Should a technology company that is running a social media platform now network with expert committees of all topics to provide arguments against electoral candidates whenever they posit something similar to what I have outlined above? Why is it not better to let their opposing candidates do it themselves? How about a feature where the opponents' replies are pinned below the tweet?