6 ms·

Unless something is illegal, Facebook or any website should allow the content. There will always be people who don't like a person or a viewpoint. It's a slippe

Unless something is illegal, Facebook or any website should allow the content. There will always be people who don't like a person or a viewpoint. It's a slippery slope to start moderating content that is not illegal.

DevX101 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib...
- nemetroid 6y ago
  Is this an argument against the parent post? If so, it's not clear what the argument is.
  - turndown 6y ago
    The radio station mentioned was the inciting element in a genocide. Surely it does not take a large amount of analysis to understand that the underlying mechanism, dissemminating lies or propoganda on a widely used, easily accessed medium, applies directly to OP...
    - nemetroid 6y ago
      The link is just an example of how some speech is bad. The point of the original comment was that badness should be determined by laws, and not by the moderation policies of private companies. I don’t see how the linked article forms an argument for or against that position.
      - turndown 6y ago
        The link provides a clear example of where this policy fails: false statements about the Tutsi & other ethnic groups lead to a genocide. None of this was illegal within the definition of free speech in Rwanda - as far as I am aware - thus providing an example where only moderating content on its basis of legality fails. As a cherry on top, the link also mentions that the radio station was actually endorsed by the government and provided equipment to them. Should the law be the best basis for moderation when the morality of those writing the laws cannot be spoken for?
  - malcolmgreaves 6y ago
    "Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) was a Rwandan radio station which broadcast from July 8, 1993 to July 31, 1994. It played a significant role in inciting the April–July 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi." ... "it is widely regarded by many Rwandan citizens (a view also shared and expressed by the UN war crimes tribunal) as having played a crucial role in creating the atmosphere of charged racial hostility that allowed the genocide to occur." Real, verifiable proof that any publisher of information or platform that hosts information has a responsibility to ensure that they are not making society worse. This radio station fanned the flames of hatred and is responsible in part for the murder of hundreds of thousands of people.
    - nemetroid 6y ago
      It can equally well be used as an example of why hate speech should be outlawed rather than moderated.
      - runarberg 6y ago
        Regrettably it isn’t that clear cut. While hate is illegal—and rightfully so—racists, bigots and war mongers can and do find ways to spread their hate with legal means. This includes shorthands, dog whistles, framing and tones, etc.[1] I don’t think we will ever be able to conceive a legal framework that can catch all these as hate speech. So we need moderation along side criminalization of hate speech. 1: I recommend the YouTube series The Alt-Right Playbook for an overview of these tactics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xGawJIseNY&list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xGawJIseNY&list=PLJA_jUddXv...
        nemetroid 6y ago
        > I don’t think we will ever be able to conceive a legal framework that can catch all these as hate speech. Then why would Facebook be able to conceive a moderation framework that can catch all these? The underlying problem to be solved is the same, it has just been removed from democratic scrutiny.
bagacrap 6y ago
Isn't "slippery slope" considered a logical fallacy? Until fb deletes something and by doing so clearly causes harm to society, let's not assume that any-moderation-whatsoever is evil.
- runarberg 6y ago
  The Cambridge Analytica scandal already proved to be harmful for democracy. False (and illegally financed) advertising on facebook is also believed to have influenced the brexit election enough to swing the vote. The current (lack of/bad) moderation is already causing harm to society.
  - greatwhitenorth 6y ago
    There is no scandal if you read Boz's (FB's VP) post on Cambridge Analytica. Of course, very few people are going to believe it since it came from Facebook itself. It's mainstream media vs Facebook on who gets the eyeballs.
saltedonion 6y ago
Facebook moderates a lot of content already. Read their community guidelines and almost anything that’s non advertiser friendly is not allowed. I agree fb should not moderate content too heavily handedly such that it wrongfully suppresses free speech, and consumers should choose a platform that is healthy for society, but it might be too much to ask for the average consumer. You also need to realized fbs recommendation engine corners people into ideological echo chambers.
runarberg 6y ago
Most platforms do some kind of moderation, and when a platform is as pervasive as facebook, it becomes essential. We’ve already seen how a lack of moderation on facebook influenced the 2016 election. So it is not hard to argue that facebook’s negligence is already causing significant harm to our democracy.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  This is how you moderate your feed on Facebook: if you don't like someone and what they have to say, unfriend them. Problem solved.
  - runarberg 6y ago
    My personal feed is not the issue here. The issue is how reactionary material keeps popping up in the feed of people who are susceptible into rallying behind it. The target area is so vast the you are bound to influence a lot of people. And the nature of the material only belonging to personal feeds makes scrutinizing by third parties impossible. All of this culminates into a really dangerous propaganda machine, especially since the platform is used by people who only go there to keep in touch with friends and family. Not moderating facebook is criminally negligent and is putting our democracy in a woeful danger.
    - meddlepal 6y ago
      > My personal feed is not the issue here. The issue is how reactionary material keeps popping up in the feed of people who are susceptible into rallying behind it. What you are basically arguing is that people are too stupid to handle free speech.
      - runarberg 6y ago
        Please don’t put words in my mouth... If reactionary speech gets scrutinized or if false speech gets a fact check it doesn’t make it any less free does it?
    - 6y ago
amanaplanacanal 6y ago
> It's a slippery slope to start moderating content that is not illegal. It's nothing of the sort. Moderation is critical, or it would degenerate into garbage. Dan does an excellent job on this site, for example.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- greatwhitenorth 6y ago
  Why would anyone allow spam in a website? It's nonsensical to assume I meant that.
jacobush 6y ago
This is not really the largest problem with FB at all. It's that they finely tune us in Skinner boxes to react to shitposts. If the algorithm crosses the line and you back off, it tries something else. It just so happens that what we humans engage most with is inflammatory bullshit, so of course the algos push that. It's not personal, it's just more money in that.

DevX101 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib...

nemetroid 6y ago
Is this an argument against the parent post? If so, it's not clear what the argument is.
- turndown 6y ago
  The radio station mentioned was the inciting element in a genocide. Surely it does not take a large amount of analysis to understand that the underlying mechanism, dissemminating lies or propoganda on a widely used, easily accessed medium, applies directly to OP...
  - nemetroid 6y ago
    The link is just an example of how some speech is bad. The point of the original comment was that badness should be determined by laws, and not by the moderation policies of private companies. I don’t see how the linked article forms an argument for or against that position.
    - turndown 6y ago
      The link provides a clear example of where this policy fails: false statements about the Tutsi & other ethnic groups lead to a genocide. None of this was illegal within the definition of free speech in Rwanda - as far as I am aware - thus providing an example where only moderating content on its basis of legality fails. As a cherry on top, the link also mentions that the radio station was actually endorsed by the government and provided equipment to them. Should the law be the best basis for moderation when the morality of those writing the laws cannot be spoken for?
- malcolmgreaves 6y ago
  "Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) was a Rwandan radio station which broadcast from July 8, 1993 to July 31, 1994. It played a significant role in inciting the April–July 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi." ... "it is widely regarded by many Rwandan citizens (a view also shared and expressed by the UN war crimes tribunal) as having played a crucial role in creating the atmosphere of charged racial hostility that allowed the genocide to occur." Real, verifiable proof that any publisher of information or platform that hosts information has a responsibility to ensure that they are not making society worse. This radio station fanned the flames of hatred and is responsible in part for the murder of hundreds of thousands of people.
  - nemetroid 6y ago
    It can equally well be used as an example of why hate speech should be outlawed rather than moderated.
    - runarberg 6y ago
      Regrettably it isn’t that clear cut. While hate is illegal—and rightfully so—racists, bigots and war mongers can and do find ways to spread their hate with legal means. This includes shorthands, dog whistles, framing and tones, etc.[1] I don’t think we will ever be able to conceive a legal framework that can catch all these as hate speech. So we need moderation along side criminalization of hate speech. 1: I recommend the YouTube series The Alt-Right Playbook for an overview of these tactics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xGawJIseNY&list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xGawJIseNY&list=PLJA_jUddXv...
      - nemetroid 6y ago
        > I don’t think we will ever be able to conceive a legal framework that can catch all these as hate speech. Then why would Facebook be able to conceive a moderation framework that can catch all these? The underlying problem to be solved is the same, it has just been removed from democratic scrutiny.

bagacrap 6y ago

Isn't "slippery slope" considered a logical fallacy? Until fb deletes something and by doing so clearly causes harm to society, let's not assume that any-moderation-whatsoever is evil.

runarberg 6y ago
The Cambridge Analytica scandal already proved to be harmful for democracy. False (and illegally financed) advertising on facebook is also believed to have influenced the brexit election enough to swing the vote. The current (lack of/bad) moderation is already causing harm to society.
- greatwhitenorth 6y ago
  There is no scandal if you read Boz's (FB's VP) post on Cambridge Analytica. Of course, very few people are going to believe it since it came from Facebook itself. It's mainstream media vs Facebook on who gets the eyeballs.

saltedonion 6y ago

Facebook moderates a lot of content already. Read their community guidelines and almost anything that’s non advertiser friendly is not allowed. I agree fb should not moderate content too heavily handedly such that it wrongfully suppresses free speech, and consumers should choose a platform that is healthy for society, but it might be too much to ask for the average consumer. You also need to realized fbs recommendation engine corners people into ideological echo chambers.

runarberg 6y ago

Most platforms do some kind of moderation, and when a platform is as pervasive as facebook, it becomes essential. We’ve already seen how a lack of moderation on facebook influenced the 2016 election. So it is not hard to argue that facebook’s negligence is already causing significant harm to our democracy.

chrisco255 6y ago
This is how you moderate your feed on Facebook: if you don't like someone and what they have to say, unfriend them. Problem solved.
- runarberg 6y ago
  My personal feed is not the issue here. The issue is how reactionary material keeps popping up in the feed of people who are susceptible into rallying behind it. The target area is so vast the you are bound to influence a lot of people. And the nature of the material only belonging to personal feeds makes scrutinizing by third parties impossible. All of this culminates into a really dangerous propaganda machine, especially since the platform is used by people who only go there to keep in touch with friends and family. Not moderating facebook is criminally negligent and is putting our democracy in a woeful danger.
  - meddlepal 6y ago
    > My personal feed is not the issue here. The issue is how reactionary material keeps popping up in the feed of people who are susceptible into rallying behind it. What you are basically arguing is that people are too stupid to handle free speech.
    - runarberg 6y ago
      Please don’t put words in my mouth... If reactionary speech gets scrutinized or if false speech gets a fact check it doesn’t make it any less free does it?
  - 6y ago

amanaplanacanal 6y ago

> It's a slippery slope to start moderating content that is not illegal. It's nothing of the sort. Moderation is critical, or it would degenerate into garbage. Dan does an excellent job on this site, for example.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
greatwhitenorth 6y ago
Why would anyone allow spam in a website? It's nonsensical to assume I meant that.

jacobush 6y ago

This is not really the largest problem with FB at all. It's that they finely tune us in Skinner boxes to react to shitposts. If the algorithm crosses the line and you back off, it tries something else. It just so happens that what we humans engage most with is inflammatory bullshit, so of course the algos push that. It's not personal, it's just more money in that.