4 ms·
The problem is that there's no reason to believe that this policy will be limited strictly to obvious garbage. Unpopular, but not garbage views will inevitably
by wnoise 6y ago
The problem is that there's no reason to believe that this policy will be limited strictly to obvious garbage. Unpopular, but not garbage views will inevitably be hit too. Maybe that's worth taking out the garbage, but collateral damage is still a negative.
- mikeyouse 6y agoIt's amusing how much HN mocks the police for their stance that everything that enables privacy could enable child exploitation imagery while at the same time insisting that anything that resembles moderation will end in dystopian thought policing. Sometimes slopes just aren't that slippery.
- wnoise 6y agoEverything that enables privacy absolutely could enable child exploitation imagery. But privacy as a whole is too fucking valuable to give up to make prosecuting some crimes easier. In the US, that's the whole point of the fourth amendment -- warrants with probable cause and specificity requirements are the proper escape hatch, not bulk data sifting. Not all crime can or should be caught at any cost whatsoever. Moderation need not end in dystopian thought policing. Reddit has had moderation for quite some time. Indeed voting was there from the beginning, and is a primitive crowdsourced form of moderation, with many obvious flaws, including groupthink. Forum moderation's whole point is to constrain what can be said. It can be used for good or ill. Extending it to bans from agreeing with wrongthink is a step beyond the status quo. Maybe it'll balance out to be good on net, maybe bad, but don't pretend it's not novel or that it's obviously good on balance, and no one should be concerned.