5 ms·

If the rationale for banning is policy violations (doxxing, racism, vulgarity, calls for violence, etc), as long as the standards are consistently enforced I'm

by abnry 6y ago

If the rationale for banning is policy violations (doxxing, racism, vulgarity, calls for violence, etc), as long as the standards are consistently enforced I'm okay with it. Although my caveat is that racism is defined differently for different people. I E., racism has to be directed towards a marginalized group vs derogatory statements based on racial characteristics. This is my main problem with Twitter. The standards aren't consistently enforced. I've seen so many leftist blue checkmarks justifying violence that get a pass. And on the racism front, Sarah Jeong comes to mind.

SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
> racism has to be directed towards a marginalized group vs derogatory statements based on racial characteristics. Here I am old school just thinking the color of a mans skin should have no more significance than the color of his eyes... I don’t believe in the oppression olympics and that hate is ok because group A has it worse than B. Edit: HN 2020, ideals of Haile Selassie are rejected in the name of “tolerance” I guess? What a wild ride!
- maceurt 6y ago
  > Here I am old school just thinking the color of a mans skin should have no more significance than the color of his eyes... I almost certain neither group on either side agrees with that. The people on the left will argue that color is important and is deeply connected to culture and through subconscious/ institutional racism. To pretend to be blind to race or think of it like any other physical characteristic would be to just put your head in the sand and pretend the world is all lollipops and gumballs. The right will argue that race plays a factor in physical and mental characteristics through culture and possibly genetics. And that too ignore race entirely would be to go against the stats on things like average SAT, ACT, IQ, Crime Rate, etc. I personally think that there is truth in a lot of what they both say, and ignoring race will not solve tension or conflict in the US. Its very naive to assume that race is skin deep and can be solved by simply pretending it doesn't exist. If it was that easy we would have solved it by now.
  - afiori 6y ago
    From a mainstream point of view (of let's say twitterverse) the left is the only one I have seen claim that race should be used in social policing. The right would rather use race correlation those metrics to argue that the status quo is fair, not racist and just due to meritocracy. Personally I think both are wrong as the status quo should be improved quite drastically, but also I believe that race-aware policies will ultimately slowdown progress and lead to push back.
ipnon 6y ago
The issue is more pronounced when applied to online communities. We have to assume there are individual members of any online community both breaking and following the rules. What is the threshold of rule breaking that triggers a blanket deactivation of an entire group? The rights of social media companies are so vaguely defined now. Can they escape this crisis without anti-trust litigation or a Supreme Court ruling on the fundamental rights of companies when hosting content online?

by abnry 6y ago

SV_BubbleTime 6y ago

> racism has to be directed towards a marginalized group vs derogatory statements based on racial characteristics. Here I am old school just thinking the color of a mans skin should have no more significance than the color of his eyes... I don’t believe in the oppression olympics and that hate is ok because group A has it worse than B. Edit: HN 2020, ideals of Haile Selassie are rejected in the name of “tolerance” I guess? What a wild ride!

maceurt 6y ago
> Here I am old school just thinking the color of a mans skin should have no more significance than the color of his eyes... I almost certain neither group on either side agrees with that. The people on the left will argue that color is important and is deeply connected to culture and through subconscious/ institutional racism. To pretend to be blind to race or think of it like any other physical characteristic would be to just put your head in the sand and pretend the world is all lollipops and gumballs. The right will argue that race plays a factor in physical and mental characteristics through culture and possibly genetics. And that too ignore race entirely would be to go against the stats on things like average SAT, ACT, IQ, Crime Rate, etc. I personally think that there is truth in a lot of what they both say, and ignoring race will not solve tension or conflict in the US. Its very naive to assume that race is skin deep and can be solved by simply pretending it doesn't exist. If it was that easy we would have solved it by now.
- afiori 6y ago
  From a mainstream point of view (of let's say twitterverse) the left is the only one I have seen claim that race should be used in social policing. The right would rather use race correlation those metrics to argue that the status quo is fair, not racist and just due to meritocracy. Personally I think both are wrong as the status quo should be improved quite drastically, but also I believe that race-aware policies will ultimately slowdown progress and lead to push back.

ipnon 6y ago

The issue is more pronounced when applied to online communities. We have to assume there are individual members of any online community both breaking and following the rules. What is the threshold of rule breaking that triggers a blanket deactivation of an entire group? The rights of social media companies are so vaguely defined now. Can they escape this crisis without anti-trust litigation or a Supreme Court ruling on the fundamental rights of companies when hosting content online?