4 ms·

> Private companies should not be able to moderate speech and claim to be a platform. Basically any site with user generated content exists because the sites h

• waheoo 6y ago
  Right, and as we have seen there is no way for sites like medium or facebook to operate without falling down to censorship of expression. Maybe they shouldnt be allowed to operate? Maybe this is why we cant have nice things. Maybe, we need to come up with some other platform type where moderation is by the people for the people. Regarding what we have now, its a dictatorship.
  • JAlexoid 6y ago
    GAB, Parler and Diaspora - all still exist. You're not going to see me there, though. Because "by the people" is always a complete shitshow.
  • themacguffinman 6y ago
    Moderation by the people for the people is exactly what we have now. You think Medium or Facebook want to put so much effort into moderation? Their moderation is merely a reflection of what most people want, and when it strays, they are punished and shamed by the masses. Journalists, advertisers, and users start yelling at you for allowing [insert unpopular group here] to mingle with the rest of them. Ironically you'd likely need a more dictatorial platform to avoid censorship. You'd need a strong dictator to resist the censorship demands of the people. What we have now is a tyranny of the majority.
• rj4deu3hhrhrh 6y ago
  >There's no way real to do forums, social media, or sites like medium or blogs without companies being able to host content without being liable for the content they're hosting that doesn't break the law That doesn't seem true or tragic at all. By your own admission it works it just fine in the literal sense, you just don't seem to like that it would cut into platforms you want to indulge in. What becomes undesirable is things like front page recommendation systems and popularity lists that might now include inflammatory bubbles. I say boohoo, Medium won't get to actively leverage its sea of garbage authors as easily and reddit will have to let the sub-reddits market themselves, nothing of societal value is lost here. Discord style insulated communities become the norm and things move on. And the only casualties end up being shills for left leaning ideology like twitter and tech sector pets like forums that have little relevance to the mainstream. The only reason the tech sector cares about handling this issue with finesse is because no one wants to admit that the industry actually does pander to one side of America's polarized system. That's a feature we as a community built for ourselves It's not a mystery why tech products and beliefs have ended up so homogenous, the industry increasingly homogenized as it congregated in a heavily political region. But if anyone calls that it they get labeled a bigot because that's SF and California culture in a nutshell and most professionals don't have time to deal with that shit so the dissenters just toss the line and collect they're pay. It's no less evident when you notice that enthusiasm and support for whistle blowers only gained broad support in tech once they started targeting the American right. We as an industry are the problem but we've already allowed ourselves to become so polarized that no one is pushing back anymore because at best you get fired but manage to still find work. Most heavy criticism, such as whenever Google gets called out again and again, comes from outside the industry at this point. We built the rails while pretending to be cyber anarchists with no affiliations and then took our chance to ban the trains we didn't like because society couldn't see the implications of what was happening yet, we're the techno-authoritarians and we're no longer the ones qualified to talk about solutions for precisely that reason.
  • rj4deu3hhrhrh 6y ago
    Apologies for the typos, I proofread where I could but I'm on mobile so some slipped through and due to the post length I can't edit them away.