4 ms·

That sounds attractive until one starts to delve into the implementation details. How would you implement it?

by joncp 6y ago

rosywoozlechan 6y ago
The US has laws with punishments that make it illegal for people to use computers or to use certain online services already. Just do more of this, but broaden the categories to include posting visually horrifying content that's known to cause PTSD to places where people don't expect to see that.
- bromuro 6y ago
  Sorry, no.
- WrongThinkerNo5 6y ago
  "Just do more of this, but broaden the categories to include posting…" and here you are already thrusting yourself down the slippery slope. You went from "gore, rape, and torture", all of which inherently not easy to prove in and of themselves, but in just a matter of minutes you've already "broadened the categories" to "visually horrifying" (based on who's opinion?) and which is "known to cause PTSD" (known and determined by whom? Not even to mention that PTSD is a professional construct), but also including having to know where people do and do not expect to see something that is something based on the above mentioned ambiguous determinations. It did not take you long at all to just vault yourself down the full on dictator slope. Next up, let me guess, you want to prevent people's access to the internet if they say things you don't agree with because "word are violence" and then "micro-aggressions are violence", simply because you have the control to abuse. Unfortunately that is already the situation right now, but it does not need to be made worse, because it will only thrust us all down a path of overplaying the unrelenting abuse that I can assure you people will not like the inevitable consequences of one bit. Let me also remind you that the US has the supreme law of the land that supersedes all other laws, the First Amendment to the Constitution that states that no law may abridge the freedom of speech, regardless of whether you like it or not.
ed_balls 6y ago
It's insolvable problem. - mom works as a freelancer and the kid uses her computer to post bad content. Does she lose her job? - someone trolls his mate for lolz.
- jungturk 6y ago
  Mom leaves a hundred dollar bill on the desk and her kid spends it. Someone leaves a hundred dollar bill on the desk and his mate spends it for lolz. Are these significantly different (if no less unjust)?
  - SaltyLemonZest 6y ago
    Yes. A huge fraction of modern culture takes place online, through Instagram or Youtube or Facebook or Twitter. I think most people would rather go bankrupt than be barred from all Internet access.
jungturk 6y ago
Maybe the platforms should just progressively revoke access to the more expressive MIME types. You or someone who used your access posts something flagged as inappropriate? Banished to text-only penalty box. Posting inappropriate ascii art? Banished to emoji character penalty box. Repeat offender? Longer/permanent prohibition.

That sounds attractive until one starts to delve into the implementation details. How would you implement it?

by joncp 6y ago

That sounds attractive until one starts to delve into the implementation details. How would you implement it?

The US has laws with punishments that make it illegal for people to use computers or to use certain online services already. Just do more of this, but broaden the categories to include posting visually horrifying content that's known to cause PTSD to places where people don't expect to see that.

bromuro 6y ago
Sorry, no.
WrongThinkerNo5 6y ago
"Just do more of this, but broaden the categories to include posting…" and here you are already thrusting yourself down the slippery slope. You went from "gore, rape, and torture", all of which inherently not easy to prove in and of themselves, but in just a matter of minutes you've already "broadened the categories" to "visually horrifying" (based on who's opinion?) and which is "known to cause PTSD" (known and determined by whom? Not even to mention that PTSD is a professional construct), but also including having to know where people do and do not expect to see something that is something based on the above mentioned ambiguous determinations. It did not take you long at all to just vault yourself down the full on dictator slope. Next up, let me guess, you want to prevent people's access to the internet if they say things you don't agree with because "word are violence" and then "micro-aggressions are violence", simply because you have the control to abuse. Unfortunately that is already the situation right now, but it does not need to be made worse, because it will only thrust us all down a path of overplaying the unrelenting abuse that I can assure you people will not like the inevitable consequences of one bit. Let me also remind you that the US has the supreme law of the land that supersedes all other laws, the First Amendment to the Constitution that states that no law may abridge the freedom of speech, regardless of whether you like it or not.

ed_balls 6y ago

It's insolvable problem. - mom works as a freelancer and the kid uses her computer to post bad content. Does she lose her job? - someone trolls his mate for lolz.

jungturk 6y ago
Mom leaves a hundred dollar bill on the desk and her kid spends it. Someone leaves a hundred dollar bill on the desk and his mate spends it for lolz. Are these significantly different (if no less unjust)?
- SaltyLemonZest 6y ago
  Yes. A huge fraction of modern culture takes place online, through Instagram or Youtube or Facebook or Twitter. I think most people would rather go bankrupt than be barred from all Internet access.

jungturk 6y ago

Maybe the platforms should just progressively revoke access to the more expressive MIME types. You or someone who used your access posts something flagged as inappropriate? Banished to text-only penalty box. Posting inappropriate ascii art? Banished to emoji character penalty box. Repeat offender? Longer/permanent prohibition.