6 ms·

This reminds me of a comment I made a while ago on Facebook and the necessity of moderation: "~Thought exercise~: Let's say you were the mayor of a large city.

This reminds me of a comment I made a while ago on Facebook and the necessity of moderation: "~Thought exercise~: Let's say you were the mayor of a large city. There are multiple areas in the city where you can shout whatever you want during certain hours. Would you let someone hook up an internet-connected megaphone in each area and pipe in hate speech everywhere simultaneously? And what if we were in a future where there were physical bots indistinguishable from humans that crowded into those public spaces, vociferously indicated their agreement, and cheered him on? That future is now. In reality, Facebook owns those public spaces. No one actually goes to that spot in the park anymore. Mark Zuckerberg is the mayor. Oh, and it's not just one city, he's everyone's mayor, everywhere. If you don't use Facebook but you're on Whatsapp, you're still in his jurisdiction. As for the "during certain hours" part? Nope, those internet-connected megaphones are blasting 24/7. Those bots are nodding their heads 24/7. Our mayor also collects megaphone usage fees for himself. He gives you dopamine points, likes, and social validation each time you come back for more. Freedom, yeah." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22206155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22206155

Deely123123 6y ago
Ok. Lets enlarge youre analogy. So, its ok to censorship any public speach?
- keenmaster 6y ago
  That's a big jump from what I said. Here's an expansion of what I said, in my own words. The only people who wielded the "massive megaphone everywhere" before the advent of social media were traditional media organizations (and organizations with disproportionate access to traditional media). These media organizations were relatively professional, with relatively high standards for reporting. They undoubtedly had biases which led to problematic filtering and distortion of the information that they presented. However, with the democratization of media comes to new problems. We no longer have a professional class synthesizing and filtering the information that we see. Any one of us can wield the massive megaphone now, but there is a huge heterogeneity in that usage. The most passionate partisans, the most nefarious nation states, the Dunningest of Dunning-Krugers,...will use the megaphone the most. Since most people are at least somewhat impressionable, this presents a problem. Whereas before the media would impress upon people with (somewhat problematically) filtered information, now social media is impressing upon people with radically unfiltered garbage misinformation. We have to admit that this is an existential problem for our democracy. Only then can we begin to solve it. I am not asking for mass-censorship. I am asking for the system of social media to be redesigned in such a way to mitigate the above problems.
  - meowface 6y ago
    This is the inevitable, unavoidable course of human progress. Letters to telegram to telephone to TV to email to blogs to social media. Eventually we'll all have some wearable device and constantly sharing one-to-many in that way, and later it'll be driven by neural implants. The more you connect people and enable one-to-many communication and information distribution, the more you increase the chance of "viral" ideas propagating, be they (in one's view) good or bad ones. The harm imposed by Facebook mostly has to do with the fact that they're a for-profit company, and particularly a for-profit company that doesn't charge users, causing them to acquire revenue in ways that are extremely prone to perverse incentives. More people gaining the capability to be exposed to more information from more people isn't the problem. I mean, sure, it causes problems and isn't what we're evolved to properly handle, but it's not inherently a bad thing or something that necessitates megamayors policing the distribution streams. (Barring some exceptions in extreme scenarios where death has a high chance of being imminent.) At some point we'll probably have at least one popular decentralized P2P communication medium / social media platform, backed by cryptography, and there'll be no central authority able to control communication in any way, besides governments arresting people or taking other security measures. Zuckerberg-like figures will be irrelevant in these systems, but they'll still exhibit the same properties you describe. It won't be possible for anyone to redesign these systems to mitigate what you see are issues inherent to unrestricted democratization of communication and information. Shouldn't we prepare for this eventuality and accept that this is the asymptote of human civilization, rather than asking gatekeepers to clean things up during this interregnum where the gatekeepers happen to hold a lot of power? It's like growing up with helicopter parents you cling onto despite the fact that you're going to have to face the world on your own when you turn 18.
    - keenmaster 6y ago
      "At some point we'll probably have at least one popular decentralized P2P communication medium / social media platform thing, backed by cryptography, and there'll be no central authority able to control communication in any way" There's not a chance that would ever get traction with a majority of people. The "normies" would be revolted by what they find on there, and trolls would have no one to troll but other trolls. Only the biggest trolls enjoy trolling other trolls. That's what 4chan is for. What you described is a more sophisticated version of 4chan which will have such gruesome content that half of 4chan's userbase would turn away in shock.
- gremlinsinc 6y ago
  Any? No, Some? Yes. I saw a youtube video where a nazi chick literally said she didn't believe in the Holocaust, but thinks gas chambers for Jews was a pretty good idea. WTF?! Someone standing at a podium calling for people to willy nilly execute a specific race/ethnic class, should probably be thrown in jail, or we get 1940 all over again.
freeopinion 6y ago
Can I modify the analogy in one important way? Let's say that the only way you could hear this speech that is being blasted all over is to visit a kiosk and put on a pair of headphones. Facebook doesn't own the public spaces. They own the kiosks. How absurd that people drop their frisbees and basketballs and briefcases and crowd into these stupid kiosks to put on the headphones. Then some get outraged at what is going on in these "public spaces".
- keenmaster 6y ago
  That's the same kiosk where you go to interact with friends, post and view statuses and pictures, coordinate with local groups, and then get crack cocaine (social validation) to remind you to come back again. Significantly fewer people whom you care about are at the other kiosks, so you don't visit them. That's why I thought the public square analogy was more apt as-is.
  - gremlinsinc 6y ago
    I've finally read 1984 last week while I was fishing w/ family. They never did find out who/what big brother was/is. I'm pretty sure it's Mark Zuckerberg and the ai cyborg he becomes one day. /s (maybe).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Deely123123 6y ago

Ok. Lets enlarge youre analogy. So, its ok to censorship any public speach?

keenmaster 6y ago
That's a big jump from what I said. Here's an expansion of what I said, in my own words. The only people who wielded the "massive megaphone everywhere" before the advent of social media were traditional media organizations (and organizations with disproportionate access to traditional media). These media organizations were relatively professional, with relatively high standards for reporting. They undoubtedly had biases which led to problematic filtering and distortion of the information that they presented. However, with the democratization of media comes to new problems. We no longer have a professional class synthesizing and filtering the information that we see. Any one of us can wield the massive megaphone now, but there is a huge heterogeneity in that usage. The most passionate partisans, the most nefarious nation states, the Dunningest of Dunning-Krugers,...will use the megaphone the most. Since most people are at least somewhat impressionable, this presents a problem. Whereas before the media would impress upon people with (somewhat problematically) filtered information, now social media is impressing upon people with radically unfiltered garbage misinformation. We have to admit that this is an existential problem for our democracy. Only then can we begin to solve it. I am not asking for mass-censorship. I am asking for the system of social media to be redesigned in such a way to mitigate the above problems.
- meowface 6y ago
  This is the inevitable, unavoidable course of human progress. Letters to telegram to telephone to TV to email to blogs to social media. Eventually we'll all have some wearable device and constantly sharing one-to-many in that way, and later it'll be driven by neural implants. The more you connect people and enable one-to-many communication and information distribution, the more you increase the chance of "viral" ideas propagating, be they (in one's view) good or bad ones. The harm imposed by Facebook mostly has to do with the fact that they're a for-profit company, and particularly a for-profit company that doesn't charge users, causing them to acquire revenue in ways that are extremely prone to perverse incentives. More people gaining the capability to be exposed to more information from more people isn't the problem. I mean, sure, it causes problems and isn't what we're evolved to properly handle, but it's not inherently a bad thing or something that necessitates megamayors policing the distribution streams. (Barring some exceptions in extreme scenarios where death has a high chance of being imminent.) At some point we'll probably have at least one popular decentralized P2P communication medium / social media platform, backed by cryptography, and there'll be no central authority able to control communication in any way, besides governments arresting people or taking other security measures. Zuckerberg-like figures will be irrelevant in these systems, but they'll still exhibit the same properties you describe. It won't be possible for anyone to redesign these systems to mitigate what you see are issues inherent to unrestricted democratization of communication and information. Shouldn't we prepare for this eventuality and accept that this is the asymptote of human civilization, rather than asking gatekeepers to clean things up during this interregnum where the gatekeepers happen to hold a lot of power? It's like growing up with helicopter parents you cling onto despite the fact that you're going to have to face the world on your own when you turn 18.
  - keenmaster 6y ago
    "At some point we'll probably have at least one popular decentralized P2P communication medium / social media platform thing, backed by cryptography, and there'll be no central authority able to control communication in any way" There's not a chance that would ever get traction with a majority of people. The "normies" would be revolted by what they find on there, and trolls would have no one to troll but other trolls. Only the biggest trolls enjoy trolling other trolls. That's what 4chan is for. What you described is a more sophisticated version of 4chan which will have such gruesome content that half of 4chan's userbase would turn away in shock.
gremlinsinc 6y ago
Any? No, Some? Yes. I saw a youtube video where a nazi chick literally said she didn't believe in the Holocaust, but thinks gas chambers for Jews was a pretty good idea. WTF?! Someone standing at a podium calling for people to willy nilly execute a specific race/ethnic class, should probably be thrown in jail, or we get 1940 all over again.

freeopinion 6y ago

Can I modify the analogy in one important way? Let's say that the only way you could hear this speech that is being blasted all over is to visit a kiosk and put on a pair of headphones. Facebook doesn't own the public spaces. They own the kiosks. How absurd that people drop their frisbees and basketballs and briefcases and crowd into these stupid kiosks to put on the headphones. Then some get outraged at what is going on in these "public spaces".

keenmaster 6y ago
That's the same kiosk where you go to interact with friends, post and view statuses and pictures, coordinate with local groups, and then get crack cocaine (social validation) to remind you to come back again. Significantly fewer people whom you care about are at the other kiosks, so you don't visit them. That's why I thought the public square analogy was more apt as-is.
- gremlinsinc 6y ago
  I've finally read 1984 last week while I was fishing w/ family. They never did find out who/what big brother was/is. I'm pretty sure it's Mark Zuckerberg and the ai cyborg he becomes one day. /s (maybe).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]