4 ms·

I have to disagree. It’s not about pleasing both sides; it’s about being a fair and unbiased platform. And on that front I think big tech absolutely blew it thi

by dimgl 6y ago

I have to disagree. It’s not about pleasing both sides; it’s about being a fair and unbiased platform. And on that front I think big tech absolutely blew it this time across the board. Our society is fractured. There is so much hate and whining online. So much righteousness and loathing. And big tech has only amplified the problem. At times they even fan the flames, what with dubious fact checkers and their “hate speech” bans. I can’t even go on Reddit anymore. I find myself disagreeing with absolutely everyone now that the dissenting opinions have been pushed out and banned. And it’s only getting worse.

notahacker 6y ago
I mean, I was replying to someone who defined their failure explicitly in terms of it pissing off both sides. Which was always going to happen, unless they unequivocally took one side. But I have absolutely no doubt that whatever you consider to be 'fair and unbiased' others will regard as unfair, unbalanced and unpleasant.
mancerayder 6y ago
I tend to have a similar mindset - I have an allergy to groupthink, and when I see groups of people saying false things, even if I generally normally agree with the spirit of the group, I have to at least 'fact check' with a response. But in this strange new bifurcated reality, you get pinned as 'Other' as in, I must be the 'Other side' and thus subject to to some sort of retaliation. I don't get 'banned' but I get downvoted - as I did on this thread with no real explanation. I have absolutely no problem with "Fact checking" because at least it shows the original thing. I have a big problem with shadow banning, deleting and outright banning. The latter is censorship.
fsociety 6y ago
In today’s political landscape, being unbiased in content moderation will anger both sides because of the intense polarization that is occurring. Then if you go the way of Reddit you will please one side and make the other even more angry. I think the problem is that we see what is happening in the US with poverty and the middle class, but instead we focus on tribalism. Not sure what the solution is here.

by dimgl 6y ago

notahacker 6y ago

I mean, I was replying to someone who defined their failure explicitly in terms of it pissing off both sides. Which was always going to happen, unless they unequivocally took one side. But I have absolutely no doubt that whatever you consider to be 'fair and unbiased' others will regard as unfair, unbalanced and unpleasant.

mancerayder 6y ago

I tend to have a similar mindset - I have an allergy to groupthink, and when I see groups of people saying false things, even if I generally normally agree with the spirit of the group, I have to at least 'fact check' with a response. But in this strange new bifurcated reality, you get pinned as 'Other' as in, I must be the 'Other side' and thus subject to to some sort of retaliation. I don't get 'banned' but I get downvoted - as I did on this thread with no real explanation. I have absolutely no problem with "Fact checking" because at least it shows the original thing. I have a big problem with shadow banning, deleting and outright banning. The latter is censorship.

fsociety 6y ago

In today’s political landscape, being unbiased in content moderation will anger both sides because of the intense polarization that is occurring. Then if you go the way of Reddit you will please one side and make the other even more angry. I think the problem is that we see what is happening in the US with poverty and the middle class, but instead we focus on tribalism. Not sure what the solution is here.