3 ms·

Your remedy requires institutionalizing the sorting of individuals into groups. Receiving benefits because of your assigned groups rather than your individual m

Your remedy requires institutionalizing the sorting of individuals into groups. Receiving benefits because of your assigned groups rather than your individual merits must become a positive thing. We are all incentivized to add importance to further categorizations of people, so we might gain some favour. The more of your remedy we get, the worse off we will be. How do you imagine this unequal treatment for good will come to an end "after a while"? When all organizations are geared up to divvy up resources among these groups? When even more people in power got there as champions for specific categories? It will be very hard to get out of that situation. I'd much rather make up for past violations of "equal treatment for all" by implementing more "equal treatment". The more of this we can manage to get, the better of we will be. And there will be nothing to wind down "after a while".

happytoexplain 6y ago
I just wanted to highlight that this is a reasonable comment, and it's hard to find these among the noise that permeates the same half of the opinion gradient that it falls on.
wbazant 6y ago
@rags2riches I'm with you against these authoritarian structures built around redistribution. But one can (and you, too, can) treat some groups of people a little better without literally giving them stuff, creating weird power structures, or encouraging a culture of victimhood. Say I was organising a poetry meetup. There are many aspects to making its attendees enjoy themselves, but evenly distributing my effort would not create the most equitable event. If I want the event to go well, most of my effort should probably go to people for whom the barriers are biggest. This could involve making sure the venue is accessible to wheelchair users, extra encouragement for the person who seems to never have heard that their poems can be worth something, or creating a speaking convention that benefits everyone equally, but puts the most burden on those who are bravest and loudest. > Your remedy requires institutionalizing the sorting of individuals into groups. > It will be very hard to get out of that situation. Interestingly, not in the case of what the posted article is about! Facebook can decide on its own to give extra priority to checking comments for (what its moderators consider) anti-black racism, and it's also the kind of thing that will eventually make itself unnecessary.
- DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
  No, the key difference is: Facebook isn't putting more effort into fighting anti-black discrimination; it's changing its algos to ignore anti-white racism that it is already capable of detecting.
  - wbazant 6y ago
    I guess both are a slightly different phrasing of the same thing - they're aligning their moderation effort in some way, but I'm not sure why you choose it. If it's okay to ask: has anti-white racism been a significant problem for you in your life? For example, are you a white person who experiences anti-white bias from people you interact with?

happytoexplain 6y ago

I just wanted to highlight that this is a reasonable comment, and it's hard to find these among the noise that permeates the same half of the opinion gradient that it falls on.

wbazant 6y ago

@rags2riches I'm with you against these authoritarian structures built around redistribution. But one can (and you, too, can) treat some groups of people a little better without literally giving them stuff, creating weird power structures, or encouraging a culture of victimhood. Say I was organising a poetry meetup. There are many aspects to making its attendees enjoy themselves, but evenly distributing my effort would not create the most equitable event. If I want the event to go well, most of my effort should probably go to people for whom the barriers are biggest. This could involve making sure the venue is accessible to wheelchair users, extra encouragement for the person who seems to never have heard that their poems can be worth something, or creating a speaking convention that benefits everyone equally, but puts the most burden on those who are bravest and loudest. > Your remedy requires institutionalizing the sorting of individuals into groups. > It will be very hard to get out of that situation. Interestingly, not in the case of what the posted article is about! Facebook can decide on its own to give extra priority to checking comments for (what its moderators consider) anti-black racism, and it's also the kind of thing that will eventually make itself unnecessary.

DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
No, the key difference is: Facebook isn't putting more effort into fighting anti-black discrimination; it's changing its algos to ignore anti-white racism that it is already capable of detecting.
- wbazant 6y ago
  I guess both are a slightly different phrasing of the same thing - they're aligning their moderation effort in some way, but I'm not sure why you choose it. If it's okay to ask: has anti-white racism been a significant problem for you in your life? For example, are you a white person who experiences anti-white bias from people you interact with?