9 ms·

How do you decide which of the violent and/or damaging speeches to deplatform? I see nothing done except “use tribalism to decide.”

by zests 6y ago

colinmhayes 6y ago
Exactly what we're doing now. Democracy. The people vote with their wallet.
- zests 6y ago
  The mega-corporations that herd people together and use their people herd to sell ad slots are not part of a democracy.
  - bun_at_work 6y ago
    Public outrage is what these companies are responding to. If they didn't think the majority of their users wanted this, they wouldn't do it. For example, you don't see Parler banning the domestic terrorists organizing on the platform, do you?
- rufus_foreman 6y ago
  So Hamilton, not Jefferson.
caconym_ 6y ago
> I see nothing done except “use tribalism to decide.” I disagree. You don't need tribalism, for instance, to see that somebody spreading lies and conspiracy theories in a transparent attempt to undermine confidence in our elections is going to do an immense amount of damage to the institutions of our democracy if he isn't muzzled. We have to remember that truth is real, that people can act in good faith, and simply do the best we can. Perfect is the enemy of good enough.
- drak0n1c 6y ago
  Who decides what counts as lies and conspiracy theory? What if they decide spreading the attitude that “all cops are bastards” or the notion that police shooting events are mostly motivated by bigotry a conspiracy theory that leads to additional violence and start banning tangential speech?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - caconym_ 6y ago
    Lots of lies can't easily be proven false, but many can, as long as we agree on some really basic principles. For instance, if you tell me that two plus two equals five, I can count out two sets of two coins, then put them all together, count them again, and see that the answer is 4. So in that case I will be confident in calling you a liar. You could, of course, say I'm wrong.
    - onecommentman 6y ago
      And you actually could be wrong. Have you defined the term “two”? You didn’t here. “But everybody knows what ‘two’ is! You’re being facetious.” No, not really. Most of the ranting here comes from 1. not precisely defining, and agreeing to, the terms that are being used in discussion, or 2. misinterpreting, intentionally or not, how others are using a term (so easy because the term was not defined properly by the poster in the first place)... This provides the opportunity to reincarnate a long-neglected topic of study, closely connected to San Francisco, known as General Semantics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_semantics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_semantics If this “discussion” occurred among US intellectuals 70 years ago, someone would have already made my observation about defining terms. A basic tenet: If nobody is defining and gaining an acceptance by others of the terms used in a discussion, you will get intellectually nowhere in your discussion and you will come to no agreement...or...each of you will think an agreement means something different. Dead waste of photons... Soviet communists hated the idea at the time. “How can you rile up the masses if they objectively and rationally discussed things” seemed to be the concern. Ironic, because if the German people had used the basic techniques in the Nazi 1930s, there would have been 50% more young Russian men alive in the 1950s. Which is why it was so popular among the young intellectuals in the US after WWII who really didn’t want another war. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42573948?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/42573948?seq=1 It is particularly appropriate for a Bay Area group since one of the leading proponents was S.I. Hayakawa who was President of San Francisco State University and former US Senator for California. His book, Language in Thought and Action, was a popular explanation of General Semantics for normal people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_in_Thought_and_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_in_Thought_and_Action It was a Book-of-the-Month club selection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_the_Month https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_the_Month Sold a million copies and was his ticket to politics. An easy and pleasant read even today. If you pursue General Semantics further, skip the esoterica by the founder Korzybski. It is sort of Eselen-culty without any nudity, so, what’s the point? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esalen_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esalen_Institute

How do you decide which of the violent and/or damaging speeches to deplatform? I see nothing done except “use tribalism to decide.”

by zests 6y ago

How do you decide which of the violent and/or damaging speeches to deplatform? I see nothing done except “use tribalism to decide.”

colinmhayes 6y ago

Exactly what we're doing now. Democracy. The people vote with their wallet.

zests 6y ago
The mega-corporations that herd people together and use their people herd to sell ad slots are not part of a democracy.
- bun_at_work 6y ago
  Public outrage is what these companies are responding to. If they didn't think the majority of their users wanted this, they wouldn't do it. For example, you don't see Parler banning the domestic terrorists organizing on the platform, do you?
rufus_foreman 6y ago
So Hamilton, not Jefferson.

caconym_ 6y ago

> I see nothing done except “use tribalism to decide.” I disagree. You don't need tribalism, for instance, to see that somebody spreading lies and conspiracy theories in a transparent attempt to undermine confidence in our elections is going to do an immense amount of damage to the institutions of our democracy if he isn't muzzled. We have to remember that truth is real, that people can act in good faith, and simply do the best we can. Perfect is the enemy of good enough.

drak0n1c 6y ago
Who decides what counts as lies and conspiracy theory? What if they decide spreading the attitude that “all cops are bastards” or the notion that police shooting events are mostly motivated by bigotry a conspiracy theory that leads to additional violence and start banning tangential speech?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- caconym_ 6y ago
  Lots of lies can't easily be proven false, but many can, as long as we agree on some really basic principles. For instance, if you tell me that two plus two equals five, I can count out two sets of two coins, then put them all together, count them again, and see that the answer is 4. So in that case I will be confident in calling you a liar. You could, of course, say I'm wrong.
  - onecommentman 6y ago
    And you actually could be wrong. Have you defined the term “two”? You didn’t here. “But everybody knows what ‘two’ is! You’re being facetious.” No, not really. Most of the ranting here comes from 1. not precisely defining, and agreeing to, the terms that are being used in discussion, or 2. misinterpreting, intentionally or not, how others are using a term (so easy because the term was not defined properly by the poster in the first place)... This provides the opportunity to reincarnate a long-neglected topic of study, closely connected to San Francisco, known as General Semantics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_semantics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_semantics If this “discussion” occurred among US intellectuals 70 years ago, someone would have already made my observation about defining terms. A basic tenet: If nobody is defining and gaining an acceptance by others of the terms used in a discussion, you will get intellectually nowhere in your discussion and you will come to no agreement...or...each of you will think an agreement means something different. Dead waste of photons... Soviet communists hated the idea at the time. “How can you rile up the masses if they objectively and rationally discussed things” seemed to be the concern. Ironic, because if the German people had used the basic techniques in the Nazi 1930s, there would have been 50% more young Russian men alive in the 1950s. Which is why it was so popular among the young intellectuals in the US after WWII who really didn’t want another war. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42573948?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/42573948?seq=1 It is particularly appropriate for a Bay Area group since one of the leading proponents was S.I. Hayakawa who was President of San Francisco State University and former US Senator for California. His book, Language in Thought and Action, was a popular explanation of General Semantics for normal people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_in_Thought_and_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_in_Thought_and_Action It was a Book-of-the-Month club selection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_the_Month https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_the_Month Sold a million copies and was his ticket to politics. An easy and pleasant read even today. If you pursue General Semantics further, skip the esoterica by the founder Korzybski. It is sort of Eselen-culty without any nudity, so, what’s the point? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esalen_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esalen_Institute