6 ms·

Cant work. If you are in the super market buying food, and people are giving out free trials of crack cocaine -> addiction city. You can very regularly see Na

Cant work. If you are in the super market buying food, and people are giving out free trials of crack cocaine -> addiction city. You can very regularly see Nazi apologia which is so dressed up and benign sounding. "Teach the facts", "did this really happen" - the debunking of which requires access to people used to debunking it. The same rule applies to a variety of topics. Simply put, the average person is not prepared for lawyer level rhetorical devices in the wild. So either we remove content like that, or we live through whatever disasters a world of reality distortion creates. Most likely the survivors of that world will simply lock down the news down hard.

Karunamon 6y ago
>Simply put, the average person is not prepared for lawyer level rhetorical devices in the wild. This boils down to "censorship is okay because people might believe the wrong thing", and down that path lay a well-greased and well-trodden slippery slope ending in the maws of dragons. It's incredibly paternalistic. It is not your job, nor the government's, nor anyone else's to protect people from reading/thinking/etc. the wrong things.
- intended 6y ago
  It actually was my job, I saw exactly what letting things alone did. I know how many ways your ideas are incorrect, because I worked from that same starting point. If you believe that ideals are going to do the job, please feel free! There's 100s of subs that need mods. Take the time to find the most gnarly politically active sub and apply your ideas. Find the places where people actively deal with propo and indoctrination. If you can solve what everyone else has failed at, every firm, regulator and moderator under the sun will cheer you on. Till then, this is what works. Not because I like it, or because it's "paternal" - but because it conforms to how humans actually behave and how content performs online today. IT is what it is, and we can only improve by knowing reality first.
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    Do you think your views will never be wrongfully censored?
    - intended 6y ago
      As I said, feel free to do it yourself. It's enlightening - it removes idealism and makes you formulate strategies that are practical. If you get the practice right, maybe we can get to the ideals. I've already been wrongfully censored, life goes on.
      - Karunamon 6y ago
        I'll keep my idealism, thanks. I've seen what censorship does, and I find it to be a far worse monster than any of those spawned by the free exchange of ideas.
        intended 6y ago
        Sure, however idealism doesn't mean your opinion is better than actual facts. Its always interesting that I get into these discussion with some people who hold a position so strongly, yet unwilling to do any work to be reliable. Do try though, if you crack it there's genuinely a market for the solution.
        cryinghippo 6y ago
        > Sure, however idealism doesn't mean your opinion is better than actual facts. What are the facts you refer to? That some forums descend into chaos when left unmoderated? I don't think that's in dispute. It sounds like you disagree on a value judgement: what to do in the face of that fact.
    - numpad0 6y ago
      I think he IS wrongfully machined already. Those attitudes and behaviors are merely engineered traits to make Reddit engaging and active, sad to see who seems to be an otherwise happy person being wasted like that.
commandlinefan 6y ago
> "Teach the facts", "did this really happen" So... you're literally calling for censorship of political discourse.
scotty79 6y ago
> Simply put, the average person is not prepared for lawyer level rhetorical devices in the wild. Maybe we should figure out how to educate people to prepare them? Can we really build our safety on our ability to keep stupid people ignorant of stupid ideas? I think that's the kind of security through obscurity that is currently failing us so hard. Stupid people are finding stupid ideas anyways, sharing them, building upon them. Trying to keep them away from stupid ideas is like trying to keep your body perfectly germ free. You can't really do that. Not in the long term. You are better of figuring how to boost your immunity.
- intended 6y ago
  People aren't code. Plus you dont see people exposing themselves to prions or the plague. More pertinently, you could argue that we shouldn't worry about sociopaths, and that if they convince or charm someone - that's just bad luck, and it boosts people's immunity. Why did we worry about lootboxes or attention manipulating algorithms? Because when its not a fair fight, the outcome is not fair. If I sent you up against professional Nazi denying content, and you knew jack about the Nazis - I guarantee you would think they had a point. There are supremely persuasive books saying the numbers are wrong, or that the data doesn't add up. There are some ideas that are simply that toxic - handling them without training is a sure shot way to radicalize someone. =------= Sure, I would love to have classes like their are doing in some countries. First - I doubt that flies in America, where Fox news is one of the largest networks. Second - even if you did start classes for kids and teens - it still leaves your adults vulnerable. I don't even know if it is possible to de-radicalize the already radicalized. If you don't stop the radicalization, you will simply have more of such people. So sure, get those classes going, but its only one part of the solution.
  - cryinghippo 6y ago
    Who should people be willing to use as a censor to protect them? I assert the choice to decide for myself, and question the motives and capability of those that try to take that away.
  - logicchains 6y ago

Karunamon 6y ago

>Simply put, the average person is not prepared for lawyer level rhetorical devices in the wild. This boils down to "censorship is okay because people might believe the wrong thing", and down that path lay a well-greased and well-trodden slippery slope ending in the maws of dragons. It's incredibly paternalistic. It is not your job, nor the government's, nor anyone else's to protect people from reading/thinking/etc. the wrong things.

intended 6y ago
It actually was my job, I saw exactly what letting things alone did. I know how many ways your ideas are incorrect, because I worked from that same starting point. If you believe that ideals are going to do the job, please feel free! There's 100s of subs that need mods. Take the time to find the most gnarly politically active sub and apply your ideas. Find the places where people actively deal with propo and indoctrination. If you can solve what everyone else has failed at, every firm, regulator and moderator under the sun will cheer you on. Till then, this is what works. Not because I like it, or because it's "paternal" - but because it conforms to how humans actually behave and how content performs online today. IT is what it is, and we can only improve by knowing reality first.
- Karunamon 6y ago
  Do you think your views will never be wrongfully censored?
  - intended 6y ago
    As I said, feel free to do it yourself. It's enlightening - it removes idealism and makes you formulate strategies that are practical. If you get the practice right, maybe we can get to the ideals. I've already been wrongfully censored, life goes on.
    - Karunamon 6y ago
      I'll keep my idealism, thanks. I've seen what censorship does, and I find it to be a far worse monster than any of those spawned by the free exchange of ideas.
      - intended 6y ago
        Sure, however idealism doesn't mean your opinion is better than actual facts. Its always interesting that I get into these discussion with some people who hold a position so strongly, yet unwilling to do any work to be reliable. Do try though, if you crack it there's genuinely a market for the solution.
        cryinghippo 6y ago
        > Sure, however idealism doesn't mean your opinion is better than actual facts. What are the facts you refer to? That some forums descend into chaos when left unmoderated? I don't think that's in dispute. It sounds like you disagree on a value judgement: what to do in the face of that fact.
  - numpad0 6y ago
    I think he IS wrongfully machined already. Those attitudes and behaviors are merely engineered traits to make Reddit engaging and active, sad to see who seems to be an otherwise happy person being wasted like that.

commandlinefan 6y ago

> "Teach the facts", "did this really happen" So... you're literally calling for censorship of political discourse.

scotty79 6y ago

> Simply put, the average person is not prepared for lawyer level rhetorical devices in the wild. Maybe we should figure out how to educate people to prepare them? Can we really build our safety on our ability to keep stupid people ignorant of stupid ideas? I think that's the kind of security through obscurity that is currently failing us so hard. Stupid people are finding stupid ideas anyways, sharing them, building upon them. Trying to keep them away from stupid ideas is like trying to keep your body perfectly germ free. You can't really do that. Not in the long term. You are better of figuring how to boost your immunity.

intended 6y ago
People aren't code. Plus you dont see people exposing themselves to prions or the plague. More pertinently, you could argue that we shouldn't worry about sociopaths, and that if they convince or charm someone - that's just bad luck, and it boosts people's immunity. Why did we worry about lootboxes or attention manipulating algorithms? Because when its not a fair fight, the outcome is not fair. If I sent you up against professional Nazi denying content, and you knew jack about the Nazis - I guarantee you would think they had a point. There are supremely persuasive books saying the numbers are wrong, or that the data doesn't add up. There are some ideas that are simply that toxic - handling them without training is a sure shot way to radicalize someone. =------= Sure, I would love to have classes like their are doing in some countries. First - I doubt that flies in America, where Fox news is one of the largest networks. Second - even if you did start classes for kids and teens - it still leaves your adults vulnerable. I don't even know if it is possible to de-radicalize the already radicalized. If you don't stop the radicalization, you will simply have more of such people. So sure, get those classes going, but its only one part of the solution.
- cryinghippo 6y ago
  Who should people be willing to use as a censor to protect them? I assert the choice to decide for myself, and question the motives and capability of those that try to take that away.
- logicchains 6y ago