5 ms·
Yes but this witch-hunt is extreme. You are a witch by association. The host of a social media platform should be no more lumped in with the users of that platf
by xupybd 6y ago
Yes but this witch-hunt is extreme. You are a witch by association. The host of a social media platform should be no more lumped in with the users of that platform than a phone company that provides cell access to the KKK. At some point it's just going too far.
- vajrabum 6y agoIn this particular case there's pretty good evidence that Parler's moderation is/was anything but even handed. Parler may be a lot of things but a neutral platform provider doesn't seem to be one of them.
- blisterpeanuts 6y agoDoes a neutral platform even exist? It seems like all the major ones have some bias in their filtering and moderation.
- causalmodels 6y agoCan a neutral platform with algorithmic feeds exist? Self selection + optimization will result in feeds reflective of the community rather than some neutral standard.
- meheleventyone 6y agoThe point of algorithmic feeds is to be the “everyplatform” and serve all biases. So in theory it’s neutral as a platform. But as we’ve seen has extremely negative results.
- xupybd 6y agoWell the problem at present is you have to moderate such that all content is within the Overton window. Only the left and right have different views on what does and does not fit inside this window. For example right wingers want to argue about the role of trans rights in womens sports. Much of the left and Twitter consider this to be outside of the Overton window.
- meheleventyone 6y agoYou live in a society so there are always going to be cultural limits on the views you can express without social repercussions. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence nor does it trump other people’s freedoms not to associate with you or exercise their freedom of speech to castigate you.
- xupybd 6y agoMy point is you can't have a neutral platform when there is a split between large groups on what is the current cultural limit. Each platform has to pick a side in that case.
- meheleventyone 6y agoI mean you absolutely can, whether anyone would want to be on it is another question. That most/many platforms do moderate content doesn't mean that they must moderate content to fit into their cultural frame of reference.
- judge2020 6y ago> The host of a social media platform should be no more lumped in with the users of that platform than a phone company Section 230 exists because even the legal system assumed guilt by association. Without it, sharing someone's false information would be illegal (such as the false dominican voting machine statements[0]). The phone company isn't liable because they're a public utility and don't moderate content - but congress didn't want the internet to be the internet to be filled with porn, so they created 230 which allowed them to remove some content without being liable for all content. 0: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/12/21/fox-news-newsmax-walk-back-election-fraud-claims-after-voting-machine-manufacturer-threatens-legal-action/?sh=674f046cfd2f https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/12/21/fox-new...
- ashtonkem 6y agoI have never understood why people get so angry at assumptions by association. It is a very natural process that people do. If you find out that someone is best friends with someone you despise, you will automatically assume the worst about them.
- xupybd 6y agoBest friends are not the ones being targeted here. You have examples such a Don Lemon trying to tar all Republican voters as being in league with the neo Nazis https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6223009033001 https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6223009033001 . Loose associations don't mean you are in agreement with people on every possible issue. I agree with Hitler that public sanitation is important but consider him to be one of the most evil men to ever exist. It's just not a good way to make a judgement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
- warkdarrior 6y agoSo would you vote for Hitler because of his public sanitation policies, while overlooking his other evil policies? Because this is what Republican voters seem to be doing: they vote for Trump because they like some of his policies (e.g., lower taxes) while overlooking his other policies (open racism, open misogyny, anti-science, etc.).
- xupybd 6y agoWell I would agree that voting for someone with racist or misogynistic policies would be a problem, however I've not seen any policies or laws that were. You are welcome to prove me wrong. As such I can excuse people for voting for Trump. Especially in a two party system. I suspect many simply always vote Republican and despite Trump's brash public persona they thought he was their best option.
- tstrimple 6y agoOne example of many: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/29/north-carolina-voter-id-law-struck-down https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/29/north-caroli... > A federal court on Friday struck down North Carolina voting laws it said were enacted with “discriminatory intent”, targeting African Americans “with almost surgical precision”. > Plaintiffs in the suit welcomed what one called “a stinging rebuke” to the Republican-controlled state government, representatives of which questioned the political affiliations of the judges involved and said they would appeal the decision to the US supreme court, because it “ignores legal precedent”.
- kiba 6y agoSocial media platforms are by their design not neutral at all. They are deciding which users get megaphones and which doesn't, and they like to amplify certain voices over other to increase engagement metrics.