4 ms·
I also don’t agree with this and might even argue the opposite. Nevertheless, I think in general de/centralization is orthogonal to censoring inflammatory actor
by michaelgiba 6y ago
I also don’t agree with this and might even argue the opposite. Nevertheless, I think in general de/centralization is orthogonal to censoring inflammatory actors. That always comes back to who are the moderators and what are their stances on censorship.
- mmmeff 6y agoCan you please elaborate on what you mean by “inflammatory actors” a bit? Thanks.
- jay_kyburz 6y agoSeems to me he means Trump and Qanon.
- refurb 6y agoMaybe I can help out. Basically anyone who “foments discord” or “sows disharmony”. You know, people who say things that cause us to stray from The One True Path(tm). Clear now?
- coldtea 6y agoSo, basically anybody opposed to the TINA.
- refurb 6y agoClearly not. It's anyone opposed to the woke culture and neo-liberalism camouflaged in a social democratic platform.
- kgwxd 6y agoNo, it's just racism, sexism, and threats of violence. It's really not that hard. No one is getting shut down for proposing alternative social/economic strategies, unless those strategies are racist, sexist and/or violent.
- another_sock 6y agoYes and I get to decide what is racist, sexist, and/or violent.
- refurb 6y agoWho decides if they are “racist, sexist or violent”? You? Because I see a those terms thrown around a lot with a lot of evidence to back it up.
- kgwxd 6y agoThe dictionary.
- swader999 6y agoOrwellian comment of the day.
- hellisothers 6y agohttps://www.vox.com/culture/22233197/orwellian-definition-george-orwell-1984-politics-english-language-josh-hawley-donald-trump-jr https://www.vox.com/culture/22233197/orwellian-definition-ge...
- coldtea 6y ago>How the right made the word “Orwellian” an empty cliché. Oh, the irony. And from VOX of all places. And basically amounting to "It's not Orwellian thought-crime persecution if we do it to those who indeed have criminal thoughts". Orwell himself had something opposite to say in 1944 no less: "It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else".
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago> Nevertheless, I think in general de/centralization is orthogonal to censoring inflammatory actors. It's really not. The most perfidious thing centralized platforms do is promote controversial content to increase engagement. This is a double fail of centralization because, first, that's their business model, and second, everything they screw up happens at scale. Decentralizing things would create, let's call it, algorithm diversity. Not everybody is finding things the same way as everybody else, so esoteric garbage mistakenly promoted by somebody's bad code doesn't have as much reach. And the business model could be different. Or at least there could be more than one.
- michaelgiba 6y agoThe fact a centralized system profits from engagement isn’t inherent to the fact it’s centralized, decentralized platforms are likely to do the same. As for your second point that their mistakes happen at scale, that is true. But also the things they do right happen at scale as well. All of the automated moderating and disinformation detection that has been in the works happens at scale too. It would be much harder to do similar in a decentralized system because of the partitioning of user data.