6 ms·

I can see why shutting down far right wing extremist groups can be justified (or for that matter, far left wing extremists as well). But some folks meme'ing a

I can see why shutting down far right wing extremist groups can be justified (or for that matter, far left wing extremists as well). But some folks meme'ing about stocks? Come on. Edit: If you're spewing hatred on me for some kind of retribution, shame on you. This isn't a place for that.

morlockabove 6y ago
It turns out that handing the public square to centralized control ends badly. Who knew! You reap what you sow.
- scrollaway 6y ago
  You know, you can be against Facebook providing a platform to extremist/neo-nazis groups, and also think Facebook has overall too much power and presence. It's not "you reap what you sow" and you're not handing GP some funny "gotcha". It's just plain obvious decency. Some people don't get that, and then they're surprised that most normal humans think it's suspicious, as if they don't get it on purpose. Then they get upset because they start to look like nazi sympathizers. That is what "you reap what you sow" looks like.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > You know, you can be against Facebook providing a platform to extremist/neo-nazis groups, and also think Facebook has overall too much power and presence. People aren’t really upset about deplatforming extremists/neo-nazis. They’re upset about the deplatforming of mainstream groups and falsely labeling them “neonazi extremists”
  - morlockabove 6y ago
    If you put too much comparative value on keeping the boot on Bad People's necks, you'll help close off methods to shift influence away from e.g. Facebook. If a lot of people move to e.g. the fediverse facebook equivalent, that shifts power away from facebook and makes it harder to deplatform people. So your two listed goals are in competition. That's why I'm saying you reap what you sow: you wanted a world where people can be deplatformed, and you got it.
    - scrollaway 6y ago
      > So your two listed goals are in competition. That's why I'm saying you reap what you sow: you wanted a world where people can be deplatformed, and you got it. I don't "want a world where people can be deplatformed". I am 100% in favour of better censorship resistance, open messaging, etc and I 100% think whatever "bad" comes out of a system like that would be far outweighed by the good it brings. But that doesn't mean I'm against Facebook deplatforming assholes. Hell I'm against Facebook as a whole, but as far as their current role in society plays? They have a stupid amount of influence over large swathes of the population and that's a problem. The problem is no matter how I phrase this, you'll think I'm in favour of Facebook "censoring people"; whereas my position is that Facebook has actively given new tools for assholes to spread hateful messages, including not just the groups systems but active recommendations, advertising, sorting algorithms which prioritize engagement (read: flamewars), etc. In short: I'm in favour of Signal and against Facebook. How's that contradictory?
      - morlockabove 6y ago
        You don't want a world where people can be deplatformed, but you want facebook to deplatform people? If I built an uncensorable distributed/federated FLOSS Facebook equivalent (fedbook?) with distributed moderation (personalized so it censors out the things that would offend you/spam from your feed, or whatever you set it to) and it became popular, would you be for that? Do you think it that Hateful Ideas wouldn't be compelling on such a market? Would you deny facebook to everyone if you could, because the shape of facebook-like sites is corrosive to the mind in and of itself, in a way that private chatrooms aren't? I could respect wanting to deplatform absolutely everyone, in a unabomber way. But somehow I doubt that's your position. I just don't see how whatever advantages you claim facebook has given to 'assholes', it hasn't given to e.g. BLM twice over- with feeds tuned to engagement and rage etc. and also the Official Blessing.
        scrollaway 6y ago
        You're asking me to take a position on your completely hypothetical and theoretical social network. This is no more useful than asking me whether I'm in favour of the universe being a simulation. I'm in favour of you building it. Then let's see what happens. Does that answer your question? > I just don't see how whatever advantages you claim facebook has given to 'assholes', it hasn't given to e.g. BLM twice over- with feeds tuned to engagement and rage etc. and also the Official Blessing. What of it? I've already said Facebook has too much influence. You can be against having a king, and in favour of the king doing something about, idk, taxes. > Would you deny facebook to everyone if you could, because the shape of facebook-like sites is corrosive to the mind in and of itself, in a way that private chatrooms aren't? This is such a weird question. Are you asking if I'm in favour of Facebook existing? I already said I'm not. Or is your question "if you were King of the World & Master of the Universe, would you make Facebook disappear?", which, again, this isn't the Matrix. These aren't useful questions, you're just trying to figure out what my stances are. My positions don't matter. I'm just trying to try to help you understand a concept which is incredibly easy to grok to a lot of people.
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  I think this is taking too far into what I was intending. I am all for removing violence and terrorism groups from social media. At the same time, I am against censorship from these companies in other matters. The responses here are disgusting, contemptful and vile for what I thought was a reasonable stance.
  - morlockabove 6y ago
    Whoever gets to decide what's "violence and terrorism groups" can just remove whoever they want. So your stance, combined with centralization, immediately leads to tyranny.
    - systemvoltage 6y ago
      Do you think Judges who interpret laws should also be abolished? Because there is a lot of ambiguity in the law and we need the justice system to interpret and carry out laws. Are you for Anarchy? otherwise, people in position will decide a lot of things for you including truth.
      - morlockabove 6y ago
        I'll take the median judge with multiple appelate courts above them over a 26-year old overworked unaccountable 95 IQ [x] studies graduate. If facebook moderators wore fancy clothes and hit things with gavels on camera when making judgements, the situation would rapidly improve.
bbarn 6y ago
Who defines far? Who defines meme'ing?
- ttt0 6y ago
  Facebook and Wall Street
jkewnfjkwnef 6y ago
Fence-sitters like you are who gave them this power in the first place. Free speech is not "ban who you don't like but allow what I like." It's all or nothing.
- kibwen 6y ago
  > It's all or nothing. This is demonstrably mistaken. Look, here's an entire Wikipedia article on limits to free speech in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... And if you're talking about the ill-defined philosopical concept of "free speech", that's also mistaken. Free speech is a subservient value in pursuit of free society; if an instance of speech would do damage to the freedoms of others (e.g. slander) then it is morally just for that speech to be forbidden. Black-and-white thinking isn't the recourse here. Free speech is a nuanced topic, and not as cut-and-dry as you have been led to believe.
  - dvt 6y ago
    > Free speech is a nuanced topic, and not as cut-and-dry as you have been led to believe. It is, actually. Your edge cases are disingenuous (or maybe you've just misunderstood them). It's like saying killing someone is a nuanced topic. Sure, there's moral complexities with things like abortion, war, or euthanasia, but, generally speaking, killing someone is pretty black-and-white wrong. Free speech is the same way. Let's not mince words.
    - kibwen 6y ago
      > but, generally speaking, killing someone is pretty black-and-white wrong. Ironically, this has left me speechless. Surely you realize the inherent contradiction of arguing that something is emphatically all-or-nothing, and then turning around and moderating your position with a strategically-placed "generally speaking"? Which is it? Is it nuanced or isn't it?
      - dvt 6y ago
volkl48 6y ago
I mean, you can totally "meme about stocks" in a way that's blatantly a violation of the law. There are laws about what you can and can't say when you've got a financial stake in it/something to gain. (As an example, Elon Musk's SEC troubles from his Twitter use) I'm not suggesting the average poster/average discussion has necessarily broken the law, but there's likely more than a few who have. And if Facebook went "What's happening in here may be illegal and is too much of a business/legal risk to us to continue to condone, so we've shut it down. We've also updated the rules for all groups in the future to reflect this." - That'd seem to be kind of reasonable. ----------- Banning it with an arbitrary, inaccurate reason and seemingly no clear guidance as to what the lines of acceptable/not are going forward? That's what I take more issue with. I think platforms have to be able to moderate content to function, but that the rules surrounding it should be as transparent and consistent as possible.

morlockabove 6y ago

It turns out that handing the public square to centralized control ends badly. Who knew! You reap what you sow.

scrollaway 6y ago
You know, you can be against Facebook providing a platform to extremist/neo-nazis groups, and also think Facebook has overall too much power and presence. It's not "you reap what you sow" and you're not handing GP some funny "gotcha". It's just plain obvious decency. Some people don't get that, and then they're surprised that most normal humans think it's suspicious, as if they don't get it on purpose. Then they get upset because they start to look like nazi sympathizers. That is what "you reap what you sow" looks like.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > You know, you can be against Facebook providing a platform to extremist/neo-nazis groups, and also think Facebook has overall too much power and presence. People aren’t really upset about deplatforming extremists/neo-nazis. They’re upset about the deplatforming of mainstream groups and falsely labeling them “neonazi extremists”
- morlockabove 6y ago
  If you put too much comparative value on keeping the boot on Bad People's necks, you'll help close off methods to shift influence away from e.g. Facebook. If a lot of people move to e.g. the fediverse facebook equivalent, that shifts power away from facebook and makes it harder to deplatform people. So your two listed goals are in competition. That's why I'm saying you reap what you sow: you wanted a world where people can be deplatformed, and you got it.
  - scrollaway 6y ago
    > So your two listed goals are in competition. That's why I'm saying you reap what you sow: you wanted a world where people can be deplatformed, and you got it. I don't "want a world where people can be deplatformed". I am 100% in favour of better censorship resistance, open messaging, etc and I 100% think whatever "bad" comes out of a system like that would be far outweighed by the good it brings. But that doesn't mean I'm against Facebook deplatforming assholes. Hell I'm against Facebook as a whole, but as far as their current role in society plays? They have a stupid amount of influence over large swathes of the population and that's a problem. The problem is no matter how I phrase this, you'll think I'm in favour of Facebook "censoring people"; whereas my position is that Facebook has actively given new tools for assholes to spread hateful messages, including not just the groups systems but active recommendations, advertising, sorting algorithms which prioritize engagement (read: flamewars), etc. In short: I'm in favour of Signal and against Facebook. How's that contradictory?
    - morlockabove 6y ago
      You don't want a world where people can be deplatformed, but you want facebook to deplatform people? If I built an uncensorable distributed/federated FLOSS Facebook equivalent (fedbook?) with distributed moderation (personalized so it censors out the things that would offend you/spam from your feed, or whatever you set it to) and it became popular, would you be for that? Do you think it that Hateful Ideas wouldn't be compelling on such a market? Would you deny facebook to everyone if you could, because the shape of facebook-like sites is corrosive to the mind in and of itself, in a way that private chatrooms aren't? I could respect wanting to deplatform absolutely everyone, in a unabomber way. But somehow I doubt that's your position. I just don't see how whatever advantages you claim facebook has given to 'assholes', it hasn't given to e.g. BLM twice over- with feeds tuned to engagement and rage etc. and also the Official Blessing.
      - scrollaway 6y ago
        You're asking me to take a position on your completely hypothetical and theoretical social network. This is no more useful than asking me whether I'm in favour of the universe being a simulation. I'm in favour of you building it. Then let's see what happens. Does that answer your question? > I just don't see how whatever advantages you claim facebook has given to 'assholes', it hasn't given to e.g. BLM twice over- with feeds tuned to engagement and rage etc. and also the Official Blessing. What of it? I've already said Facebook has too much influence. You can be against having a king, and in favour of the king doing something about, idk, taxes. > Would you deny facebook to everyone if you could, because the shape of facebook-like sites is corrosive to the mind in and of itself, in a way that private chatrooms aren't? This is such a weird question. Are you asking if I'm in favour of Facebook existing? I already said I'm not. Or is your question "if you were King of the World & Master of the Universe, would you make Facebook disappear?", which, again, this isn't the Matrix. These aren't useful questions, you're just trying to figure out what my stances are. My positions don't matter. I'm just trying to try to help you understand a concept which is incredibly easy to grok to a lot of people.
systemvoltage 6y ago
I think this is taking too far into what I was intending. I am all for removing violence and terrorism groups from social media. At the same time, I am against censorship from these companies in other matters. The responses here are disgusting, contemptful and vile for what I thought was a reasonable stance.
- morlockabove 6y ago
  Whoever gets to decide what's "violence and terrorism groups" can just remove whoever they want. So your stance, combined with centralization, immediately leads to tyranny.
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    Do you think Judges who interpret laws should also be abolished? Because there is a lot of ambiguity in the law and we need the justice system to interpret and carry out laws. Are you for Anarchy? otherwise, people in position will decide a lot of things for you including truth.
    - morlockabove 6y ago
      I'll take the median judge with multiple appelate courts above them over a 26-year old overworked unaccountable 95 IQ [x] studies graduate. If facebook moderators wore fancy clothes and hit things with gavels on camera when making judgements, the situation would rapidly improve.

bbarn 6y ago

Who defines far? Who defines meme'ing?

ttt0 6y ago
Facebook and Wall Street

jkewnfjkwnef 6y ago

Fence-sitters like you are who gave them this power in the first place. Free speech is not "ban who you don't like but allow what I like." It's all or nothing.

kibwen 6y ago
> It's all or nothing. This is demonstrably mistaken. Look, here's an entire Wikipedia article on limits to free speech in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... And if you're talking about the ill-defined philosopical concept of "free speech", that's also mistaken. Free speech is a subservient value in pursuit of free society; if an instance of speech would do damage to the freedoms of others (e.g. slander) then it is morally just for that speech to be forbidden. Black-and-white thinking isn't the recourse here. Free speech is a nuanced topic, and not as cut-and-dry as you have been led to believe.
- dvt 6y ago
  > Free speech is a nuanced topic, and not as cut-and-dry as you have been led to believe. It is, actually. Your edge cases are disingenuous (or maybe you've just misunderstood them). It's like saying killing someone is a nuanced topic. Sure, there's moral complexities with things like abortion, war, or euthanasia, but, generally speaking, killing someone is pretty black-and-white wrong. Free speech is the same way. Let's not mince words.
  - kibwen 6y ago
    > but, generally speaking, killing someone is pretty black-and-white wrong. Ironically, this has left me speechless. Surely you realize the inherent contradiction of arguing that something is emphatically all-or-nothing, and then turning around and moderating your position with a strategically-placed "generally speaking"? Which is it? Is it nuanced or isn't it?
    - dvt 6y ago

volkl48 6y ago

I mean, you can totally "meme about stocks" in a way that's blatantly a violation of the law. There are laws about what you can and can't say when you've got a financial stake in it/something to gain. (As an example, Elon Musk's SEC troubles from his Twitter use) I'm not suggesting the average poster/average discussion has necessarily broken the law, but there's likely more than a few who have. And if Facebook went "What's happening in here may be illegal and is too much of a business/legal risk to us to continue to condone, so we've shut it down. We've also updated the rules for all groups in the future to reflect this." - That'd seem to be kind of reasonable. ----------- Banning it with an arbitrary, inaccurate reason and seemingly no clear guidance as to what the lines of acceptable/not are going forward? That's what I take more issue with. I think platforms have to be able to moderate content to function, but that the rules surrounding it should be as transparent and consistent as possible.