7 ms·

Surely there's some space between "Recommend" and "Ban"?

by CGamesPlay 6y ago

Filligree 6y ago
Why should people be allowed to watch anything except what's best for them? /s
- uniqueid 6y ago
  I don't care if what you watch is good or bad for you. I care if what you watch turns you into a threat to me. Based on the past few years, it looks like maybe 20% of the general population is suggestible enough to endanger the rest of us.
  - TheCraiggers 6y ago
    The problem is that the other guy is saying the same thing you are. The radical left and the radical right both think each other's points are dangerous. And the moderates are pointing at both sides and claiming the same thing. From their respective viewpoints, they're in the "right", just as you think you are. There's a slippery slope here, and I feel it's one so large that we can't even tell we're already sliding on it. The obvious answer is a well-informed populace that isn't easily swayed by emotion and fear, and has the time and inclination to do their own fact checking. Trouble is, that's obviously a pipe dream. Other ideas, such as Facebook's new governing body are interesting, but I fear will be troublesome in other ways. Still, it's an experiment in the right direction I believe.
    - uniqueid 6y ago
      The problem is that the other guy is saying the same thing you are. Then I hope I win. Cause the other guy really likes firearms and believes Bill Gates is some sort of satanic reptilian timelord. Facebook's new governing body are interesting, but I fear will be troublesome in other ways. I don't see that model making anyone happy because I believe true impartiality is impossible. The honest and less bureaucratic approach for FB to take is to admit the process is subjective.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - nicky0 6y ago
        Essentually you are saying: "The other side is wrong, and my side is right." It's not really a nuanced point about the broader issue of speech.
        bryanrasmussen 6y ago
        Yes, as a general thing saying the other side is wrong and my side is right is just silly, because the other side is saying they're right and your side is wrong, but in the specific case where one side is demonstrably wrong then it isn't silly anymore.
        nicky0 6y ago
        But the other side believes they are demonstrably right too, just as strongly as you do. The way to "win" is to argue against the opponent's viewpoint and persuade the general population of the strength of your argument. To do that you need a platform for open speech. This is Democracy 101. What you are arguing for is not democracy but "safetyism". You seek a shortcut whereby you can persuade a powerful gatekeeper to silence your oppositon and make you feel better.
        TomSwirly 6y ago
        I'm not on either side. I don't even live in the United States. But one side, the Republican side, is batshitinsane and believes things that are provably untrue - Obama is a Muslim, climate change is a Chinese hoax, COVID-19 is the flu, that sort of thing. The Democrats are just run-of-the-mill, low-energy centrist politicians.
        juanani 6y ago
        I have a hard time lumping in swathes of people into these tiny slivers of beliefs. How is it not obvious that one side did a better job of demonizing the other? I'm pretty sure I can comment 'And would like to be able to eat babies' and I will be seeing it on similar posts as yours by tomorrow. The media did one hell of a job this past election cycle, I wonder what batshitinsane things we will be allowed to talk about on the next one. I doubt much. Now that we haved moved censorship officially online as well, I can only hope some wonderful people are busy building the next workaround medium.
    - LordDragonfang 6y ago
      >The obvious answer is a well-informed populace that isn't easily swayed by emotion and fear, and has the time and inclination to do their own fact checking. Trouble is, that's obviously a pipe dream. The other trouble is that one side is actively opposed to a "well informed populace" and unironically calls secondary education "liberal brainwashing camps". If you want a well informed populace, you have to privilege the side attempting to get there.
      - concordDance 6y ago
        Well... the "other side" would oppose informing the populace that the equality dogma is false (or at least unproven), so it isn't just the far right that likes their myths. Attemps to ban things that are false runs into the difficulty that you need to first determine what is false, which is hard to do if one of the answers might contradict an important value. I should stop replying to political posts with more politics. :/
        cloudfifty 6y ago
        > the "other side" would oppose informing the populace that the equality dogma is false (or at least unproven) What do you mean by the equality dogma?
        concordDance 6y ago
        More or less the belief that we are all equal with equal potential (it's more or less a consequence of egalitarianism). That if little Timmy just tries hard enough and is given enough support he'll be able to master differential equations.
        cloudfifty 6y ago
        Do you have an example of where this belief is expressed? Because the common trope afaik is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". What would be the difference in public policy anyways if after-the-fact results differ?
    - TomSwirly 6y ago
      > The problem is that the other guy is saying the same thing you are. The other guy is also claiming that Trump won the election, global heating is a hoax, COVID-19 is a hoax, Obama is a Muslim from Kenya, and his wife Michelle is a man. > And the moderates are pointing at both sides and claiming the same thing. Sorry, this just isn't so. Your answer boils down to this: "There is no truth. If one person says Michelle Obama is a transsexual man, and the other says she isn't, then both truths are equally good."
      - juanani 6y ago
        Have you personally seen Michelle Obama's sexual organs that you can 100% be certain with your claims? Every since the ban on free speech, I really haven't followed what the conspiracies are. What I do hear is 3rd party reports on what those conspiracies are and what 'they believe'. You listed off a bunch of nonsense - do you really think people actually believe that crap or are you the one fooled into thinking someone actually believes that? The more outlandish they sound, the better case for censoring, right? These cases just sound like a reporter went on 4chan, decided they dont like this so they must be the 'other side'. And it was enough to convince the majority that censorship is the way. Better phrased, let's stop giving attention to a desperate media who's only function in this past decade is cancelling culture they don't approve. (culture censorship) Both sides are extremely polarized, only one side seems to be able to share their opinion online. One side believes this is proper because they answer to the 'science'. What does the science say about censorship? We've seen it before.
        Filligree 6y ago
        > You listed off a bunch of nonsense - do you really think people actually believe that crap or are you the one fooled into thinking someone actually believes that? The more outlandish they sound, the better case for censoring, right? These cases just sound like a reporter went on 4chan, decided they dont like this so they must be the 'other side'. And it was enough to convince the majority that censorship is the way. I personally know someone who believes about half of that. It sure doesn't feel unusual.
      - 6y ago
  - narrator 6y ago
    The Soviets put their dissidents into mental hospitals, because obviously they were crazy and dangerous to oppose socialism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_...
    - uniqueid 6y ago
      A more accurate analogy would be 'the Soviets didn't give them airtime on All Union Radio'
      - onlydeadheroes 6y ago
        You are a shining example of your ideology.
      - crististm 6y ago
        How is that accurate? More, like, exaggerated to make a point but missing it by a mile. Soviets did not give airtime to pro-party ideologues to validate their position. There was no competition between ideologues to get more airtime. The program was _dictated_ by the powers that be.
        uniqueid 6y ago
        How is that accurate? It's still a bad analogy, but it puts fewer words in my mouth. If there is a line from 'Youtube deleted my video' to 'the government rounded me up and threw me in a sanitarium' it's not a direct one.
        crististm 6y ago
        Yes but that won't stop you from drawing/rationalizing _any_ conclusions from a set of facts. Not all of them will be right and fewer even will make any sense. Which is indeed your prerogative until you mess with the laws of physics and start believing that because you move your arms very quickly you can fly, and that will stop you from falling off of a cliff. There is a five-whys strategy to go to some bottom of an issue but even this strategy will fail you when you cherry-pick the answers to your convenience.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    I don't need uniqueid as my dictator.
    - uniqueid 6y ago
      I don't need crazies to organize a coup on social media and install an authoritarian.
  - mlang23 6y ago
    Sounds like the typical 80/20 story. I submit the "other" 20% likely have a very similar story to yours, only with the numbers reversed.
  - crististm 6y ago
    What should we do about the 20%?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
foepys 6y ago
Everytime this is coming up, I wonder why people were always okay with banning nudity but now that hate speech (that undeniably agitates people and leads to hate crime) gets banned, they oppose content blocking.
- Judgmentality 6y ago
  Who was okay with banning nudity? I think the only thing I've seen universally agreed upon to be bad is child pornography.
  - LordDragonfang 6y ago
    Nudity is banned on television, youtube, facebook, twitch, and any public place in the US. None of those had significant outcry when it was banned, and people bat an eye so little at that status quo that I apparently had to write this comment to remind you.
    - Judgmentality 6y ago
      Whenever nudity is banned I remember there being an outcry. I also think banning nudity is dumb, so maybe it's just an issue of confirmation bias.
      - notahacker 6y ago
        Please feel free to point us to the evidence of HN howling with outrage about the chilling consequences of our digital overlords succumbing to activist and advertiser presssure to ban porn (and presumed porn) on their platforms. When Tumblr banned porn, the general reaction was "lol, they're not going to have any audience left" and the one person that raised it as a speech violation (as opposed to a bit of a shame for kinky people) was downvoted to nothingness.[1] Compare and contrast with how this thread, instead of focusing on "lol, algorithms and context!" has turned into questioning whether the real problem is advertisers signalling they don't want to attach their brand to racist videos (and let's not get started on how angry much of HN was when companies decided to manually enforce policies against hate speech). It's difficult to conclude that most US "free speech" advocates don't believe that banning [perceived] racial hatred is somehow more dangerous to humanity than banning [perceived] adult content (which parallels Supreme Court rulings on what speech does and doesn't deserve protection). Given the respective consequences of racial hatred and pornography, I see this simultaneous presumption in favour of the former and against the latter as very hard to justify. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26218476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26218476

Surely there's some space between "Recommend" and "Ban"?

Filligree 6y ago

Why should people be allowed to watch anything except what's best for them? /s

uniqueid 6y ago
I don't care if what you watch is good or bad for you. I care if what you watch turns you into a threat to me. Based on the past few years, it looks like maybe 20% of the general population is suggestible enough to endanger the rest of us.
- TheCraiggers 6y ago
  The problem is that the other guy is saying the same thing you are. The radical left and the radical right both think each other's points are dangerous. And the moderates are pointing at both sides and claiming the same thing. From their respective viewpoints, they're in the "right", just as you think you are. There's a slippery slope here, and I feel it's one so large that we can't even tell we're already sliding on it. The obvious answer is a well-informed populace that isn't easily swayed by emotion and fear, and has the time and inclination to do their own fact checking. Trouble is, that's obviously a pipe dream. Other ideas, such as Facebook's new governing body are interesting, but I fear will be troublesome in other ways. Still, it's an experiment in the right direction I believe.
  - uniqueid 6y ago
    The problem is that the other guy is saying the same thing you are. Then I hope I win. Cause the other guy really likes firearms and believes Bill Gates is some sort of satanic reptilian timelord. Facebook's new governing body are interesting, but I fear will be troublesome in other ways. I don't see that model making anyone happy because I believe true impartiality is impossible. The honest and less bureaucratic approach for FB to take is to admit the process is subjective.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - nicky0 6y ago
      Essentually you are saying: "The other side is wrong, and my side is right." It's not really a nuanced point about the broader issue of speech.
      - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
        Yes, as a general thing saying the other side is wrong and my side is right is just silly, because the other side is saying they're right and your side is wrong, but in the specific case where one side is demonstrably wrong then it isn't silly anymore.
        nicky0 6y ago
        But the other side believes they are demonstrably right too, just as strongly as you do. The way to "win" is to argue against the opponent's viewpoint and persuade the general population of the strength of your argument. To do that you need a platform for open speech. This is Democracy 101. What you are arguing for is not democracy but "safetyism". You seek a shortcut whereby you can persuade a powerful gatekeeper to silence your oppositon and make you feel better.
      - TomSwirly 6y ago
        I'm not on either side. I don't even live in the United States. But one side, the Republican side, is batshitinsane and believes things that are provably untrue - Obama is a Muslim, climate change is a Chinese hoax, COVID-19 is the flu, that sort of thing. The Democrats are just run-of-the-mill, low-energy centrist politicians.
        juanani 6y ago
        I have a hard time lumping in swathes of people into these tiny slivers of beliefs. How is it not obvious that one side did a better job of demonizing the other? I'm pretty sure I can comment 'And would like to be able to eat babies' and I will be seeing it on similar posts as yours by tomorrow. The media did one hell of a job this past election cycle, I wonder what batshitinsane things we will be allowed to talk about on the next one. I doubt much. Now that we haved moved censorship officially online as well, I can only hope some wonderful people are busy building the next workaround medium.
  - LordDragonfang 6y ago
    >The obvious answer is a well-informed populace that isn't easily swayed by emotion and fear, and has the time and inclination to do their own fact checking. Trouble is, that's obviously a pipe dream. The other trouble is that one side is actively opposed to a "well informed populace" and unironically calls secondary education "liberal brainwashing camps". If you want a well informed populace, you have to privilege the side attempting to get there.
    - concordDance 6y ago
      Well... the "other side" would oppose informing the populace that the equality dogma is false (or at least unproven), so it isn't just the far right that likes their myths. Attemps to ban things that are false runs into the difficulty that you need to first determine what is false, which is hard to do if one of the answers might contradict an important value. I should stop replying to political posts with more politics. :/
      - cloudfifty 6y ago
        > the "other side" would oppose informing the populace that the equality dogma is false (or at least unproven) What do you mean by the equality dogma?
        concordDance 6y ago
        More or less the belief that we are all equal with equal potential (it's more or less a consequence of egalitarianism). That if little Timmy just tries hard enough and is given enough support he'll be able to master differential equations.
        cloudfifty 6y ago
        Do you have an example of where this belief is expressed? Because the common trope afaik is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". What would be the difference in public policy anyways if after-the-fact results differ?
  - TomSwirly 6y ago
    > The problem is that the other guy is saying the same thing you are. The other guy is also claiming that Trump won the election, global heating is a hoax, COVID-19 is a hoax, Obama is a Muslim from Kenya, and his wife Michelle is a man. > And the moderates are pointing at both sides and claiming the same thing. Sorry, this just isn't so. Your answer boils down to this: "There is no truth. If one person says Michelle Obama is a transsexual man, and the other says she isn't, then both truths are equally good."
    - juanani 6y ago
      Have you personally seen Michelle Obama's sexual organs that you can 100% be certain with your claims? Every since the ban on free speech, I really haven't followed what the conspiracies are. What I do hear is 3rd party reports on what those conspiracies are and what 'they believe'. You listed off a bunch of nonsense - do you really think people actually believe that crap or are you the one fooled into thinking someone actually believes that? The more outlandish they sound, the better case for censoring, right? These cases just sound like a reporter went on 4chan, decided they dont like this so they must be the 'other side'. And it was enough to convince the majority that censorship is the way. Better phrased, let's stop giving attention to a desperate media who's only function in this past decade is cancelling culture they don't approve. (culture censorship) Both sides are extremely polarized, only one side seems to be able to share their opinion online. One side believes this is proper because they answer to the 'science'. What does the science say about censorship? We've seen it before.
      - Filligree 6y ago
        > You listed off a bunch of nonsense - do you really think people actually believe that crap or are you the one fooled into thinking someone actually believes that? The more outlandish they sound, the better case for censoring, right? These cases just sound like a reporter went on 4chan, decided they dont like this so they must be the 'other side'. And it was enough to convince the majority that censorship is the way. I personally know someone who believes about half of that. It sure doesn't feel unusual.
    - 6y ago
- narrator 6y ago
  The Soviets put their dissidents into mental hospitals, because obviously they were crazy and dangerous to oppose socialism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_...
  - uniqueid 6y ago
    A more accurate analogy would be 'the Soviets didn't give them airtime on All Union Radio'
    - onlydeadheroes 6y ago
      You are a shining example of your ideology.
    - crististm 6y ago
      How is that accurate? More, like, exaggerated to make a point but missing it by a mile. Soviets did not give airtime to pro-party ideologues to validate their position. There was no competition between ideologues to get more airtime. The program was _dictated_ by the powers that be.
      - uniqueid 6y ago
        How is that accurate? It's still a bad analogy, but it puts fewer words in my mouth. If there is a line from 'Youtube deleted my video' to 'the government rounded me up and threw me in a sanitarium' it's not a direct one.
        crististm 6y ago
        Yes but that won't stop you from drawing/rationalizing _any_ conclusions from a set of facts. Not all of them will be right and fewer even will make any sense. Which is indeed your prerogative until you mess with the laws of physics and start believing that because you move your arms very quickly you can fly, and that will stop you from falling off of a cliff. There is a five-whys strategy to go to some bottom of an issue but even this strategy will fail you when you cherry-pick the answers to your convenience.
- imtringued 6y ago
  I don't need uniqueid as my dictator.
  - uniqueid 6y ago
    I don't need crazies to organize a coup on social media and install an authoritarian.
- mlang23 6y ago
  Sounds like the typical 80/20 story. I submit the "other" 20% likely have a very similar story to yours, only with the numbers reversed.
- crististm 6y ago
  What should we do about the 20%?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

foepys 6y ago

Everytime this is coming up, I wonder why people were always okay with banning nudity but now that hate speech (that undeniably agitates people and leads to hate crime) gets banned, they oppose content blocking.

Judgmentality 6y ago
Who was okay with banning nudity? I think the only thing I've seen universally agreed upon to be bad is child pornography.
- LordDragonfang 6y ago
  Nudity is banned on television, youtube, facebook, twitch, and any public place in the US. None of those had significant outcry when it was banned, and people bat an eye so little at that status quo that I apparently had to write this comment to remind you.
  - Judgmentality 6y ago
    Whenever nudity is banned I remember there being an outcry. I also think banning nudity is dumb, so maybe it's just an issue of confirmation bias.
    - notahacker 6y ago
      Please feel free to point us to the evidence of HN howling with outrage about the chilling consequences of our digital overlords succumbing to activist and advertiser presssure to ban porn (and presumed porn) on their platforms. When Tumblr banned porn, the general reaction was "lol, they're not going to have any audience left" and the one person that raised it as a speech violation (as opposed to a bit of a shame for kinky people) was downvoted to nothingness.[1] Compare and contrast with how this thread, instead of focusing on "lol, algorithms and context!" has turned into questioning whether the real problem is advertisers signalling they don't want to attach their brand to racist videos (and let's not get started on how angry much of HN was when companies decided to manually enforce policies against hate speech). It's difficult to conclude that most US "free speech" advocates don't believe that banning [perceived] racial hatred is somehow more dangerous to humanity than banning [perceived] adult content (which parallels Supreme Court rulings on what speech does and doesn't deserve protection). Given the respective consequences of racial hatred and pornography, I see this simultaneous presumption in favour of the former and against the latter as very hard to justify. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26218476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26218476