4 ms·

We already have that with email and found solutions to it and the same solutions could apply (readers choose their own spam filtering). The hard problems are wh

by me2021yuh 6y ago

We already have that with email and found solutions to it and the same solutions could apply (readers choose their own spam filtering). The hard problems are where something might or might not be illegal and people strongly disagree. Thats where 230 comes in and it suggests to me that platforms under its protection shouldn't censor unless directed by law enforcement .. The fact that they do is mysterious to me.

dodobirdlord 6y ago
Behind the scenes email providers blackhole a huge amount of traffic that never touches even the spam inbox of their users. This is of course good, because it is what the users want. Social media companies likewise curate what content they allow to remain up because they want to please their users.
8note 6y ago
Spam filtering seems like a similar moderation issue? People want a right to an audience, and spam filters limit that right
- Const-me 6y ago
  Not quite. Spam filters are controlled by, and acting on behalf of, end users who would be receiving the spam. When people are unhappy about their spam filtering, they can adjust or turn off these filters, or migrate to another e-mail provider (keeping all the e-mails, and ability to communicate with the same people). The issue with modern social media, they implement censorship no one asked for, in a completely opaque way, and don't even support user migration.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    Nearly all useful communities make use of shared moderation to select context that is desired rather than merely filter out obvious spam. It's not obvious that you could reproduce reddit or hacker news for example with a dumb pipe and user filters. Maybe step one is proving that is even possible before insisting people do it.
    - Const-me 6y ago
      When you have 2.8 billion people using a web app, that's way too many people to be a community, let alone a useful one. Facebook or Twitter as a whole is not a community. You can build actual community on top of them if you want. I have no objections against moderators of these groups doing their moderation, if I don't like your moderation I can always leave your groups or unfriend you. The problem is, Facebook and Twitter themselves are censoring content. Apparently, FB even censors private messages with political views they don't like.
      - michaelmrose 6y ago
        Give me some examples of things that are being blocked that ought not to be? Lay of the generalities unless you feel up to defending the kind of material being banned. I don't think Facebook ought to be required to provide a platform for people it doesn't want to. It is an absolute violation of their rights to force them to use their private property to promote beliefs they find abhorrent. For example I don't think neo nazis, anti vaxxers, or election truthers need to have a more efficient way to spread their poisonous lies. I don't think Facebook ought to be limited to throwing up their hands and suggesting individual communities that don't want to hear about the next final solution simply don't attend to their hate. The solution to undesirable speech isn't merely more speech when the undesirable speech is being used to plan the overthrow of democracy and the murder of their enemies because eventually you wont have the privilege of speaking against them.
        Const-me 6y ago
        > Give me some examples of things that are being blocked that ought not to be? Last URL I encountered was this, check the comments: https://avoiceformen.com/featured/my-son-doesnt-want-to-be-a-man/ https://avoiceformen.com/featured/my-son-doesnt-want-to-be-a... > It is an absolute violation of their rights to force them to use their private property to promote beliefs they find abhorrent. If FB is that intolerant to other people's opinions, they should do something else instead of being a social network 35% of global population uses at least every month. My cell phone allows me to discuss anything using the property of the operator. My internet provider doesn't care what I do with their property as long as I don't break laws and pay bills. I don't see what makes social media so special that they're allowed to arbitrarily censor opinions on the internets in centralized manner. Especially in private messages. Especially after doing everything they possibly can to make sure there's no competition on the market.
girvo 6y ago
How do readers choose their own spam filters within services like Gmail et al? Honest question.
visarga 6y ago
> readers choose their own spam filtering That would surely simplify the problem - user chooses filter, then user is responsible. Then every social niche could have their own filters. One thing I don't like about Google, FB and Twitter is that they don't tell us what content they have hidden from us. We should be able to know what was filtered out so we can re-rank with our own rules. Of course that would not sit right with the web giants and politicians because they can't control anymore how our news get ranked and filtered. If there's one outcome I wish to see from the new anti-trust push is to force them to open up the front-end and allow competing UIs and competing filters on their platforms. Why should a few people decide how information is accessed for the whole world by virtue of being the winners of a natural monopoly?
michaelmrose 6y ago
I don't want deplorables to be able to spread poison easier. A dumb pipe with user side filtering wouldn't allow major platforms to deny neo nazis, anti vaxxers, and cults a platform.

dodobirdlord 6y ago

Behind the scenes email providers blackhole a huge amount of traffic that never touches even the spam inbox of their users. This is of course good, because it is what the users want. Social media companies likewise curate what content they allow to remain up because they want to please their users.

8note 6y ago

Spam filtering seems like a similar moderation issue? People want a right to an audience, and spam filters limit that right

Const-me 6y ago
Not quite. Spam filters are controlled by, and acting on behalf of, end users who would be receiving the spam. When people are unhappy about their spam filtering, they can adjust or turn off these filters, or migrate to another e-mail provider (keeping all the e-mails, and ability to communicate with the same people). The issue with modern social media, they implement censorship no one asked for, in a completely opaque way, and don't even support user migration.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Nearly all useful communities make use of shared moderation to select context that is desired rather than merely filter out obvious spam. It's not obvious that you could reproduce reddit or hacker news for example with a dumb pipe and user filters. Maybe step one is proving that is even possible before insisting people do it.
  - Const-me 6y ago
    When you have 2.8 billion people using a web app, that's way too many people to be a community, let alone a useful one. Facebook or Twitter as a whole is not a community. You can build actual community on top of them if you want. I have no objections against moderators of these groups doing their moderation, if I don't like your moderation I can always leave your groups or unfriend you. The problem is, Facebook and Twitter themselves are censoring content. Apparently, FB even censors private messages with political views they don't like.
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      Give me some examples of things that are being blocked that ought not to be? Lay of the generalities unless you feel up to defending the kind of material being banned. I don't think Facebook ought to be required to provide a platform for people it doesn't want to. It is an absolute violation of their rights to force them to use their private property to promote beliefs they find abhorrent. For example I don't think neo nazis, anti vaxxers, or election truthers need to have a more efficient way to spread their poisonous lies. I don't think Facebook ought to be limited to throwing up their hands and suggesting individual communities that don't want to hear about the next final solution simply don't attend to their hate. The solution to undesirable speech isn't merely more speech when the undesirable speech is being used to plan the overthrow of democracy and the murder of their enemies because eventually you wont have the privilege of speaking against them.
      - Const-me 6y ago
        > Give me some examples of things that are being blocked that ought not to be? Last URL I encountered was this, check the comments: https://avoiceformen.com/featured/my-son-doesnt-want-to-be-a-man/ https://avoiceformen.com/featured/my-son-doesnt-want-to-be-a... > It is an absolute violation of their rights to force them to use their private property to promote beliefs they find abhorrent. If FB is that intolerant to other people's opinions, they should do something else instead of being a social network 35% of global population uses at least every month. My cell phone allows me to discuss anything using the property of the operator. My internet provider doesn't care what I do with their property as long as I don't break laws and pay bills. I don't see what makes social media so special that they're allowed to arbitrarily censor opinions on the internets in centralized manner. Especially in private messages. Especially after doing everything they possibly can to make sure there's no competition on the market.

girvo 6y ago

How do readers choose their own spam filters within services like Gmail et al? Honest question.

visarga 6y ago

> readers choose their own spam filtering That would surely simplify the problem - user chooses filter, then user is responsible. Then every social niche could have their own filters. One thing I don't like about Google, FB and Twitter is that they don't tell us what content they have hidden from us. We should be able to know what was filtered out so we can re-rank with our own rules. Of course that would not sit right with the web giants and politicians because they can't control anymore how our news get ranked and filtered. If there's one outcome I wish to see from the new anti-trust push is to force them to open up the front-end and allow competing UIs and competing filters on their platforms. Why should a few people decide how information is accessed for the whole world by virtue of being the winners of a natural monopoly?

michaelmrose 6y ago

I don't want deplorables to be able to spread poison easier. A dumb pipe with user side filtering wouldn't allow major platforms to deny neo nazis, anti vaxxers, and cults a platform.