4 ms·

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 filteri

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.
      - michaelmrose 6y ago
        Your link is full of hateful lies. It tells people that their transgender kid is really just a confused youngster who was somehow convinced by hucksters that he ought to whack his penis off for no reason which encourages parents to fix their kid by deprogramming them before its too late. This is exactly the attitude that leads to the massive suicide rate among transgendered teens. The world view it represents is basically a hallucination. They are allowed to censor stuff on their networks because you are ultimately using their property and do so under terms set by owners of that property. This is completely trivial to understand. No law protects your ability to use that property as you please and until you get sufficient support from the general populace and the legislature none shall. The dumb pipe that everyone is allowed to use as they please is the internet. This is more than sufficient. You don't need to have freedom to use facebook as you please in order to have reasonable freedom of expression. You can have your own website and express your opinion therein.
        Const-me 6y ago
        > Your link is full of hateful lies. In my opinion, that link expresses a humble opinion of a middle-aged woman. I don't necessarily agree with her opinion, but I'm certain there's nothing hateful there. Also, I'm not certain but inclined to believe the OP is sincere therefore whetever's written is not a lie. Apparently you have different opinion. That's fine. What is not fine, Facebook suppressing opinions they don't like. I grew up in a communist country. You don't want a society where you only allowed to express one opinion, the official one, and go to jail or a psychiatric hospital for expressing disagreement with that officially blessed opinion. > you are ultimately using their property and do so under terms set by owners Same arguments apply to phone networks. > until you get sufficient support from the general populace Given what FB/twitter have been doing lately, that support won't take too long to build.

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.
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      Your link is full of hateful lies. It tells people that their transgender kid is really just a confused youngster who was somehow convinced by hucksters that he ought to whack his penis off for no reason which encourages parents to fix their kid by deprogramming them before its too late. This is exactly the attitude that leads to the massive suicide rate among transgendered teens. The world view it represents is basically a hallucination. They are allowed to censor stuff on their networks because you are ultimately using their property and do so under terms set by owners of that property. This is completely trivial to understand. No law protects your ability to use that property as you please and until you get sufficient support from the general populace and the legislature none shall. The dumb pipe that everyone is allowed to use as they please is the internet. This is more than sufficient. You don't need to have freedom to use facebook as you please in order to have reasonable freedom of expression. You can have your own website and express your opinion therein.
      - Const-me 6y ago
        > Your link is full of hateful lies. In my opinion, that link expresses a humble opinion of a middle-aged woman. I don't necessarily agree with her opinion, but I'm certain there's nothing hateful there. Also, I'm not certain but inclined to believe the OP is sincere therefore whetever's written is not a lie. Apparently you have different opinion. That's fine. What is not fine, Facebook suppressing opinions they don't like. I grew up in a communist country. You don't want a society where you only allowed to express one opinion, the official one, and go to jail or a psychiatric hospital for expressing disagreement with that officially blessed opinion. > you are ultimately using their property and do so under terms set by owners Same arguments apply to phone networks. > until you get sufficient support from the general populace Given what FB/twitter have been doing lately, that support won't take too long to build.