4 ms·

Simple answer to this entire issue: If it’s not illegal, don’t censor or moderate it in any way. Social media companies like Twitter realize that this is the m

by jtdev 6y ago

Simple answer to this entire issue: If it’s not illegal, don’t censor or moderate it in any way. Social media companies like Twitter realize that this is the most reasonable approach, but it effectively removes their ability to manipulate... so of course they continue to censor and moderate in a biased fashion.

nonotreally 6y ago
My gut says that you are right. I think the election fraud nonsense suggests it might not be that simple. Bad actors in positions of power are abusing these services to the point where we have real conflict occurring. How do we account for these edge cases?
- jtdev 6y ago
  If it's not illegal, don't censor or moderate it in any way. More speech is better than less speech; Uncensored speech is in fact the antidote to the supposed problems that Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. disengenuously claim to be solving.
  - nonotreally 6y ago
    Are there any cases where more speech is not the answer? Can we agree that calls for violence is a limit of speech that is good?
    - jtdev 6y ago
      That would fall into the "illegal" [0] category if people are in fact calling for violence. [0] https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section373&num=0&edition=prelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim...
      - nonotreally 6y ago
        Sounds like we agree on this. I want to push you here though. Did twitter contribute to the events on the 6th? Do they have any role to play? Do you have to use the words "go and kill them" in order for it to be violence? I'm trying to be genuine here, because I don't know. I will say it certainly feels like we saw the violence being induced for months ahead of time on twitter without explicit calls for violence. Should we just allow this? It's happening still. We have members of congress calling the election stolen. This is how more violence happens. It's a slow burn, but it's a burn.
        jtdev 6y ago
        If the speech is legal it should not be censored or moderated in any way. Any deviation from that results in the technocrats interfering with the flow of legal information and manipulation of social, economic, and political processes - which is in large part how we ended up with the events of recent months in my opinion.
        nonotreally 6y ago
        What if it's a private company? Hackernews famously moderates their comment section, to the benefit of all. Why can't this happen on Twitter?
        jtdev 6y ago
        Twitter/HN is not an apples/apples comparison... but sure, Twitter is completely within their _current_ lawful rights to moderate and censor whatever content they want. But I would posit that they are actually causing more harm than good through these efforts, and they've now firmly placed themselves in a total quagmire in doing so.
        nonotreally 6y ago
        That is a really good point - HN is much smaller and attracts a very different audience. I agree, they have created a really unfortunate situation for us and for them. In principal, forgetting the practicalities, would you support HN style moderation on Twitter/FB? My gut reaction is yes. It seems to be a good balance of gut check and "we don't have time for this". o/t 5 star online conversation dude.
      - driverdan 6y ago
        Not if it's non-specific. What if someone says "Death to all [group of people]", should they be banned? It's calling for violence but is not illegal in the US.
kaiju0 6y ago
Here is a leader calling for Jewish genocide https://nypost.com/2020/07/30/twitter-execs-refused-request-to-remove-ayatollah-khamenei-tweets/ https://nypost.com/2020/07/30/twitter-execs-refused-request-... It must be moderated.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by jtdev 6y ago

nonotreally 6y ago

My gut says that you are right. I think the election fraud nonsense suggests it might not be that simple. Bad actors in positions of power are abusing these services to the point where we have real conflict occurring. How do we account for these edge cases?

jtdev 6y ago
If it's not illegal, don't censor or moderate it in any way. More speech is better than less speech; Uncensored speech is in fact the antidote to the supposed problems that Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. disengenuously claim to be solving.
- nonotreally 6y ago
  Are there any cases where more speech is not the answer? Can we agree that calls for violence is a limit of speech that is good?
  - jtdev 6y ago
    That would fall into the "illegal" [0] category if people are in fact calling for violence. [0] https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section373&num=0&edition=prelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim...
    - nonotreally 6y ago
      Sounds like we agree on this. I want to push you here though. Did twitter contribute to the events on the 6th? Do they have any role to play? Do you have to use the words "go and kill them" in order for it to be violence? I'm trying to be genuine here, because I don't know. I will say it certainly feels like we saw the violence being induced for months ahead of time on twitter without explicit calls for violence. Should we just allow this? It's happening still. We have members of congress calling the election stolen. This is how more violence happens. It's a slow burn, but it's a burn.
      - jtdev 6y ago
        If the speech is legal it should not be censored or moderated in any way. Any deviation from that results in the technocrats interfering with the flow of legal information and manipulation of social, economic, and political processes - which is in large part how we ended up with the events of recent months in my opinion.
        nonotreally 6y ago
        What if it's a private company? Hackernews famously moderates their comment section, to the benefit of all. Why can't this happen on Twitter?
        jtdev 6y ago
        Twitter/HN is not an apples/apples comparison... but sure, Twitter is completely within their _current_ lawful rights to moderate and censor whatever content they want. But I would posit that they are actually causing more harm than good through these efforts, and they've now firmly placed themselves in a total quagmire in doing so.
        nonotreally 6y ago
        That is a really good point - HN is much smaller and attracts a very different audience. I agree, they have created a really unfortunate situation for us and for them. In principal, forgetting the practicalities, would you support HN style moderation on Twitter/FB? My gut reaction is yes. It seems to be a good balance of gut check and "we don't have time for this". o/t 5 star online conversation dude.
    - driverdan 6y ago
      Not if it's non-specific. What if someone says "Death to all [group of people]", should they be banned? It's calling for violence but is not illegal in the US.

kaiju0 6y ago

Here is a leader calling for Jewish genocide https://nypost.com/2020/07/30/twitter-execs-refused-request-to-remove-ayatollah-khamenei-tweets/ https://nypost.com/2020/07/30/twitter-execs-refused-request-... It must be moderated.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]