4 ms·

> Punishment for crimes like hate speech should be enforced > "personal media" should not be arbitrarily controlled This threw an exception, because "hate spe

> Punishment for crimes like hate speech should be enforced > "personal media" should not be arbitrarily controlled This threw an exception, because "hate speech" is an arbitrary type. It has no objective definition. It is defined by whoever happens to be defining it.

adkadskhj 6y ago
Not that i agree with the GP comment, but isn't that exactly the point of courts? Eg death threats and all sorts of illegal wording are inaccurate in the literal, programming sense. Humans (courts/etc) interpret and ultimately rule if a set of vague concepts is in violation. If it wasn't for this capability it would be hilariously easy to avoid almost all repercussion from written/spoken word by just adding a dash of vagueness to the subject. Throw in a pinch of speaking in code and you'll never be charged for any crime, yay! I loosely agree with you, but lets not pretend that english is even remotely as well defined as a programming language in all cases.
- Covzire 6y ago
  The activists entrenched in Silicon Valley know better than the peasants or the courts.
  - adkadskhj 6y ago
    Well i use the term courts loosely here, as it is besides my point - my point was simply that humans _already_ interpret word as allowed or not. We do not allow all english that isn't strictly defined as bad, i thought. I can threaten you in ways that will get me in trouble but are not, by themselves, a threat. English is not that simple. So my point is merely that it seems to be the precedent is already set for humans to moderate human english. It is not a programming language to be parsed and verified.
- jdasdf 6y ago
  Offloading the problem solving to courts doesn't fix the issue, it just removes your involvement.
  - adkadskhj 6y ago
    I wasn't saying it does, i'm saying _we already have to do that_. Ie, this isn't a new problem. It's a well understood problem, because language is not concrete nor so well defined as to be always explicit.

adkadskhj 6y ago

Not that i agree with the GP comment, but isn't that exactly the point of courts? Eg death threats and all sorts of illegal wording are inaccurate in the literal, programming sense. Humans (courts/etc) interpret and ultimately rule if a set of vague concepts is in violation. If it wasn't for this capability it would be hilariously easy to avoid almost all repercussion from written/spoken word by just adding a dash of vagueness to the subject. Throw in a pinch of speaking in code and you'll never be charged for any crime, yay! I loosely agree with you, but lets not pretend that english is even remotely as well defined as a programming language in all cases.

Covzire 6y ago
The activists entrenched in Silicon Valley know better than the peasants or the courts.
- adkadskhj 6y ago
  Well i use the term courts loosely here, as it is besides my point - my point was simply that humans _already_ interpret word as allowed or not. We do not allow all english that isn't strictly defined as bad, i thought. I can threaten you in ways that will get me in trouble but are not, by themselves, a threat. English is not that simple. So my point is merely that it seems to be the precedent is already set for humans to moderate human english. It is not a programming language to be parsed and verified.
jdasdf 6y ago
Offloading the problem solving to courts doesn't fix the issue, it just removes your involvement.
- adkadskhj 6y ago
  I wasn't saying it does, i'm saying _we already have to do that_. Ie, this isn't a new problem. It's a well understood problem, because language is not concrete nor so well defined as to be always explicit.