5 ms·

I wish all this moderation would be flipped around. Just allow people to filter the content they see. We should have a system similar to movie content ratings t

I wish all this moderation would be flipped around. Just allow people to filter the content they see. We should have a system similar to movie content ratings to make it easier instead of manually muting keywords like on Twitter. Then there is no controversy and everyone can get along.

capableweb 5y ago
I agree that this is the way we should go if we want to have moderation of content that also respects freedom of speech. However, I don't think what most people people want is just to not see racist comment online, they want to prevent/forbid racist comment online, even if they don't see it. Otherwise Parler would never have been shut down like it was, people would simply ignore it. But instead, people go out of their way in order to silence Parler, even if it's not their community.
- darkarmani 5y ago
  > Otherwise Parler would never have been shut down like it was, people would simply ignore it. Even with the "inciting and encouraging violence"? Why should people ignore platforms with calls to violence?
  - waheoo 5y ago
    I agree, we should shutdown Twitter and Facebook today. Better take down AWS too, they host all kinds of awful shit.
    - darkarmani 5y ago
      > Better take down AWS too Go ahead and complain to their service provider and see if they are violating their ToS. The big difference is that Twitter and Facebook actually (poorly) police their content where Parlor refused to do anything to block calls to violence. They were warned and continued to violate the ToS and AWS decided to walk away from the relationship. What good if having a contract if you aren't allowed to terminate it once a party violates it?
  - capableweb 5y ago
    I don't think we should ignore platforms that call for violence, but is that what Parler did? AFAIK, only people using Parler was inciting any violence, not the people actually running and maintaining the service Parler.
dTal 5y ago
I don't think it's wise to encourage people to silo themselves away into echo chambers - experience would seem to indicate that in the long run, it leads to more even controversy and even less getting along. We need to tackle issues collectively, as a society. And racism is an "issue". It's not like profanity or sex - something that's to be avoided in polite company but fine among consenting adults. It's not fine. Hiding it from view - letting the racists all be racist together while the anti-racists remain oblivious - makes it worse, not better.
- dslkfjg 5y ago
  OK I am not a racist. Let me just affirm that. Here is my question- what if the tenets of racism - that race is tied in some fundamental way to a profile of abilities and deficits- is right? It's a possible world. Ethnically Jewish people could just be born with more verbal ability than whites. That is not impossible. My point is this. By demanding a world in which some things cannot even be spoken of (except by critics) you're amputating our ability to know reality. If people with your opinion in the 1800s had achieved the type of dominion over others you now seek, there would not be womens right and there would not be gay rights and there would not be equal rights. The built-in assumption of your post is- we have reached a point of final knowledge about the physical universe and what is and is not possible in it. All further inquiries are a sort of crime. This is exactly the attitude the old Soviet Union took towards evolution and Mao took towards, well everything really. It's the grand totalitarian error at its core, irrespective of what claims it makes for itself.
  - gotostatement 5y ago
    Race is a socially constructed category. The idea that someone is a different "race" just because they look different is not supported by biology. In all metrics there is more variation within a group than between groups. So the "tenets of racism" have been decisively disproven many times over. The problem with defeating these in the marketplace of ideas, so to speak, is that their propagation has nothing to do with logic. People who believe them would find a way to dismiss any logical counterargument. The only way to squash it, arguably, is to prevent it. Not to mention the fact that people who are targeted by these ideas, which deny their humanity, are going to feel hurt and excluded in any space that allows it. So preventing that from happening is a real-time, concrete concern.

capableweb 5y ago

I agree that this is the way we should go if we want to have moderation of content that also respects freedom of speech. However, I don't think what most people people want is just to not see racist comment online, they want to prevent/forbid racist comment online, even if they don't see it. Otherwise Parler would never have been shut down like it was, people would simply ignore it. But instead, people go out of their way in order to silence Parler, even if it's not their community.

darkarmani 5y ago
> Otherwise Parler would never have been shut down like it was, people would simply ignore it. Even with the "inciting and encouraging violence"? Why should people ignore platforms with calls to violence?
- waheoo 5y ago
  I agree, we should shutdown Twitter and Facebook today. Better take down AWS too, they host all kinds of awful shit.
  - darkarmani 5y ago
    > Better take down AWS too Go ahead and complain to their service provider and see if they are violating their ToS. The big difference is that Twitter and Facebook actually (poorly) police their content where Parlor refused to do anything to block calls to violence. They were warned and continued to violate the ToS and AWS decided to walk away from the relationship. What good if having a contract if you aren't allowed to terminate it once a party violates it?
- capableweb 5y ago
  I don't think we should ignore platforms that call for violence, but is that what Parler did? AFAIK, only people using Parler was inciting any violence, not the people actually running and maintaining the service Parler.

dTal 5y ago

I don't think it's wise to encourage people to silo themselves away into echo chambers - experience would seem to indicate that in the long run, it leads to more even controversy and even less getting along. We need to tackle issues collectively, as a society. And racism is an "issue". It's not like profanity or sex - something that's to be avoided in polite company but fine among consenting adults. It's not fine. Hiding it from view - letting the racists all be racist together while the anti-racists remain oblivious - makes it worse, not better.

dslkfjg 5y ago
OK I am not a racist. Let me just affirm that. Here is my question- what if the tenets of racism - that race is tied in some fundamental way to a profile of abilities and deficits- is right? It's a possible world. Ethnically Jewish people could just be born with more verbal ability than whites. That is not impossible. My point is this. By demanding a world in which some things cannot even be spoken of (except by critics) you're amputating our ability to know reality. If people with your opinion in the 1800s had achieved the type of dominion over others you now seek, there would not be womens right and there would not be gay rights and there would not be equal rights. The built-in assumption of your post is- we have reached a point of final knowledge about the physical universe and what is and is not possible in it. All further inquiries are a sort of crime. This is exactly the attitude the old Soviet Union took towards evolution and Mao took towards, well everything really. It's the grand totalitarian error at its core, irrespective of what claims it makes for itself.
- gotostatement 5y ago
  Race is a socially constructed category. The idea that someone is a different "race" just because they look different is not supported by biology. In all metrics there is more variation within a group than between groups. So the "tenets of racism" have been decisively disproven many times over. The problem with defeating these in the marketplace of ideas, so to speak, is that their propagation has nothing to do with logic. People who believe them would find a way to dismiss any logical counterargument. The only way to squash it, arguably, is to prevent it. Not to mention the fact that people who are targeted by these ideas, which deny their humanity, are going to feel hurt and excluded in any space that allows it. So preventing that from happening is a real-time, concrete concern.