5 ms·

Isn't that just proving the point? Powerful figures should absolutely be more careful when using words like "fight" out of context because a certain percentage

by zxzax 5y ago

Isn't that just proving the point? Powerful figures should absolutely be more careful when using words like "fight" out of context because a certain percentage of people may very well misinterpret that as a call to violence. The platform evaluating it in a certain way doesn't change what the rest of the audience is going to evaluate it as.

koolba 5y ago
> Isn't that just proving the point? Powerful figures should absolutely be more careful when using words like "fight" out of context because a certain percentage of people may very well misinterpret that as a call to violence. The platform evaluating it in a certain way doesn't change what the rest of the audience is going to evaluate it as. No, no, no! The answer to idiots misinterpreting words literally isn't to dumb down our speech. That would be double plus ungood.
- kube-system 5y ago
  tact != dumbing down If anything, it's the opposite.
  - ds206 5y ago
    It's too bad politicians don't have a way to express their policy views to everyone in as much detail as they need, spanning as many hours as it takes. Oh yeah, they do LOL. I wonder how long it'll be until we have the first "big brother" politician that has web cams in their office and is transparent about every decision they've made?
- zxzax 5y ago
  >The answer to [less knowledgeable people] misinterpreting words literally isn't to [simplify] our speech. Yes, it is? For the biggest example, Have you ever done child care? Kids may not understand whatever complex metaphor you're trying to use, they're not "idiots" for being that way, that's your responsibility as the adult to explain what you mean to them or use a simpler phrasing. Some kids may not even be ready for the explanation and you'll have to wait until they're older to use the complex phrasing. Yes it's unfortunate that for some this pattern continues into adulthood but they're also not "idiots" for being that way, not everyone can be an English major.
throwawaysea 5y ago
I don't think the use of a word like 'fight' should be treated differently for powerful figures/politicians - it feels a bit arbitrary. Why not treat Facebook or Twitter as a platform that in aggregate has that degree of influence and power, and ban all uses of the word 'fight' across the entire platform? Think of it like what Apple did when banning the 'pistol' emoji across all their operating systems. Why does it matter whether one politician does it or if ten thousand activists do it - after all, in 2020 the latter group incited a lot more violence than Trump is alleged to have incited. My perspective is that these efforts to ban speech or speech that includes "human emotion" (like 'fight') would be a step too far for everyone. Right now those rules are being applied to only one side (the right), and so others (on the left) are deeming this censorship acceptable. This is quite evident if you look for all the instances when Democrats used the word 'fight' (https://nypost.com/2021/02/12/trump-team-plays-videos-of-democrats-repeated-fight-vows/ https://nypost.com/2021/02/12/trump-team-plays-videos-of-dem...). > a certain percentage of people may very well misinterpret that as a call to violence But this is why our society is built around individual, personal responsibility. Those that follow a call to violence are still, solely, responsible for their actions. Our justice system charges those individuals that engaged in criminality on Jan 6th, not Trump. Why should these massive tech platforms be any different in determining who they censor or ban?
wernercd 5y ago
> like "fight" out of context Yet the people who are most angry about calling for a "fight" are the same ones that defend much worse from the likes of Maxine Waters... The platform evaluating rules for Trump while allowing worse from others - in power or out - is the problem. Examples exist everywhere of much MUCH worse than Trumps non-calls for violence... yet he's the only one to get banned and have a Crusade/Jihad held against him? Says more about the hypocrites that hold double standards than it does about Trump - who's the same bombastic blowhard he's always been.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  There are just so many instances of left-leaning politicians inciting, encouraging, or supporting criminality, that there's no defense for the one-sided enforcement of moderation by Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon, and the rest of them. I have a list below of articles I dug up from just two minutes of web searches. There are substantially more instances than just these as well, but none of these people are banned, nor is their content censored. We see the same one-sided enforcement with fact-checking, which has been slowly degrading into partisanship as well. These days I often see fact checks with the label "missing context", that aren't really a "fact check" but cast doubt on a claim typically from a moderate or right-leaning voice. ----- All the times Democrats used the word "fight": https://nypost.com/2021/02/12/trump-team-plays-videos-of-democrats-repeated-fight-vows/ https://nypost.com/2021/02/12/trump-team-plays-videos-of-dem... Chuck Schumer (and others) inciting/supporting rioting at the Capitol during Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings: https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/03/chuck-schumer-used-violent-rhetoric-to-sic-a-mob-on-two-supreme-court-justices/ https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/03/chuck-schumer-used-viol... Democrats claiming the 2016 election was stolen and inciting violence against Trump: https://defconnews.com/2021/01/11/all-the-times-democrats-incited-violence-and-werent-banned-or-impeached/ https://defconnews.com/2021/01/11/all-the-times-democrats-in... AOC justifying rioting: https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1334184644707758080 https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1334184644707758080
- objectivetruth 5y ago
  Gee, considering how many times you've tried to play your "Actually, the real villain is Maxine Waters!" card in this discussion, maybe you should enlighten us as to what contextual calls for actual violence she made. I, for one, would just love to see your sources.
umvi 5y ago
It's a double standard though. Maxine Waters recently told George Floyd demonstrators to "get more confrontational". Pelosi defended her and said it wasn't a call to violence, and Twitter didn't ban her, despite George Floyd protests having a history of devolving into looting/violence. Trump said "And we fight, we fight like hell. If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." and Pelosi said that was incitement of violence and he got banned from the internet. So... who gets to decide what counts as incitement or not? Apparently whichever party has the largest influence over the mainstream media/social media companies.

by zxzax 5y ago

koolba 5y ago

> Isn't that just proving the point? Powerful figures should absolutely be more careful when using words like "fight" out of context because a certain percentage of people may very well misinterpret that as a call to violence. The platform evaluating it in a certain way doesn't change what the rest of the audience is going to evaluate it as. No, no, no! The answer to idiots misinterpreting words literally isn't to dumb down our speech. That would be double plus ungood.

kube-system 5y ago
tact != dumbing down If anything, it's the opposite.
- ds206 5y ago
  It's too bad politicians don't have a way to express their policy views to everyone in as much detail as they need, spanning as many hours as it takes. Oh yeah, they do LOL. I wonder how long it'll be until we have the first "big brother" politician that has web cams in their office and is transparent about every decision they've made?
zxzax 5y ago
>The answer to [less knowledgeable people] misinterpreting words literally isn't to [simplify] our speech. Yes, it is? For the biggest example, Have you ever done child care? Kids may not understand whatever complex metaphor you're trying to use, they're not "idiots" for being that way, that's your responsibility as the adult to explain what you mean to them or use a simpler phrasing. Some kids may not even be ready for the explanation and you'll have to wait until they're older to use the complex phrasing. Yes it's unfortunate that for some this pattern continues into adulthood but they're also not "idiots" for being that way, not everyone can be an English major.

throwawaysea 5y ago

I don't think the use of a word like 'fight' should be treated differently for powerful figures/politicians - it feels a bit arbitrary. Why not treat Facebook or Twitter as a platform that in aggregate has that degree of influence and power, and ban all uses of the word 'fight' across the entire platform? Think of it like what Apple did when banning the 'pistol' emoji across all their operating systems. Why does it matter whether one politician does it or if ten thousand activists do it - after all, in 2020 the latter group incited a lot more violence than Trump is alleged to have incited. My perspective is that these efforts to ban speech or speech that includes "human emotion" (like 'fight') would be a step too far for everyone. Right now those rules are being applied to only one side (the right), and so others (on the left) are deeming this censorship acceptable. This is quite evident if you look for all the instances when Democrats used the word 'fight' (https://nypost.com/2021/02/12/trump-team-plays-videos-of-democrats-repeated-fight-vows/ https://nypost.com/2021/02/12/trump-team-plays-videos-of-dem...). > a certain percentage of people may very well misinterpret that as a call to violence But this is why our society is built around individual, personal responsibility. Those that follow a call to violence are still, solely, responsible for their actions. Our justice system charges those individuals that engaged in criminality on Jan 6th, not Trump. Why should these massive tech platforms be any different in determining who they censor or ban?

wernercd 5y ago

> like "fight" out of context Yet the people who are most angry about calling for a "fight" are the same ones that defend much worse from the likes of Maxine Waters... The platform evaluating rules for Trump while allowing worse from others - in power or out - is the problem. Examples exist everywhere of much MUCH worse than Trumps non-calls for violence... yet he's the only one to get banned and have a Crusade/Jihad held against him? Says more about the hypocrites that hold double standards than it does about Trump - who's the same bombastic blowhard he's always been.

throwawaysea 5y ago
There are just so many instances of left-leaning politicians inciting, encouraging, or supporting criminality, that there's no defense for the one-sided enforcement of moderation by Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon, and the rest of them. I have a list below of articles I dug up from just two minutes of web searches. There are substantially more instances than just these as well, but none of these people are banned, nor is their content censored. We see the same one-sided enforcement with fact-checking, which has been slowly degrading into partisanship as well. These days I often see fact checks with the label "missing context", that aren't really a "fact check" but cast doubt on a claim typically from a moderate or right-leaning voice. ----- All the times Democrats used the word "fight": https://nypost.com/2021/02/12/trump-team-plays-videos-of-democrats-repeated-fight-vows/ https://nypost.com/2021/02/12/trump-team-plays-videos-of-dem... Chuck Schumer (and others) inciting/supporting rioting at the Capitol during Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings: https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/03/chuck-schumer-used-violent-rhetoric-to-sic-a-mob-on-two-supreme-court-justices/ https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/03/chuck-schumer-used-viol... Democrats claiming the 2016 election was stolen and inciting violence against Trump: https://defconnews.com/2021/01/11/all-the-times-democrats-incited-violence-and-werent-banned-or-impeached/ https://defconnews.com/2021/01/11/all-the-times-democrats-in... AOC justifying rioting: https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1334184644707758080 https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1334184644707758080
objectivetruth 5y ago
Gee, considering how many times you've tried to play your "Actually, the real villain is Maxine Waters!" card in this discussion, maybe you should enlighten us as to what contextual calls for actual violence she made. I, for one, would just love to see your sources.

umvi 5y ago

It's a double standard though. Maxine Waters recently told George Floyd demonstrators to "get more confrontational". Pelosi defended her and said it wasn't a call to violence, and Twitter didn't ban her, despite George Floyd protests having a history of devolving into looting/violence. Trump said "And we fight, we fight like hell. If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." and Pelosi said that was incitement of violence and he got banned from the internet. So... who gets to decide what counts as incitement or not? Apparently whichever party has the largest influence over the mainstream media/social media companies.