5 ms·

> They caved to censoring things that were reasonable, but now anyone can make them censor anything as long as they have some poltical power somewhere. On some

> They caved to censoring things that were reasonable, but now anyone can make them censor anything as long as they have some poltical power somewhere. On some level, we have to acknowledge that whoever is running the shitshow at youtube and twitter are actually responsible as well, in that they believe they know enough to literally dictate what everyone in the world should see and read. For example banning Trump from Twitter is a great example of this. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of his politics (or Biden's, or any of them, same shit different smell i say), but who the hell do Twitter people think they are that they feel confident enough to ban him? Not talking in the sense of a private company here, sure it's their business and they can do whatever the heck they want, but does anyone really think that by banning him they prevented whatever ideas of his that think should not be encouraged to stop? At best, this shows tremendous life inexperience, which I expect from kids who read a couple of books and think that they understand everything, the typical example of a tech company worker in a company like Twitter.

kthejoker2 5y ago
There is a ton of actual evidence that removing bad actors improves the quality of information on social networks: https://www.axios.com/reddit-hate-speech-policies-reduction-72fa6b6b-7774-409a-9e91-ced3b3d90d4b.html https://www.axios.com/reddit-hate-speech-policies-reduction-... https://www.vox.com/2021/1/16/22234971/trump-twitter-facebook-social-media-ban-election-misinformation-zignal https://www.vox.com/2021/1/16/22234971/trump-twitter-faceboo...
- throwawayswede 5y ago
  That's not what I said. To reiterate, what I'm saying is: Shady ideas fester in the dark. Banning won't help society. Exposure and discussion does. But the new and very different point that you're making, which is "removing bad actors improves the quality of information on social networks", is also very disputable and shaky. - First link is "Reddit says that the rules Reddit made helped Reddit." is not exactly impartial, so forgive me to mistrust it. - Felt bad opening a Vox link (since so very obviously biased, but whatever, opened it for a laugh). The say: "misinformation slowed, the research indicates online discussion around the topics that motivated the Capitol riot has also diminished" if you don't see it (or if it doesn't happen online) it doesn't mean it diminished overall. The whole article is full of bias honestly. Sad that you feel it's worthy enough to source.
  - namlem 5y ago
    The "marketplace of ideas" is a fiction that has long since been debunked. The best ideas arent the ones that win out, it's the loudest ones and the ones that appeal to our most base emotions that win. Only a small percentage of people actually possess intellectual curiosity. Most just mindlessly follow social trends.
    - throwawayswede 5y ago
      > The "marketplace of ideas" is a fiction that has long since been debunked I don't think it's been "debunked" as you say. Provide evidence. A few examples is not evidence to make such a blanket statement. > The best ideas arent the ones that win out, it's the loudest ones and the ones that appeal to our most base emotions that win. Again, very much disagree with this. If you look short term that may be true, but long term historically speaking at least that has not been the truth.
      - namlem 5y ago
        Oh really? Then why is the number of people who believe the earth is flat on the rise? Why do people still believe in ancient mythologies that contradict scientific knowledge that has been available for centuries? Maybe on the scale of millenia ideas based in truth are more likely to dominate, but I don't see how you could make that claim about history when our current paradigm of empirical knowledge is only a few centuries old, and already it seems as though cracks are starting to form.
        throwawayswede 5y ago
        > Then why is the number of people who believe the earth is flat on the rise? Why do you say it's on the rise? Have you considered that there's lot more people, or that that the internet and various "communities" on the web just gave extra amplification to all sort of ideas? This is exactly why nothing should be banned. If you want wrong ideas to be corrected, you let them be discussed in the open. If you start pulling down videos that talk about flat earth you're gonna end up with grouping all people who think like that in a community where they only get exposed to ideas that affirm their erroneous belief. > and already it seems as though cracks are starting to form. again, provide examples or evidence for how and where you see this.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kmeisthax 5y ago
The thing about Twitter is that they had rules that Trump was breaking regularly; and invented an entirely new "world leaders policy"[0] and "public interest policy"[1] to justify not banning him. They even exempted him from DMCA repeat-infringer policies[2] when music artists started taking down his tweets with their music in them. Had Twitter not intervened on January 9th, Trump would have been gotten banned anyway when he left office, purely because of him no longer being an elected politician. My personal opinion is that even if the thing that gets banned or removed finds an audience (and it will), it's still a good idea for any platform - from a tiny webforum to a billions-strong social network - to have speech rules that are fair and reasonably enforced. It's not fun to be on a platform where a handful of celebrities and politicians (incl. Trump) are regularly flouting rules you have to follow. Furthermore, I'd much rather be in a community in which the loudest and most obnoxious users are shown the door, purely for my own sanity. Free-for-alls stop being fun when they outgrow their original userbase. [0] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/worldleaders2019 https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/worldlead... [1] https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/public-interest https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/public-intere... [2] https://torrentfreak.com/could-trumps-twitter-account-be-dmca-banned-not-long-to-find-out-201231/ https://torrentfreak.com/could-trumps-twitter-account-be-dmc...

kthejoker2 5y ago

There is a ton of actual evidence that removing bad actors improves the quality of information on social networks: https://www.axios.com/reddit-hate-speech-policies-reduction-72fa6b6b-7774-409a-9e91-ced3b3d90d4b.html https://www.axios.com/reddit-hate-speech-policies-reduction-... https://www.vox.com/2021/1/16/22234971/trump-twitter-facebook-social-media-ban-election-misinformation-zignal https://www.vox.com/2021/1/16/22234971/trump-twitter-faceboo...

throwawayswede 5y ago
That's not what I said. To reiterate, what I'm saying is: Shady ideas fester in the dark. Banning won't help society. Exposure and discussion does. But the new and very different point that you're making, which is "removing bad actors improves the quality of information on social networks", is also very disputable and shaky. - First link is "Reddit says that the rules Reddit made helped Reddit." is not exactly impartial, so forgive me to mistrust it. - Felt bad opening a Vox link (since so very obviously biased, but whatever, opened it for a laugh). The say: "misinformation slowed, the research indicates online discussion around the topics that motivated the Capitol riot has also diminished" if you don't see it (or if it doesn't happen online) it doesn't mean it diminished overall. The whole article is full of bias honestly. Sad that you feel it's worthy enough to source.
- namlem 5y ago
  The "marketplace of ideas" is a fiction that has long since been debunked. The best ideas arent the ones that win out, it's the loudest ones and the ones that appeal to our most base emotions that win. Only a small percentage of people actually possess intellectual curiosity. Most just mindlessly follow social trends.
  - throwawayswede 5y ago
    > The "marketplace of ideas" is a fiction that has long since been debunked I don't think it's been "debunked" as you say. Provide evidence. A few examples is not evidence to make such a blanket statement. > The best ideas arent the ones that win out, it's the loudest ones and the ones that appeal to our most base emotions that win. Again, very much disagree with this. If you look short term that may be true, but long term historically speaking at least that has not been the truth.
    - namlem 5y ago
      Oh really? Then why is the number of people who believe the earth is flat on the rise? Why do people still believe in ancient mythologies that contradict scientific knowledge that has been available for centuries? Maybe on the scale of millenia ideas based in truth are more likely to dominate, but I don't see how you could make that claim about history when our current paradigm of empirical knowledge is only a few centuries old, and already it seems as though cracks are starting to form.
      - throwawayswede 5y ago
        > Then why is the number of people who believe the earth is flat on the rise? Why do you say it's on the rise? Have you considered that there's lot more people, or that that the internet and various "communities" on the web just gave extra amplification to all sort of ideas? This is exactly why nothing should be banned. If you want wrong ideas to be corrected, you let them be discussed in the open. If you start pulling down videos that talk about flat earth you're gonna end up with grouping all people who think like that in a community where they only get exposed to ideas that affirm their erroneous belief. > and already it seems as though cracks are starting to form. again, provide examples or evidence for how and where you see this.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

kmeisthax 5y ago

The thing about Twitter is that they had rules that Trump was breaking regularly; and invented an entirely new "world leaders policy"[0] and "public interest policy"[1] to justify not banning him. They even exempted him from DMCA repeat-infringer policies[2] when music artists started taking down his tweets with their music in them. Had Twitter not intervened on January 9th, Trump would have been gotten banned anyway when he left office, purely because of him no longer being an elected politician. My personal opinion is that even if the thing that gets banned or removed finds an audience (and it will), it's still a good idea for any platform - from a tiny webforum to a billions-strong social network - to have speech rules that are fair and reasonably enforced. It's not fun to be on a platform where a handful of celebrities and politicians (incl. Trump) are regularly flouting rules you have to follow. Furthermore, I'd much rather be in a community in which the loudest and most obnoxious users are shown the door, purely for my own sanity. Free-for-alls stop being fun when they outgrow their original userbase. [0] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/worldleaders2019 https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/worldlead... [1] https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/public-interest https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/public-intere... [2] https://torrentfreak.com/could-trumps-twitter-account-be-dmca-banned-not-long-to-find-out-201231/ https://torrentfreak.com/could-trumps-twitter-account-be-dmc...