4 ms·

> . If you do zero moderation, you are not liable for user generated content period Ok sure, whatever. But the point would be to put facebook in a position wh

by stale2002 5y ago

> . If you do zero moderation, you are not liable for user generated content period Ok sure, whatever. But the point would be to put facebook in a position where they are only doing moderation that a user is requesting that they do. We can use common carrier laws, or we can use some different legal precedent. Thats that goal. The specific method, or process, isn't really the main point. > you're suggesting a strict reduction in moderation tools, and claiming that this will solve everything the way everyone wants. I am suggesting that users should be allowed to have voluntary choices about what moderation they want to have, as it relates to them, without facebook forcing those decisions on the user. > All of the options you want are already available No, users still are forced to accept facebooks choosen moderation preferences. That can't choose to opt out of Facebook's censorship or moderation, if they voluntarily choose to subscribe to certain content. > solve everything the way everyone wants. It will solve what a lot of people want. Sure, I am sure that there are people who are just explicitly pro-censorship, and want the 1st amendment to be removed, and want the government to ban all opposing political opinions. But there are also a lot of people who don't want facebook to be forcing users to accept certain moderation, and instead want users to be in control of what they see. > how does your approach address coordinated misinformation campaigns? If something is so bad, that it needs to be censored, then that is what the government is for. Terrorist threats are already illegal, for example. Backdoor censorship isn't the way to go. If you really believe that mis-information is so bad, that it needs to be stopped, by these types of methods, then the onus should be on you to gather enough support, to get around the protections of the 1st amendment. Checks and balances are difficult to get around for a reason. And if you can't get around these checks and balances, well thats the point of those checks and balances. > I haven't done anything illegal Well thats life. You are trying to backdoor your way to try to get stuff censored, because you aren't able to convince the government to do it. We don't need this backdoor method of supporting censorship. > Spam is a much larger problem on my phone than anywhere else There is nothing illegal about phone companies offering additional, voluntary methods, of allowing users to choose more things to be moderated for themselves. Such problems could be solved that way. By facebook, or whoever, offering voluntary programs, to block certain types or categories of things, if the user chooses to opt in to that form of moderation. > Ben Shapiro can post whatever he wants on Facebook You don't have to listen to Ben Sharpiro if you don't want to, in this situation. Instead, you could just voluntarily choose to subscribe to a "ban right wingers" block list, or whatever voluntary algorithm that the user opts in to.

joshuamorton 5y ago
> to get around the protections of the 1st amendment. I have gotten around the protections of the first amendment though! You're objecting how I did, and saying that it's not fair or not right, and that I should instead get around them in a different way. But why am I supposed to trust that you won't also object to that other way when, or if, I do gain that support? > But there are also a lot of people who don't want facebook to be forcing users to accept certain moderation, and instead want users to be in control of what they see. They are: they're free to use a different service. No one is forcing you to use facebook or to distribute your content via facebook. There are plenty of other ways to distribute your content, and you have no more right to require facebook distribute your content then they have a right to force you to use their website.
- stale2002 5y ago
  > I have gotten around the protections of the first amendment though! Yeah thats the point, lol. If you are just pro censorship, and dont care about the principles that the 1st amendment protects, and just want to find a way around it, just say so. If you would support the government, censoring all opposing political opinions, or jailing them, or worse, because of some legal technicality, just say so. As long as you are honest about it, and you just want to do things that are basically equivalent to the government censoring anything for any reason, just say so, and say that you want to ignore all of this stuff, and want to find a way to censor all of your political opponents, in any way that you can find. Yes, I completely agree that people such as yourself, don't care about any of these principles, and just want to figure out whatever ways that you can, to defacto censor anyone for any reason, regardless of the motivations in the first place, to stop censorship. Thats the point. The whole point is that you don't care about any of this, and just want to engage in authoritarianism, in any way that you can get away with. Thats the problem. Thats what everyone else is trying to fight against. Authoritarians who look for loopholes, to engage in authoritarianism, with whatever possible way that they can get away with. Thats why we want laws to stop that! > They are: they're free to use a different service. But the alternative solution, that provides a lot of benefits, to most people, is to simply incentivize facebook to implement these policies. That would allow people to get most of what they want, by preventing these work arounds, where the principles of anti-censorship, are backdoor ignored. While also simultaneously giving users the ability to moderate content that they see. > have no more right to require facebook distribute I agree that the law does not currently prevent facebook from doing certain things. Which is why the conversation, the entire time, was about making new laws, or changing laws, so that they cannot engage in what, in your own words, is a way to get around the 1st amendment, and engage in mass censorship, that is almost as bad as if the government did it. Thats the problem!

joshuamorton 5y ago

> to get around the protections of the 1st amendment. I have gotten around the protections of the first amendment though! You're objecting how I did, and saying that it's not fair or not right, and that I should instead get around them in a different way. But why am I supposed to trust that you won't also object to that other way when, or if, I do gain that support? > But there are also a lot of people who don't want facebook to be forcing users to accept certain moderation, and instead want users to be in control of what they see. They are: they're free to use a different service. No one is forcing you to use facebook or to distribute your content via facebook. There are plenty of other ways to distribute your content, and you have no more right to require facebook distribute your content then they have a right to force you to use their website.

stale2002 5y ago
> I have gotten around the protections of the first amendment though! Yeah thats the point, lol. If you are just pro censorship, and dont care about the principles that the 1st amendment protects, and just want to find a way around it, just say so. If you would support the government, censoring all opposing political opinions, or jailing them, or worse, because of some legal technicality, just say so. As long as you are honest about it, and you just want to do things that are basically equivalent to the government censoring anything for any reason, just say so, and say that you want to ignore all of this stuff, and want to find a way to censor all of your political opponents, in any way that you can find. Yes, I completely agree that people such as yourself, don't care about any of these principles, and just want to figure out whatever ways that you can, to defacto censor anyone for any reason, regardless of the motivations in the first place, to stop censorship. Thats the point. The whole point is that you don't care about any of this, and just want to engage in authoritarianism, in any way that you can get away with. Thats the problem. Thats what everyone else is trying to fight against. Authoritarians who look for loopholes, to engage in authoritarianism, with whatever possible way that they can get away with. Thats why we want laws to stop that! > They are: they're free to use a different service. But the alternative solution, that provides a lot of benefits, to most people, is to simply incentivize facebook to implement these policies. That would allow people to get most of what they want, by preventing these work arounds, where the principles of anti-censorship, are backdoor ignored. While also simultaneously giving users the ability to moderate content that they see. > have no more right to require facebook distribute I agree that the law does not currently prevent facebook from doing certain things. Which is why the conversation, the entire time, was about making new laws, or changing laws, so that they cannot engage in what, in your own words, is a way to get around the 1st amendment, and engage in mass censorship, that is almost as bad as if the government did it. Thats the problem!