2 ms·

It's funny that you should mention War Games, because the only way to win this battle is not to play at all. Why are we so hell-bent on restricting speech and b

It's funny that you should mention War Games, because the only way to win this battle is not to play at all. Why are we so hell-bent on restricting speech and burning all these engineering hours trying to moderate something that cannot be moderated? Languages -- and people -- are "transformable" enough to avoid triggering "hate speech" (whatever that actually is, and whoever it is that determines it) algorithms. Let people downvote or shut their computer off if they don't like it, and leave it at that. Are we that scared of words or ideas? I used to live in a communist country (probably the same one that Mr. Radic lives/lived in), where "hate speech" -- which was called anti-state, or anti-establishment speech back then -- was punishable by a middle-of-the-night visit by dark-clad police. Yet, people still found ways to openly criticize the Party, and there were even popular songs that openly defied them, which only demonstrates that not even human pattern recognition is good enough to detect these things, as you state in your first sentence. It's a waste of time, but more importantly it is detrimental to society.

Gibbon1 5y ago
> Why are we so hell-bent on restricting speech and burning all these engineering hours trying to moderate something that cannot be moderated? Because if you allow humans to moderate then those humans start acquiring power. Which is something FAANG companies strive to prevent at all costs.
- mirkules 5y ago
  So instead put power in the hands of giant companies because regular people can’t be bothered to not get hot-and-bothered by reading something they don’t like? What makes these companies so morally pure? The only way this can make sense - especially on HN - is if the people who advocate for company control of regular peoples’ lives work at these companies.
robrenaud 5y ago
I am scared of the masses believing nonsense. What fraction of Americans believe the election was stolen? How many people are still going to refuse to be vaccinated? Indeed, bad ideas are scary. I am scared that my country people will lead another insurrection or allow themselves to be a needlessly vulnerable vector for highly transmissible and dangerous virus. Misinformation spreads like wildfire. The notion that good speech counters bad speech relies on rational, well informed, critical thinking skills that are lacking in a significant portion of the populace. It is fundamentally different that a company wants to exercise its right to free speech in choosing what is said on its platform than for a government to use free speech as a fig leaf cover for dissent. Putting up no fight against misinformation and hate speech is not a winning strategy. Society loses much more from nonsense spreading than it does from having to wait 24 hours for high quality chess content to get remoderated.
- mirkules 5y ago
  It’s not just about a game of chess being moderated. It’s about silencing legitimate speech that you disagree with, whether it’s on a factual level or other motivations. Perfect example, coronavirus being manufactured in a lab rather than originating in the wild. Anyone that suggested it was from a lab has been moderated heavily until a report came out that in fact it did. Was this not damaging to society? And to your point of hate speech, can you give me a definition of the term? You can’t because there isn’t one that a) covers all scenarios and, more importantly, b) doesn’t cover legitimate speech. It is up to me to think for myself, not up to someone else to do it for me.

Gibbon1 5y ago

> Why are we so hell-bent on restricting speech and burning all these engineering hours trying to moderate something that cannot be moderated? Because if you allow humans to moderate then those humans start acquiring power. Which is something FAANG companies strive to prevent at all costs.

mirkules 5y ago
So instead put power in the hands of giant companies because regular people can’t be bothered to not get hot-and-bothered by reading something they don’t like? What makes these companies so morally pure? The only way this can make sense - especially on HN - is if the people who advocate for company control of regular peoples’ lives work at these companies.

robrenaud 5y ago

I am scared of the masses believing nonsense. What fraction of Americans believe the election was stolen? How many people are still going to refuse to be vaccinated? Indeed, bad ideas are scary. I am scared that my country people will lead another insurrection or allow themselves to be a needlessly vulnerable vector for highly transmissible and dangerous virus. Misinformation spreads like wildfire. The notion that good speech counters bad speech relies on rational, well informed, critical thinking skills that are lacking in a significant portion of the populace. It is fundamentally different that a company wants to exercise its right to free speech in choosing what is said on its platform than for a government to use free speech as a fig leaf cover for dissent. Putting up no fight against misinformation and hate speech is not a winning strategy. Society loses much more from nonsense spreading than it does from having to wait 24 hours for high quality chess content to get remoderated.

mirkules 5y ago
It’s not just about a game of chess being moderated. It’s about silencing legitimate speech that you disagree with, whether it’s on a factual level or other motivations. Perfect example, coronavirus being manufactured in a lab rather than originating in the wild. Anyone that suggested it was from a lab has been moderated heavily until a report came out that in fact it did. Was this not damaging to society? And to your point of hate speech, can you give me a definition of the term? You can’t because there isn’t one that a) covers all scenarios and, more importantly, b) doesn’t cover legitimate speech. It is up to me to think for myself, not up to someone else to do it for me.