3 ms·

It's pretty... interesting, that the new expected norm is that all hateful / offensive posts are taken down on the internet. 10 years ago, this would be a very

It's pretty... interesting, that the new expected norm is that all hateful / offensive posts are taken down on the internet. 10 years ago, this would be a very confusing headline to read.

duxup 5y ago
I think we're just more mindful of moderation due to the size of sites now. It has always existed.
LightG 5y ago
Adding "offensive" to your sentence is a bit disingenuous.
- billytetrud 5y ago
  ? Why?
  - LightG 5y ago
    Without getting into the debate at all, the main focus of recent moderation attempts have been to target "abuse"/"hate speech", however you want to define that. Adding "offensive" widens the scope enormously and unfairly and suddenly we're into the realms of restricting the freedom of speech for normal everyday situations.
    - bpodgursky 5y ago
      This is extremely fuzzy line and pretty much nobody agrees where offense stops and hate starts. It's dishonest to try to distinguish a line between the two because it will inevitably move over time at the whims of the moderators.
      - LightG 5y ago
        I understand what you're saying, but I don't think the line is as extremely fuzzy as you say, otherwise there'd be relative anarchy. There are some generally accepted "yes" and "no's", and then, yes, there's a few things at the edge that might give me cause to think twice. If defining that line is "extremely fuzzy" to you, then you're already way too far down the rabbit hole (in my opinion) and I won't be following you down there.
afavour 5y ago
I don’t know about ten years ago, twenty maybe. But the internet of today is not the internet of then. Back then someone could have created an offensive blog and it wouldn’t have been taken down. But people would have to link to it, seek it out. Now we have social media sites algorithmically pushing content in our faces, IMO it’s only fair that they’re asked to consider what they’re pushing when they do it.
- ticviking 5y ago
  It seems to me that suggests that maybe we should evaluate a model where we pull, and share content ourselves. The issue I've seen is that tends to make it hard to sneak ads into the feed without it being really obvious to everyone what is being done.

It's pretty... interesting, that the new expected norm is that all hateful / offensive posts are taken down on the internet. 10 years ago, this would be a very confusing headline to read.

duxup 5y ago

I think we're just more mindful of moderation due to the size of sites now. It has always existed.

LightG 5y ago

Adding "offensive" to your sentence is a bit disingenuous.

billytetrud 5y ago
? Why?
- LightG 5y ago
  Without getting into the debate at all, the main focus of recent moderation attempts have been to target "abuse"/"hate speech", however you want to define that. Adding "offensive" widens the scope enormously and unfairly and suddenly we're into the realms of restricting the freedom of speech for normal everyday situations.
  - bpodgursky 5y ago
    This is extremely fuzzy line and pretty much nobody agrees where offense stops and hate starts. It's dishonest to try to distinguish a line between the two because it will inevitably move over time at the whims of the moderators.
    - LightG 5y ago
      I understand what you're saying, but I don't think the line is as extremely fuzzy as you say, otherwise there'd be relative anarchy. There are some generally accepted "yes" and "no's", and then, yes, there's a few things at the edge that might give me cause to think twice. If defining that line is "extremely fuzzy" to you, then you're already way too far down the rabbit hole (in my opinion) and I won't be following you down there.

afavour 5y ago

I don’t know about ten years ago, twenty maybe. But the internet of today is not the internet of then. Back then someone could have created an offensive blog and it wouldn’t have been taken down. But people would have to link to it, seek it out. Now we have social media sites algorithmically pushing content in our faces, IMO it’s only fair that they’re asked to consider what they’re pushing when they do it.

ticviking 5y ago
It seems to me that suggests that maybe we should evaluate a model where we pull, and share content ourselves. The issue I've seen is that tends to make it hard to sneak ads into the feed without it being really obvious to everyone what is being done.