4 ms·
For another example of such totalitarian shenanigans consider the practice of "shadowbanning" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banning https://en.wikipedi
by swayvil 5y ago
For another example of such totalitarian shenanigans consider the practice of "shadowbanning" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banning
Ostensibly used for spam/troll countermeasures. In practice used to dick with whoever they choose for whatever reasons please their black little hearts.
Reddit and Twitter are notorious for it. Other "social media" organisms too.
AND ANOTHER MORE IMMEDIATE EXAMPLE
Consider the way that downvotes progressively remove a post from view.
It's a way of crowdsourcing the task of censorship.
Many hands make light work.
And the blame is neatly spread around.
And the actual shape of the censorship, the form being conformed to, is only indirectly controlled by the admins. Thus more blame neatly escaped.
It's goddamn elegant is what it is!
- krastanov 5y agoHow is this different from booing you for saying something stupid/wrong (or otherwise disliked even when smart/true) in a public venue. If anything, downvoting seems more honest and less "censorish" than booing, because you still get a chance to respond.
- seattle_spring 5y agoModeration is not the same as censorship.
- rnd0 5y agoOnly if you're going to take an absolutist stance that "censorship only applies to governments". But that's not the only definition. wikipedia defines censorship thus: "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies. " (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship) You can argue whether or not moderation is necessary or not but it most definately is censorship. The way it is being applied by FB is most certainly censorship and highly inappropriate and destructive.
- seattle_spring 5y agoDo you think HN would be a better place if it didn't have moderation (or, as you put it, "censorship")?
- rnd0 5y agoThat's beside the point I was making, as I said; >You can argue whether or not moderation is necessary or not but it most definitely is censorship. Moderation is censorship, and censorship is evil. It may be a necessary evil (because liability if nothing else) but it needs to be seen and treated as evil. Meaning to be used as sparingly as possible.
- seattle_spring 5y agoWhat's your definition of evil?
- rnd0 5y agoThat's an almost impossibly broad question to answer. In the context of this conversation? Moderation is evil because it is destructive, repressive, exploitable for the cause of tyranny (eg silencing dissent) and is the opposite of that which is good (freedom of expression, freedom of thought, free flow of information). Like any other violence, there are times when it's warrented but it's always a balance. The greater good is to keep the forum open, so it's necessary to remove illegal materials. And that's an easy call when what is illegal is child pornography; but what about when what is illegal is a political message or even just a series of seemingly random numbers? Sometimes it's the lesser evil (child porn is always the greater evil) and sometimes moderation is the greater evil (repressing political messages or being used in the service of propping up totalitarian regimes). I apologize if this doesn't make things clearer for you. As I said at the beginning; the nature of evil is a broad question that has been wrestled by philosophers for millennia.
- fit2rule 5y agoShadowbanning is a political tool. It ensures that the politics of the forum remain in a sphere chosen by the moderators. It is the velvet glove around an iron fist.