5 ms·

That's the problem with corporations deciding what is right and what is wrong. Or what is considered hate speach. Most people would agree Nazis are bad (except

by dudus 5y ago

That's the problem with corporations deciding what is right and what is wrong. Or what is considered hate speach. Most people would agree Nazis are bad (except for the Nazis themselves), then you have anti-vax. In my opinion bad but clearly not an opinion shared by a large group of people. We'll live in a world where free speech is controlled by tech corps. Which is all well and dandy when their views align with yours but horrific when they don't. The other option would be to not have anyone policing speach which has shown to be problematic as well. The legal system needs to step up and own online speach monitoring and removals

_jal 5y ago
> The legal system needs to step up and own online speach monitoring and removals (I'm guessing you're US-based.) So instead of many poor systems trying to do better, we'll end up with one uniform system working poorly, that just became a nuclear-hot political target implicating the 1st Amendment. The only arguably positive thing that does is relieve pressure on the platforms, while not allowing any behavioral diversity and making any future moderation adjustments a massive culture-war fight.
- dudus 5y ago
  It puts the burden on judging what is or isn't protected free speech or hate speach in the hands of actual judges that are appointed for that purpose exactly.
  - _jal 5y ago
    I get it. I just don't understand why anyone thinks judges should be adjudicating trust and safety issues, why they think that will lead to better outcomes, or why forcing private actors to carry speech they won't want to (which seems to be the goal of such proposals) is in any way proper. Not to mention the staffing issues you're going to have, running all these disputes through the courts...
    - chrismcb 5y ago
      Because, either they are a common carrier or they aren't. If they are a common carrier, they shouldn't be deciding, but they are also not liable. If they are not a common carrier, they can do what they want, but it carries done liability. Problem is, they want it both ways, decide and have no liability.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - d110af5ccf 5y ago
    > It puts the burden on judging what is or isn't protected free speech or hate speach in the hands of actual judges We already have this in the US though. Existing precedent is perfectly clear about what is and isn't permitted speech under the law. But a significant subset of the population isn't happy with the status quo. Hence tech companies censoring things, cancel culture, etc, etc.
JasonFruit 5y ago
You were doing okay up to that last disastrous couple sentences. The legal system most emphatically should not engage in monitoring and removal of speech. It's bad enough when private companies do it, and that should be opposed as strongly as possible — but government shouldn't begin to touch the decision of what opinions are and are not allowable.
- dudus 5y ago
  What's a good solution then? Who should be the judge of right vs wrong if not for actual judges? Or you think no monitoring is the best scenario, even with evidence of how speach has been weaponized on social media to push for conflict.
  - d110af5ccf 5y ago
    There is no good solution. You either tolerate the necessary consequences of actually being able to speak freely or you curtail those freedoms in order to avoid the consequences of having them. Actually, I disagree with the bit where I said there's no good solution. Curtailing free speech is never a good solution as far as I'm concerned. Freedom includes the ability to choose to behave poorly. This is a fundamental consequence of having a free society.
    - JasonFruit 5y ago
      Since I was being asked, this is exactly the answer I would have given. We don't have to have a solution for every problem, because living in society together has inconveniences; some of them are simply worth it.
    - robbedpeter 5y ago
      There is a good solution - culture and positive social feedback loops. That's also the hardest thing to get right, dependent on shared values and open communication and people wanting to participate.
- equality_1138 5y ago

by dudus 5y ago

_jal 5y ago

> The legal system needs to step up and own online speach monitoring and removals (I'm guessing you're US-based.) So instead of many poor systems trying to do better, we'll end up with one uniform system working poorly, that just became a nuclear-hot political target implicating the 1st Amendment. The only arguably positive thing that does is relieve pressure on the platforms, while not allowing any behavioral diversity and making any future moderation adjustments a massive culture-war fight.

dudus 5y ago
It puts the burden on judging what is or isn't protected free speech or hate speach in the hands of actual judges that are appointed for that purpose exactly.
- _jal 5y ago
  I get it. I just don't understand why anyone thinks judges should be adjudicating trust and safety issues, why they think that will lead to better outcomes, or why forcing private actors to carry speech they won't want to (which seems to be the goal of such proposals) is in any way proper. Not to mention the staffing issues you're going to have, running all these disputes through the courts...
  - chrismcb 5y ago
    Because, either they are a common carrier or they aren't. If they are a common carrier, they shouldn't be deciding, but they are also not liable. If they are not a common carrier, they can do what they want, but it carries done liability. Problem is, they want it both ways, decide and have no liability.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- d110af5ccf 5y ago
  > It puts the burden on judging what is or isn't protected free speech or hate speach in the hands of actual judges We already have this in the US though. Existing precedent is perfectly clear about what is and isn't permitted speech under the law. But a significant subset of the population isn't happy with the status quo. Hence tech companies censoring things, cancel culture, etc, etc.

JasonFruit 5y ago

You were doing okay up to that last disastrous couple sentences. The legal system most emphatically should not engage in monitoring and removal of speech. It's bad enough when private companies do it, and that should be opposed as strongly as possible — but government shouldn't begin to touch the decision of what opinions are and are not allowable.

dudus 5y ago
What's a good solution then? Who should be the judge of right vs wrong if not for actual judges? Or you think no monitoring is the best scenario, even with evidence of how speach has been weaponized on social media to push for conflict.
- d110af5ccf 5y ago
  There is no good solution. You either tolerate the necessary consequences of actually being able to speak freely or you curtail those freedoms in order to avoid the consequences of having them. Actually, I disagree with the bit where I said there's no good solution. Curtailing free speech is never a good solution as far as I'm concerned. Freedom includes the ability to choose to behave poorly. This is a fundamental consequence of having a free society.
  - JasonFruit 5y ago
    Since I was being asked, this is exactly the answer I would have given. We don't have to have a solution for every problem, because living in society together has inconveniences; some of them are simply worth it.
  - robbedpeter 5y ago
    There is a good solution - culture and positive social feedback loops. That's also the hardest thing to get right, dependent on shared values and open communication and people wanting to participate.
equality_1138 5y ago