5 ms·

It's really funny every time a "we don't censor" platform pops up catering too the American right they speed run going from moderation == censorship to we're mo

by rtkwe 5y ago

It's really funny every time a "we don't censor" platform pops up catering too the American right they speed run going from moderation == censorship to we're moderating our platform in record time. Turns out moderation is really important to make a platform for a community.

User23 5y ago
How is that funny? Every platform has to block illegal content. Every platform wants to block low value content like spam. Many platforms want to block obscenity and pornography. None of this is in any way news to any of the platforms you’re alluding to. The interesting distinction between platforms is not whether they moderate, but what lawful and non-abusive (of the platform itself) content they permit. Edit: Child is incorrect. The vast majority of moderation on free speech platforms is criminal threats and other illegal speech.
- thomascgalvin 5y ago
  The irony comes from the fact that their moderation almost always falls into two categories: 1. They have to moderate the content that got them kicked off the original platform, because it turns out nobody wants to buy ad space on a forum dedicated to why the Jews are responsible for all of the world's evils; and 2. They choose to moderate dissenting political opinions, which is just bald hypocrisy.
- rtkwe 5y ago
  It's not illegal content I'm talking about. I'm specifically thinking of sites like Parler and Gab which very loudly and specifically start as anti-censorship of anything legal for the American right that feel like they're being censored off of the regular platforms. Then they quickly learn that no moderation means you'll get absolutely flooded with trolls who aren't a fan of your chosen ideology and are willing to spam and troll you. That quickly encourages them to start actually moderating in some regards the exact thing they were created in opposition to because what they're actually mad about is specific moderation decisions not the idea of moderation in general.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    Exactly. They were never actually mad about moderation in general, they just didn't get like getting their stuff getting modded off the platform. They're fine doing the same thing to others.
    - Mindwipe 5y ago
      Indeed, all of these platforms have been "free speech" but banned pictures of naked women from their inception. They're not free speech in any way, they're just okay with racism.
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      It's the Tolerant Pilgram problem. (See early US history around relgious ... freedom.)
Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
If you create a platform with absolutely zero censorship, you become a repository for child porn. I participated in Freenet many years ago because I liked its ideas (And thought it would have been a nice way to pirate games without my ISP being able to know), but it got a reputation for being used for CP, and I promptly deleted it, because I want no part in that. If you merely censor illegal content, you will become a home for disinformation and ultra right-wing conspiracies. See Parler. In either case, and especially the first, you're likely to get kicked off your hosting platform and get a lot of attention from the government. I don't think it's possible create a "we don't censor" platform without hosting it in some foreign country that doesn't care about US laws and also hiding that you're the one that runs it.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  > If you merely censor illegal content, you will become a home for disinformation and ultra right-wing conspiracies. See Parler. What do you count as disinformation and why is it a problem? If you disagree with something you can ignore it and move on, or engage with it and respond with your own counter-argument. It doesn't seem like a problem that reduces the viability of the entire platform. It is also strange to me that you seem to think a lack of censorship only favors "ultra right-wing" conspiracies. I saw a lot of disinformation about policing being spread throughout 2020 without much evidence. Those who pushed those narratives did not face any moderation for their misinformation. I recall as well when Twitter, Medium, and others banned discussions of the lab leak theory. The pro-moderation crowd unwittingly aided in the CCP's avoidance of accountability and smeared some very rational speculation as disinformation. I don't think I want anyone - whether the government, powerful private companies, or biased moderators - to become the arbiters of permitted opinions. > In either case, and especially the first, you're likely to get kicked off your hosting platform and get a lot of attention from the government. It's also curious to me that you mention Parler, because January 6th was organized more on other platforms than on Parler. Silicon Valley acted in unison against Parler because they share the same political biases among their leaders and employees, and because they share that degree of monopolistic power (https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-show-of-monopolistic https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-sho...). The darker part of this saga is that sitting members of the US government pressured private companies (Apple, Google, Amazon) to censor the speech of their political adversaries by banning Parler (https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-escalates-pressure-on-tech https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-escalates-pressure...), in what can only be called an abuse of power and authority. When tech companies are facing anti-trust scrutiny and regulatory pressure on other issues, why wouldn't they seek favor by doing the incoming government's bidding and deplatforming Parler? I feel like the actions observed in the Parler saga are less about moderation and more about bias and power.
avs733 5y ago
your statement is worth unpacking a bit...because it suggests some difficult questions: what does it suggest about how that group defines 'censorship'? do they really start without censorship? or just with censoring ideas that don't comport with the american right? what does it tell us about any argument or claim they make? do you want these people as part of your community?

by rtkwe 5y ago

User23 5y ago

How is that funny? Every platform has to block illegal content. Every platform wants to block low value content like spam. Many platforms want to block obscenity and pornography. None of this is in any way news to any of the platforms you’re alluding to. The interesting distinction between platforms is not whether they moderate, but what lawful and non-abusive (of the platform itself) content they permit. Edit: Child is incorrect. The vast majority of moderation on free speech platforms is criminal threats and other illegal speech.

thomascgalvin 5y ago
The irony comes from the fact that their moderation almost always falls into two categories: 1. They have to moderate the content that got them kicked off the original platform, because it turns out nobody wants to buy ad space on a forum dedicated to why the Jews are responsible for all of the world's evils; and 2. They choose to moderate dissenting political opinions, which is just bald hypocrisy.
rtkwe 5y ago
It's not illegal content I'm talking about. I'm specifically thinking of sites like Parler and Gab which very loudly and specifically start as anti-censorship of anything legal for the American right that feel like they're being censored off of the regular platforms. Then they quickly learn that no moderation means you'll get absolutely flooded with trolls who aren't a fan of your chosen ideology and are willing to spam and troll you. That quickly encourages them to start actually moderating in some regards the exact thing they were created in opposition to because what they're actually mad about is specific moderation decisions not the idea of moderation in general.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  Exactly. They were never actually mad about moderation in general, they just didn't get like getting their stuff getting modded off the platform. They're fine doing the same thing to others.
  - Mindwipe 5y ago
    Indeed, all of these platforms have been "free speech" but banned pictures of naked women from their inception. They're not free speech in any way, they're just okay with racism.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    It's the Tolerant Pilgram problem. (See early US history around relgious ... freedom.)

Sohcahtoa82 5y ago

If you create a platform with absolutely zero censorship, you become a repository for child porn. I participated in Freenet many years ago because I liked its ideas (And thought it would have been a nice way to pirate games without my ISP being able to know), but it got a reputation for being used for CP, and I promptly deleted it, because I want no part in that. If you merely censor illegal content, you will become a home for disinformation and ultra right-wing conspiracies. See Parler. In either case, and especially the first, you're likely to get kicked off your hosting platform and get a lot of attention from the government. I don't think it's possible create a "we don't censor" platform without hosting it in some foreign country that doesn't care about US laws and also hiding that you're the one that runs it.

throwawaysea 5y ago
> If you merely censor illegal content, you will become a home for disinformation and ultra right-wing conspiracies. See Parler. What do you count as disinformation and why is it a problem? If you disagree with something you can ignore it and move on, or engage with it and respond with your own counter-argument. It doesn't seem like a problem that reduces the viability of the entire platform. It is also strange to me that you seem to think a lack of censorship only favors "ultra right-wing" conspiracies. I saw a lot of disinformation about policing being spread throughout 2020 without much evidence. Those who pushed those narratives did not face any moderation for their misinformation. I recall as well when Twitter, Medium, and others banned discussions of the lab leak theory. The pro-moderation crowd unwittingly aided in the CCP's avoidance of accountability and smeared some very rational speculation as disinformation. I don't think I want anyone - whether the government, powerful private companies, or biased moderators - to become the arbiters of permitted opinions. > In either case, and especially the first, you're likely to get kicked off your hosting platform and get a lot of attention from the government. It's also curious to me that you mention Parler, because January 6th was organized more on other platforms than on Parler. Silicon Valley acted in unison against Parler because they share the same political biases among their leaders and employees, and because they share that degree of monopolistic power (https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-show-of-monopolistic https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-sho...). The darker part of this saga is that sitting members of the US government pressured private companies (Apple, Google, Amazon) to censor the speech of their political adversaries by banning Parler (https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-escalates-pressure-on-tech https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-escalates-pressure...), in what can only be called an abuse of power and authority. When tech companies are facing anti-trust scrutiny and regulatory pressure on other issues, why wouldn't they seek favor by doing the incoming government's bidding and deplatforming Parler? I feel like the actions observed in the Parler saga are less about moderation and more about bias and power.

avs733 5y ago

your statement is worth unpacking a bit...because it suggests some difficult questions: what does it suggest about how that group defines 'censorship'? do they really start without censorship? or just with censoring ideas that don't comport with the american right? what does it tell us about any argument or claim they make? do you want these people as part of your community?