4 ms·

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 obscenit

by 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.)

by User23 5y ago

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.)