3 ms·

The problem is where the line is drawn. Arguments against explicitly illegal content (like CSAM) or unhelpful content (like spam) are used to justify content mo

The problem is where the line is drawn. Arguments against explicitly illegal content (like CSAM) or unhelpful content (like spam) are used to justify content moderation that goes far beyond. Moderation on the biggest social media platforms (like Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, etc.) includes more than just basic moderation to make the platform viable. They include a number of elements that are more like censorship or propaganda. These platforms ultimately bias their audience towards one set of values/ideologies based on the moderation policies they implement. And given that most of these companies are based in highly-progressive areas and/or have employee bases that are highly-progressive, it is pretty clear what their biases are. This present reality is unacceptable for any society that values free and open discourse.

Nasrudith 5y ago
Propaganda and bias are ultimately subjective notions. Suggest that kings are no different from the rest of us today aside from what their parents did to seize power and it would be slammed as wicked propaganda denying their divine right. Heck just suggest that disfavored groups are people!
photochemsyn 5y ago
I think the issue is more that these are for-profit corporations who care almost exclusively about advertising revenue. Now, if 10% of your 'product' (*your users) is driving away the other 90% of your product, and you can no longer sell them to your advertisers, well? I'm guessing it's more a business decision, they've decided that eliminating 'fringe views' is best for business. It's kind of like an advertising dystopian situation, where you want this homogenized audience (preferably rather dumbed down) who will eagerly buy whatever is advertised. And, you don't want to scare any of them away. Notice this view is not partisan or ideological, it's just pure capitalism, how can we wring the most value out of this setup for the shareholders, that's all that matters. The end result is the current mess we now have, in which nobody but the advertiser is all that happy.

Nasrudith 5y ago

Propaganda and bias are ultimately subjective notions. Suggest that kings are no different from the rest of us today aside from what their parents did to seize power and it would be slammed as wicked propaganda denying their divine right. Heck just suggest that disfavored groups are people!

photochemsyn 5y ago

I think the issue is more that these are for-profit corporations who care almost exclusively about advertising revenue. Now, if 10% of your 'product' (*your users) is driving away the other 90% of your product, and you can no longer sell them to your advertisers, well? I'm guessing it's more a business decision, they've decided that eliminating 'fringe views' is best for business. It's kind of like an advertising dystopian situation, where you want this homogenized audience (preferably rather dumbed down) who will eagerly buy whatever is advertised. And, you don't want to scare any of them away. Notice this view is not partisan or ideological, it's just pure capitalism, how can we wring the most value out of this setup for the shareholders, that's all that matters. The end result is the current mess we now have, in which nobody but the advertiser is all that happy.