3 ms·

There are folks out there that believe some level of content moderation is useful, and I’d like to understand their argument. If my conclusion is that it’s not

by wepple 5y ago

There are folks out there that believe some level of content moderation is useful, and I’d like to understand their argument. If my conclusion is that it’s not robust, so be it. But let’s run a thought experiment. Let’s say an idea shows up on Twitter that Asian people are ruining the US. It spreads and gains attention. People start killing, and citing the Twitter misinformation as a key motivator. Can the vast majority of society not agree that 1) this is a harmful idea and 2) reasonable people agree it is harmful. And therefore Twitter has a responsibility to remove that content?

xqcgrek2 5y ago
Is Twitter a publisher?
nanis 5y ago
That is a bogus argument. 1) Killing people is already a criminal act; 2) There are some people killing/beating people up with the slightest impetus. They will find that impetus whether Twitter allows people to discuss anything negative about the CCP; 3) Do you really want the speech of everyone to be regulated on the basis of the excuses used by psycho-killers? Do you think Jodie Foster should have been banned from appearing in movies? Update: And, just in time, this shows up[1,2]: > Tech firm LinkedIn has censored the profile of US journalist Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian[3] in China, inviting her to “update” content without specifying what triggered the block. Ah! She wrote a book about China[4]. Can't allow that! What if some random person becomes too critical of the CCP and assaults a random Asian-American in San Fransisco?[5] Let the attribution games begin! [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28694431 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28694431 [2]: https://hongkongfp.com/2021/09/29/microsofts-linkedin-censors-us-journalist-over-china-content-makes-disturbing-offer-for-reinstatement/ https://hongkongfp.com/2021/09/29/microsofts-linkedin-censor... [3]: https://www.axios.com/authors/baebrahimian/ https://www.axios.com/authors/baebrahimian/ [4]: https://twitter.com/BethanyAllenEbr/status/1443213045606588421 https://twitter.com/BethanyAllenEbr/status/14432130456065884... [5]: https://abc7news.com/pacific-heights-woman-bitten-asian-attacked-sf-dragged-runner/10938084/ https://abc7news.com/pacific-heights-woman-bitten-asian-atta...
realreality 5y ago
If your definition of harmful boils down to "results in people getting killed", then: ban fossil fuel advertisements; ban advertisements for the military or content that glorifies militarism; ban any content that encourages people to over-consume energy and resources. But we know this won't happen, because what we consider "harmful" is distorted by living within an inherently harmful society -- namely, a civilization based on violence, exploitation, and extraction.
- seoaeu 5y ago
  So since we can't prevent all harm we shouldn't try to prevent any? That doesn't seem like a very compelling argument to me
  - realreality 5y ago
    I prefer if we prevent harm by addressing the underlying conditions, rather than trying to control the spread of ideas. As long as we’re in a mindset of having to destroy all contagions (whether they’re proteins or thoughts), we’re going to create more problems.
- wepple 5y ago
  The examples you’ve provided are very complex multi-dimensional topics. The idea of harmfulness is indeed a spectrum, and my example is at one extreme end of the spectrum in order to illustrate that “content moderation should never ever occur” may not stand up to all examples. Most developed nations have banned advertisements of cigarettes, so it’s totally a thing we have done previously. Why are there no folks outraged that we can’t advertise cigarettes to children?
  - realreality 5y ago
    We ban cigarette advertisements because there was finally a social consensus that addiction to tobacco products is harmful. But it’s still completely legal to get yourself addicted. On the other hand, there’s no consensus about the harm from phone addiction. Maybe in 30 years we’ll ban iPhone advertisements. Like I said in another comment, I’d rather we deal with the underlying conditions which may lead to harm, than try to suppress ideas.
josephcsible 5y ago
I'd agree with "1) this is a harmful idea and 2) reasonable people agree it is harmful", but not "therefore Twitter has a responsibility to remove that content".

by wepple 5y ago

xqcgrek2 5y ago

Is Twitter a publisher?

nanis 5y ago

That is a bogus argument. 1) Killing people is already a criminal act; 2) There are some people killing/beating people up with the slightest impetus. They will find that impetus whether Twitter allows people to discuss anything negative about the CCP; 3) Do you really want the speech of everyone to be regulated on the basis of the excuses used by psycho-killers? Do you think Jodie Foster should have been banned from appearing in movies? Update: And, just in time, this shows up[1,2]: > Tech firm LinkedIn has censored the profile of US journalist Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian[3] in China, inviting her to “update” content without specifying what triggered the block. Ah! She wrote a book about China[4]. Can't allow that! What if some random person becomes too critical of the CCP and assaults a random Asian-American in San Fransisco?[5] Let the attribution games begin! [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28694431 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28694431 [2]: https://hongkongfp.com/2021/09/29/microsofts-linkedin-censors-us-journalist-over-china-content-makes-disturbing-offer-for-reinstatement/ https://hongkongfp.com/2021/09/29/microsofts-linkedin-censor... [3]: https://www.axios.com/authors/baebrahimian/ https://www.axios.com/authors/baebrahimian/ [4]: https://twitter.com/BethanyAllenEbr/status/1443213045606588421 https://twitter.com/BethanyAllenEbr/status/14432130456065884... [5]: https://abc7news.com/pacific-heights-woman-bitten-asian-attacked-sf-dragged-runner/10938084/ https://abc7news.com/pacific-heights-woman-bitten-asian-atta...

realreality 5y ago

If your definition of harmful boils down to "results in people getting killed", then: ban fossil fuel advertisements; ban advertisements for the military or content that glorifies militarism; ban any content that encourages people to over-consume energy and resources. But we know this won't happen, because what we consider "harmful" is distorted by living within an inherently harmful society -- namely, a civilization based on violence, exploitation, and extraction.

seoaeu 5y ago
So since we can't prevent all harm we shouldn't try to prevent any? That doesn't seem like a very compelling argument to me
- realreality 5y ago
  I prefer if we prevent harm by addressing the underlying conditions, rather than trying to control the spread of ideas. As long as we’re in a mindset of having to destroy all contagions (whether they’re proteins or thoughts), we’re going to create more problems.
wepple 5y ago
The examples you’ve provided are very complex multi-dimensional topics. The idea of harmfulness is indeed a spectrum, and my example is at one extreme end of the spectrum in order to illustrate that “content moderation should never ever occur” may not stand up to all examples. Most developed nations have banned advertisements of cigarettes, so it’s totally a thing we have done previously. Why are there no folks outraged that we can’t advertise cigarettes to children?
- realreality 5y ago
  We ban cigarette advertisements because there was finally a social consensus that addiction to tobacco products is harmful. But it’s still completely legal to get yourself addicted. On the other hand, there’s no consensus about the harm from phone addiction. Maybe in 30 years we’ll ban iPhone advertisements. Like I said in another comment, I’d rather we deal with the underlying conditions which may lead to harm, than try to suppress ideas.

josephcsible 5y ago

I'd agree with "1) this is a harmful idea and 2) reasonable people agree it is harmful", but not "therefore Twitter has a responsibility to remove that content".