3 ms·

> Happy for you to provide evidence that shows otherwise. Wait, you can't just posit something, argue as if it's fact, and then ask someone who challenges it t

> Happy for you to provide evidence that shows otherwise. Wait, you can't just posit something, argue as if it's fact, and then ask someone who challenges it to do the legwork of disproving it. If my argument proposed that fifteenth century blacksmiths weren't allowed to discuss unsafe anvil practices, it seems a little disingenuous to then say "happy for you to provide evidence that shows otherwise"; I'm the one that asserted that. > They shouldn't get punished, but this precisely the point. There's a difference between losing eyeballs to bad faith actors because they steal some of your market, and having your market banned because there are also bad faith actors in it. I could argue that Wal-Mart should stop selling Xinjiang cotton due to forced labor, but wouldn't say that the solution to that is too ban all cotton products, even those responsibly produced. Perhaps a more relevant analogy: Amazon might decide to ban Mein Kampf, but I'd hope they wouldn't ban books discussing why Hitler's platform and rhetoric were appealing to the Germans of the time. Frankly speaking, I wouldn't want even Mein Kampf to be banned: silencing bad or evil ideas makes them enticing (note the popularity of "check out/buy a banned book" events throughout libraries and bookstores). Good faith actors being harmed by bad faith actors is always going to be a thing. Good faith actors being punished by other good faith actors seems like something we shouldn't be okay with, though.

mbesto 5y ago
> If my argument proposed that fifteenth century blacksmiths weren't allowed to discuss unsafe anvil practices, it seems a little disingenuous If the you argument proposed (blacksmiths weren't allowed to discuss unsafe anvil practices) was factual and I'm asking you to provide evidence of such how is that disingenuous? > I could argue that Wal-Mart should stop selling Xinjiang cotton > Amazon might decide to ban Mein Kampf, These are bad examples because you are explicitly paying for these items as opposed to clickbait / attention grabbing content which gets more viewership the more controversial it is (which has been proven by various studies). > Good faith actors being punished by other good faith actors Agreed, but who's the other good faith actor you're referring to here? YouTube?
- gameman144 5y ago
  > These are bad examples because you are explicitly paying for these items as opposed to clickbait / attention grabbing content which gets more viewership the more controversial it is (which has been proven by various studies). This seems the same to me. A book with a flashy cover or title is more likely to be purchased because it's attention grabbing. Action movies have trailers with explosions and one-liner quips because they're attention grabbing. Cereal boxes say "new and improved!" because it's attention grabbing. Magazines and cable news ask "Does Jell-o cause cancer?" because it's attention grabbing. Controversial content gets more clicks because it's attention grabbing, so I would absolutely expect that to be more enticing than the same information packaged less flamboyantly (just like I'd expect more attention-grabbing books, movies, cereal, and magazines to perform better as well.)

mbesto 5y ago

> If my argument proposed that fifteenth century blacksmiths weren't allowed to discuss unsafe anvil practices, it seems a little disingenuous If the you argument proposed (blacksmiths weren't allowed to discuss unsafe anvil practices) was factual and I'm asking you to provide evidence of such how is that disingenuous? > I could argue that Wal-Mart should stop selling Xinjiang cotton > Amazon might decide to ban Mein Kampf, These are bad examples because you are explicitly paying for these items as opposed to clickbait / attention grabbing content which gets more viewership the more controversial it is (which has been proven by various studies). > Good faith actors being punished by other good faith actors Agreed, but who's the other good faith actor you're referring to here? YouTube?

gameman144 5y ago
> These are bad examples because you are explicitly paying for these items as opposed to clickbait / attention grabbing content which gets more viewership the more controversial it is (which has been proven by various studies). This seems the same to me. A book with a flashy cover or title is more likely to be purchased because it's attention grabbing. Action movies have trailers with explosions and one-liner quips because they're attention grabbing. Cereal boxes say "new and improved!" because it's attention grabbing. Magazines and cable news ask "Does Jell-o cause cancer?" because it's attention grabbing. Controversial content gets more clicks because it's attention grabbing, so I would absolutely expect that to be more enticing than the same information packaged less flamboyantly (just like I'd expect more attention-grabbing books, movies, cereal, and magazines to perform better as well.)