3 ms·
> Being against harassment doesn't make you any less a believer in free speech. The validity if your statement depends heavily on what's your personal definiti
by fivea 5y ago
> Being against harassment doesn't make you any less a believer in free speech.
The validity if your statement depends heavily on what's your personal definition of free speech, and where you draw the line regarding acceptable censorship and persecution from the state.
Considering the spectrum of free speech includes absolutists who argue speech can only be free if it's free from any consequences from the state, there's a huge grey zone on where to draw the line.
- causi 5y agoIndeed. Personally I think we could solve a lot of our problems by offering users robust content filtering controls and teaching people to use them as a basic life skill.
- dncornholio 5y agoHow do you categorise content though? You seem to think it's an easy problem..
- causi 5y agoIt doesn't have to be that complicated. Blacklist certain words and phrases. In this case, the people are being sent videos of a murder. Silently block all media content from non-whitelisted users, or any video that falls within a certain range of lengths. On a larger scale, content filtering rules can get more complicated and can be collaborated upon and shared. If we can do it with advertisements we can do it with offensive content.
- dncornholio 5y agoBlocking users is useless, they will make new account. Blocking words is useless, they will use fake words. Block on hash is useless, they will distort the video to generate new hash.
- bigfudge 5y agoI'm not sure any of the those points is true always, and at the very least will raise the bar slightly. Blocking on a naive hash wouldn't work, but there are more sophisticated video matching algorithm. If they're good enough to be applied to DMCA type content, this seems like a higher priority.
- wccrawford 5y agoBullies don't stop when a few people ignore them. That just creates an echo chamber, and they get more bold. Bullies stop when you punch them in the nose. Offering people "content filtering controls" might work in a small population where bullies could get ignored completely after a short time, but IME it doesn't even work then. What does work is when the community stops them cold by banning them. But not everyone is a bully, so the system needs to be more nuanced than that, with warnings and lesser punishments before the final ban. Personal filters are a good thing because it allows people to go beyond the rules and filter out things that bother them personally, and even to stop the bullying personally while the community works out that the bully will not stop. But it's the first step, not the last.
- chii 5y ago> what's your personal definition of free speech there's no personal definition imho - free speech is the allowance of the citizens to say anything, regardless of whether the state wants it heard or not. Free speech isn't the idea that other people must have the opportunity to hear one's speech. So sending emails or photos to people (ostensibly to harass) doesn't constitute free speech.
- himinlomax 5y agoI believe it was Chomsky who defined what we mean by freedom of speech would be more appropriately defined as freedom of opinion. Harassment, calls to violence, inciting panic and defamation are not opinions.
- throwoutway 5y agoI think I can agree with that. Although defamation is probably a grey area. If I say, “the vice president is corrupt and unintelligent”, should I not be allowed to speak that opinion?
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y agoThat’s an opinion though. Defamation has a very specific definition, often with a high bar. This would be like “the Vice President accepted a bribe of ten thousand dollars to inject a support of terrorism in their past speech on January 5, and I have film evidence to prove it” explicitly knowing this is false and saying it anyways just to hurt the Vice President.