3 ms·

>If something becomes a net negative "at scale", don't allow it to be "at scale". >No one is entitled to a business model. When it's just ordinary American co

by Jiro 5y ago

>If something becomes a net negative "at scale", don't allow it to be "at scale". >No one is entitled to a business model. When it's just ordinary American conservatives being censored by social media, somehow nobody says things like that. Ban Trump and allow the Taliban? There's nothing wrong with that, they're private individuals, they can ban whatever they want. What do you mean nobody is entitled to a business model? Go away with your freeze peach.

Shared404 5y ago
They can ban who they want. <us-pov> FWIW, I see much more domestic harm in letting unchecked lies be spouted by US politicians and having that beamed into our minds non-stop then in allowing people to see atrocities committed by people on the other side of the world. Yes that goes both ways, I'm an independent. Edited again: Got too deep into politics on that first edit. Suffice it to say one party is worse than the other in my opinion, and that may color my POV. I still expect to see those who are lying or encouraging violence banned/fact-checked/whatever - on both sides equally. If one side still has it happen more under those circumstances, I guess that says more about the side then the circumstance. </us-pov> Also, free speech isn't immunity from repercussions. If I say something incredibly dumb, I expect to be mocked. If I say something hateful/dangerous, I expect people to avoid being associated with me - including being banned under certain circumstances.
- alecbz 5y ago
  This thread feels like it's getting pretty far-removed from the original topic but: I wish we wouldn't equate "free speech" with the first amendment. IMO "free speech" is a much broader concept than the specific legal protections outlined in 1A. Mocking people for saying things you disagree with ("dumb things") doesn't violate 1A, but that doesn't mean it's aligned with the general ethos of free speech.
  - Shared404 5y ago
    +1 I feel I failed to communicate all aspects of my POV above - I definitely agree with this. Also yeah, this did get off topic and I apologize for pushing that even further just now. In general, I try to advocate more for polite conversation and actual exchange/malleability of ideas - I just also expect for not everyone to agree with that, and to get mocked if I say something stupid. The bigger thing is association - If I say something that someone else finds reprehensible, I bear them no ill will for trying to stop themselves from being associated with me, regardless of if that's through banning/mocking/public press conference[0]/a music video[0]/anything else. [0] I'm glad I don't have a big enough platform to worry about these though.
- Jiro 5y ago
  >Also, free speech isn't immunity from repercussions. Well, people are facing repercussions for viewing pro-Ukraine material. There's no immunity from repercussions, right? (Or more precisely, people are facing repercussions for violating the algorithms that Google chose. But they're still repercussions.) The point is that there's a double standard. If social media censors someone you hate, it's "there's no freedom from repercussions" or "they're a private group so they can ban anyone they want" or "their system, their rules". If they censor someone you like, this suddenly changes to "nobody is entitled to a business model" and "Youtube has no right to operate like that".
  - Shared404 5y ago
    The problem isn't that they are banning people. As I've said in other comments, I support the right of people/companies to avoid association with other people/companies via many(most?) methods - including banning. Much like I said in the other comment as well - Gab can ban lefties while touting free speech, Twitter can ban righties while touting free speech, Youtube can ban both - I don't really care. The issue is when automated banning leads to there not being a human in the loop, or when "well it's just the algorithm" becomes the go to excuse.

by Jiro 5y ago

Shared404 5y ago

They can ban who they want. <us-pov> FWIW, I see much more domestic harm in letting unchecked lies be spouted by US politicians and having that beamed into our minds non-stop then in allowing people to see atrocities committed by people on the other side of the world. Yes that goes both ways, I'm an independent. Edited again: Got too deep into politics on that first edit. Suffice it to say one party is worse than the other in my opinion, and that may color my POV. I still expect to see those who are lying or encouraging violence banned/fact-checked/whatever - on both sides equally. If one side still has it happen more under those circumstances, I guess that says more about the side then the circumstance. </us-pov> Also, free speech isn't immunity from repercussions. If I say something incredibly dumb, I expect to be mocked. If I say something hateful/dangerous, I expect people to avoid being associated with me - including being banned under certain circumstances.

alecbz 5y ago
This thread feels like it's getting pretty far-removed from the original topic but: I wish we wouldn't equate "free speech" with the first amendment. IMO "free speech" is a much broader concept than the specific legal protections outlined in 1A. Mocking people for saying things you disagree with ("dumb things") doesn't violate 1A, but that doesn't mean it's aligned with the general ethos of free speech.
- Shared404 5y ago
  +1 I feel I failed to communicate all aspects of my POV above - I definitely agree with this. Also yeah, this did get off topic and I apologize for pushing that even further just now. In general, I try to advocate more for polite conversation and actual exchange/malleability of ideas - I just also expect for not everyone to agree with that, and to get mocked if I say something stupid. The bigger thing is association - If I say something that someone else finds reprehensible, I bear them no ill will for trying to stop themselves from being associated with me, regardless of if that's through banning/mocking/public press conference[0]/a music video[0]/anything else. [0] I'm glad I don't have a big enough platform to worry about these though.
Jiro 5y ago
>Also, free speech isn't immunity from repercussions. Well, people are facing repercussions for viewing pro-Ukraine material. There's no immunity from repercussions, right? (Or more precisely, people are facing repercussions for violating the algorithms that Google chose. But they're still repercussions.) The point is that there's a double standard. If social media censors someone you hate, it's "there's no freedom from repercussions" or "they're a private group so they can ban anyone they want" or "their system, their rules". If they censor someone you like, this suddenly changes to "nobody is entitled to a business model" and "Youtube has no right to operate like that".
- Shared404 5y ago
  The problem isn't that they are banning people. As I've said in other comments, I support the right of people/companies to avoid association with other people/companies via many(most?) methods - including banning. Much like I said in the other comment as well - Gab can ban lefties while touting free speech, Twitter can ban righties while touting free speech, Youtube can ban both - I don't really care. The issue is when automated banning leads to there not being a human in the loop, or when "well it's just the algorithm" becomes the go to excuse.