3 ms·

Can't you see the problem with holding as evidence your position of ignorance that anything is wrong with the situation as it stands, whilst the situation which

Can't you see the problem with holding as evidence your position of ignorance that anything is wrong with the situation as it stands, whilst the situation which you argue in support of is explicitly designed to impose that position of ignorance? It would be much the same as if you were blindfolded walking through a morgue and claiming that no death surrounds you because of your treasured blindfold. You can't even know there's a problem until you can properly see the situation you're in, and if you advocate for measures that allow the apparent imposition of a false reality, you can't use that apparent false reality as evidence that "everything is OK and no theoretical harm has come to pass". I fear nearly the entire world is awash in this nonsense and it gains purchase with every passing week. Everybody craves the illusion of normalcy and sees no sin in the truth being betrayed in pursuit of it, and then when that illusion falls away they scream blue murder that they were deceived, seemingly with complete ignorance of the fact that they begged for that deception, demanded its imposition, and vilified those who opposed it. The truth always outs eventually, you can only hide from it for so long. And all you buy in the hiding is license for those who need your ignorance to operate, with all the harm that implies.

jakelazaroff 4y ago
Could you give me an actual example of harm that happened to an undeserving community as a result of these policies, then? I am entirely open to being wrong, if you can provide a counter example.
- etherael 4y ago
  To ask the question misses the point entirely and demonstrates the malfunction; In the presence of what I claim to be this optimal regime of information restriction which has concealed instances of what I am seeking to be informed of, inform me of these instances. To cite just a few obvious examples from the past few years of social media censorship to cover up things the special interest groups in control of social media would rather have concealed; COVID Lab leak evidence, Hunter Biden laptop, Metabiota links, Ukraine Gas company positions, bribery being passed back up the chain, Daszak and EcoHealth alliance activities, etc. I know that all of these were vigorously attacked and suppressed over the past few years, and most people either knew nothing about them or believed them to be entirely false due to that active suppression, and they made critical life-changing decisions which altered the trajectory of the political and economic realities of the entire world based on those outright lies. And here we sit, raising them as examples for somebody who started from a position of claiming they were unaware such things even existed because of their vaunted and optimal information control regimes. Whether you react with an admission that you were clearly wrong or doubling-down on it because you dislike the implications of the above is once again beside the point; Censorship of this kind is absolutely unacceptable and intolerable. It is a wholesale license for the censoring parties to sculpt the views of everybody to that which best serves the censoring parties interests. Nothing more, nothing less.
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    We are talking about Reddit. I’m saying we haven’t seen any real collateral damage from moderation policies aimed at preventing CSAM and hate-based communities.
    - etherael 4y ago
      I'm talking about the entirety of the new wave of "narrative sculpting", of which reddit is most definitely a significant part, by censorious mechanisms as an adjunct to what was previously a prevalent and well accepted viewpoint on the primacy of absolute free speech. The same tools that enable that censorship enable any kind of it, no matter what loaded description is used to justify the censorship. If it honestly could be kept to purely policing cp and super intrusive gore spam, that would probably not be something worth getting up in arms about. The fact of the matter though is that it is near globally applied by this point in time to force the perspective that the owners of the centralised media services want and shut out every opposing view for as long as possible truth be damned. And that is utterly unacceptable. It is turning the world into a complete hellscape.

jakelazaroff 4y ago

Could you give me an actual example of harm that happened to an undeserving community as a result of these policies, then? I am entirely open to being wrong, if you can provide a counter example.

etherael 4y ago
To ask the question misses the point entirely and demonstrates the malfunction; In the presence of what I claim to be this optimal regime of information restriction which has concealed instances of what I am seeking to be informed of, inform me of these instances. To cite just a few obvious examples from the past few years of social media censorship to cover up things the special interest groups in control of social media would rather have concealed; COVID Lab leak evidence, Hunter Biden laptop, Metabiota links, Ukraine Gas company positions, bribery being passed back up the chain, Daszak and EcoHealth alliance activities, etc. I know that all of these were vigorously attacked and suppressed over the past few years, and most people either knew nothing about them or believed them to be entirely false due to that active suppression, and they made critical life-changing decisions which altered the trajectory of the political and economic realities of the entire world based on those outright lies. And here we sit, raising them as examples for somebody who started from a position of claiming they were unaware such things even existed because of their vaunted and optimal information control regimes. Whether you react with an admission that you were clearly wrong or doubling-down on it because you dislike the implications of the above is once again beside the point; Censorship of this kind is absolutely unacceptable and intolerable. It is a wholesale license for the censoring parties to sculpt the views of everybody to that which best serves the censoring parties interests. Nothing more, nothing less.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  We are talking about Reddit. I’m saying we haven’t seen any real collateral damage from moderation policies aimed at preventing CSAM and hate-based communities.
  - etherael 4y ago
    I'm talking about the entirety of the new wave of "narrative sculpting", of which reddit is most definitely a significant part, by censorious mechanisms as an adjunct to what was previously a prevalent and well accepted viewpoint on the primacy of absolute free speech. The same tools that enable that censorship enable any kind of it, no matter what loaded description is used to justify the censorship. If it honestly could be kept to purely policing cp and super intrusive gore spam, that would probably not be something worth getting up in arms about. The fact of the matter though is that it is near globally applied by this point in time to force the perspective that the owners of the centralised media services want and shut out every opposing view for as long as possible truth be damned. And that is utterly unacceptable. It is turning the world into a complete hellscape.