9 ms·

This thread is an interesting perspective on social media "censorship" that you don't hear often. Of course everyone working at a social media company has an i

This thread is an interesting perspective on social media "censorship" that you don't hear often. Of course everyone working at a social media company has an ideological bias, and that can come out in the product. But consider also that the latest censorship controversy creates negative PR, makes people leave the platform, attracts regulatory attention, and ultimately, hurts the company's profits. Content moderators are at least as worried about that as they are about making sure their ideological opponents aren't given a voice. Social media companies are in the unenviable position of playing referee in the culture war, and like referees in any sport, they're going to constantly be criticized for doing it, right or wrong. These companies are global and universal, and there's no way they can satisfy all parties. Sometimes, the values of left and right, or Iran and the US, or Israel and Palestine, are just irreconcilable. You're better off just trying to avoid as much trouble as possible, and avoiding negative media attention. Reddit is probably the most ham-fisted example of this approach. Their content moderation is pretty hands off, but as soon as any subreddit attracts negative attention, it's quarantined or banned, no matter if the controversy is justified or not. When Russia invaded Ukraine and Russia Is Bad Now, they just straight up banned /r/russia and any link to an .ru domain! That does nothing to address the conflict, but it does keep those NYT opinion pieces from showcasing Problematic Russian Bot Behavior on Reddit. I'll note that I don't think this model fully explains moderation policies at Twitter or other social media sites. I genuinely believe moderation leans left due to an ideological monoculture (I've seen it first hand). But it's important to recognize the difficult situation social media sites are in.

afpx 4y ago
If you look up the archive from that time frame, you'll see that /r/russia was pure Russian propaganda.
- user3939382 4y ago
  I've been accused several times recently of believing "Russian propaganda" about the war in Ukraine which of course I find very offensive. I'm an intelligent person, I've analyzed the situation, listened to different sources, and come to the conclusion that the western powers, the US in particular, and to some degree Ukraine, are not as much in the right as they pretend to be. From my perspective, the western political establishment is, through the corporate media, daily pushing propaganda to support their narrative. When it comes to individuals, it would be nice if we could all respect each other's right to our own opinions without attacking other people's intelligence, attacking their character, or accusing them of bad faith.
  - SkinTaco 4y ago
    Interesting, I wasn't aware there was any ambiguity. To be honest I'm not really paying any attention to it though. What kinds of reasons (valid or invalid) is Russia giving? Are there actually nazis in Ukraine?
    - stormbrew 4y ago
      While the Azov Batallion is definitely a concerning and real thing, it's worth noting that Ukraine's president is Jewish. It's a particularly twisted sort of irony to talk of "de-nazifying" a country while also trying to assassinate its Jewish president.
    - decremental 4y ago
      Yeah, they call themselves the Azov Battalion. They're open about it. Whether or not that's an actual concern of Russia is debeatable but the nazi presence in Ukraine has been largely suppressed by our media so as to not taint the narrative of good vs. evil. As you can imagine it's a very inconvenient truth.
      - exogeny 4y ago
        I think it's more that than no one sane would consider the presence of Nazis as justification for Russian slaughtering innocent civilians.
      - mickotron 4y ago
        And there aren’t any White Supremacist or Nazi groups in Russia that have influence? Or the US? Or Poland, France? Should they all get invaded? It’s a smokescreen, dude.
        decremental 4y ago
        I didn't suggest otherwise or express any interest in the justification for invasion. Merely noted that it's real and that out of convenience is ignored to drive a narrative. The same media will ignore nazis in Ukraine while simultaneously declaring that white nationalism is the greatest threat to democracy in America. Propaganda is used heavily by all sides and the only thing you can do is recognize that and hopefully see through it.
wvenable 4y ago
> Their content moderation is pretty hands off, but as soon as any subreddit attracts negative attention, it's quarantined or banned, no matter if the controversy is justified or not. That's the point. They just want the controversy to go away. To suggest that they should care about justification is to make them moral arbitrators.
- pillowkusis 4y ago
  Exactly! I don't respect it, but it's a very understandable response. Just stop making this controversy our problem. The "correct" response in my eyes is to say "we are a platform, we aren't responsible for the speech of our users as long as it is legal," but that's a very expensive and profit-negative strategy these days.
  - wvenable 4y ago
    > we aren't responsible for the speech of our users as long as it is legal Except if you are hosting content, you are responsible for it. Maybe not even legally but you are still responsible. You can't simply wash your hands of content that you literally pay to host on the internet just because a user posted it.
julianeon 4y ago
I'm surprised I haven't seen the 'steelman' argument for Musk and free speech on Twitter, made as faithfully as I can to emulate Musk's perspective. I'm going to make it (disclosure: I don't personally believe it). When Trump was booted from social media, it was censorship. We tend to overlook this, because Twitter & FB agreed on it; but another perspective is possible, that Trump should be able to speak freely as the leader of the country supported by half its population (no less than 40%, anyway). Trump should be able to make statements that aren't censored because, when he makes them as President, they are inherently newsworthy & worthy of circulation. But to take this even further, this isn't simply about one guy's Twitter takes; it's much larger than that. Because under Trump we were starting to see the emergence of something that is probably inevitable: the full hybridization of popular culture, technology, and media, in the form of a perpetually on engine of user engagement. This is probably the model of the future, and Twitter is uniquely positioned to not just bring it to the people (as it was under Trump), but to monetize it (which they didn't do, really). What are the upsides of this? A more engaged voter population. A move of politics back towards the center of cultural life, where it should be. A closer integration of politics, culture and ecommerce. And, if done in a principled way, an end to the perception that people can be suppressed for saying the wrong thing (see: Trump). That's the value that Musk could unlock. That's what could conceivably make Twitter as important as FB, and even more central to American life. That, combined with some aggressive product delivery, and a shakeup away from the product doldrums, could be transformative for Twitter. If Musk gets his way, that's the change he could make.
- chubot 4y ago
  Trump should be able to make statements that aren't censored because, when he makes them as President, they are inherently newsworthy & worthy of circulation. FWIW this isn't really adding something to the conversation, not that I've been paying very close attention. I believe Facebook and Twitter already had a "heads of state" clause in their policy that recognizes this. Yup: https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/3/22474738/facebook-ending-political-figure-exemption-moderation-policy https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/3/22474738/facebook-ending-p... In other words, heads of state were already allowed to say things that normal users aren't, based on the reasoning you state. According to executives that made a one-off decision, Trump crossed those more relaxed lines. Of course a lot of it had to do with the transfer of power in the US -- he would soon no longer be a sitting president. As Yishan says, these decisions aren't really based on "principles". They are based on "shitstorms that are brewing and that we want to avoid", of which January 6 was a perfect example.

afpx 4y ago

If you look up the archive from that time frame, you'll see that /r/russia was pure Russian propaganda.

user3939382 4y ago
I've been accused several times recently of believing "Russian propaganda" about the war in Ukraine which of course I find very offensive. I'm an intelligent person, I've analyzed the situation, listened to different sources, and come to the conclusion that the western powers, the US in particular, and to some degree Ukraine, are not as much in the right as they pretend to be. From my perspective, the western political establishment is, through the corporate media, daily pushing propaganda to support their narrative. When it comes to individuals, it would be nice if we could all respect each other's right to our own opinions without attacking other people's intelligence, attacking their character, or accusing them of bad faith.
- SkinTaco 4y ago
  Interesting, I wasn't aware there was any ambiguity. To be honest I'm not really paying any attention to it though. What kinds of reasons (valid or invalid) is Russia giving? Are there actually nazis in Ukraine?
  - stormbrew 4y ago
    While the Azov Batallion is definitely a concerning and real thing, it's worth noting that Ukraine's president is Jewish. It's a particularly twisted sort of irony to talk of "de-nazifying" a country while also trying to assassinate its Jewish president.
  - decremental 4y ago
    Yeah, they call themselves the Azov Battalion. They're open about it. Whether or not that's an actual concern of Russia is debeatable but the nazi presence in Ukraine has been largely suppressed by our media so as to not taint the narrative of good vs. evil. As you can imagine it's a very inconvenient truth.
    - exogeny 4y ago
      I think it's more that than no one sane would consider the presence of Nazis as justification for Russian slaughtering innocent civilians.
    - mickotron 4y ago
      And there aren’t any White Supremacist or Nazi groups in Russia that have influence? Or the US? Or Poland, France? Should they all get invaded? It’s a smokescreen, dude.
      - decremental 4y ago
        I didn't suggest otherwise or express any interest in the justification for invasion. Merely noted that it's real and that out of convenience is ignored to drive a narrative. The same media will ignore nazis in Ukraine while simultaneously declaring that white nationalism is the greatest threat to democracy in America. Propaganda is used heavily by all sides and the only thing you can do is recognize that and hopefully see through it.

wvenable 4y ago

> Their content moderation is pretty hands off, but as soon as any subreddit attracts negative attention, it's quarantined or banned, no matter if the controversy is justified or not. That's the point. They just want the controversy to go away. To suggest that they should care about justification is to make them moral arbitrators.

pillowkusis 4y ago
Exactly! I don't respect it, but it's a very understandable response. Just stop making this controversy our problem. The "correct" response in my eyes is to say "we are a platform, we aren't responsible for the speech of our users as long as it is legal," but that's a very expensive and profit-negative strategy these days.
- wvenable 4y ago
  > we aren't responsible for the speech of our users as long as it is legal Except if you are hosting content, you are responsible for it. Maybe not even legally but you are still responsible. You can't simply wash your hands of content that you literally pay to host on the internet just because a user posted it.

julianeon 4y ago

I'm surprised I haven't seen the 'steelman' argument for Musk and free speech on Twitter, made as faithfully as I can to emulate Musk's perspective. I'm going to make it (disclosure: I don't personally believe it). When Trump was booted from social media, it was censorship. We tend to overlook this, because Twitter & FB agreed on it; but another perspective is possible, that Trump should be able to speak freely as the leader of the country supported by half its population (no less than 40%, anyway). Trump should be able to make statements that aren't censored because, when he makes them as President, they are inherently newsworthy & worthy of circulation. But to take this even further, this isn't simply about one guy's Twitter takes; it's much larger than that. Because under Trump we were starting to see the emergence of something that is probably inevitable: the full hybridization of popular culture, technology, and media, in the form of a perpetually on engine of user engagement. This is probably the model of the future, and Twitter is uniquely positioned to not just bring it to the people (as it was under Trump), but to monetize it (which they didn't do, really). What are the upsides of this? A more engaged voter population. A move of politics back towards the center of cultural life, where it should be. A closer integration of politics, culture and ecommerce. And, if done in a principled way, an end to the perception that people can be suppressed for saying the wrong thing (see: Trump). That's the value that Musk could unlock. That's what could conceivably make Twitter as important as FB, and even more central to American life. That, combined with some aggressive product delivery, and a shakeup away from the product doldrums, could be transformative for Twitter. If Musk gets his way, that's the change he could make.

chubot 4y ago
Trump should be able to make statements that aren't censored because, when he makes them as President, they are inherently newsworthy & worthy of circulation. FWIW this isn't really adding something to the conversation, not that I've been paying very close attention. I believe Facebook and Twitter already had a "heads of state" clause in their policy that recognizes this. Yup: https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/3/22474738/facebook-ending-political-figure-exemption-moderation-policy https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/3/22474738/facebook-ending-p... In other words, heads of state were already allowed to say things that normal users aren't, based on the reasoning you state. According to executives that made a one-off decision, Trump crossed those more relaxed lines. Of course a lot of it had to do with the transfer of power in the US -- he would soon no longer be a sitting president. As Yishan says, these decisions aren't really based on "principles". They are based on "shitstorms that are brewing and that we want to avoid", of which January 6 was a perfect example.