5 ms·

Once you install "guardrails" (ie: limits to acceptable speech), they then immediately become the lever of power that the extremes vie to control. "Unacceptabl

Once you install "guardrails" (ie: limits to acceptable speech), they then immediately become the lever of power that the extremes vie to control. "Unacceptable views" could include: Covid came from a wet market, the Iraq war was about WMD, etc. Pick your controlversial topic, there's going to be a battle over even the limits of rational debate - ones you agree with and ones you definitely don't. You may be happy with the censorship flavour of the month now, but wait until a government comes into power that you dislike. Imagine what G.W. Bush would have done with the censorship powers available now? You're opening the floodgates to massive governmental and corporate control. I want no part of that, and I don't want my democracy to be destroyed by the broader effects that would have. If you're consciously advocating for that, then I disagree with you in the strongest terms. Yes, there's an ocean of trolls out there. And the effects of strong censorship are far worse.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
notabee 5y ago
I think a much better guardrail would be better context. Unfortunately much of the average population may not be interested in that so much as getting their rage or cute animal picture hit, and that's going to be a huge societal challenge going forward as misinformation itself is now its own lever of power. Just muddying the water exerts a powerful influence on societal stability. But a platform designed explicitly to fill in the details surrounding an issue so that simple mistruths lose some of their power could help. Using dark algorithms and UI for light instead, and using all those carefully researched nudges to get people to find facts instead of rage mob.
- switchbak 5y ago
  That's an interesting proposition. I'm interested in the platforms out there to add in the missing nuance, but I must say I'm sad by what's happened with both Snopes and these 'fact checker' sites. I think a big problem is the short attention span of most people - myself absolutely included. But finding ways to amplify the influence of those who have paid attention and reduce it from those who only read the titles - that could be interesting as well. There's lots of info out there to use ML to discern low quality input, it'd be interesting to see it applied for good instead of evil! Maybe this is OpenAI's next challenge :)
Raptor22 5y ago
> You're opening the floodgates to massive governmental and corporate control. The irony of this statement in a discussion about taking a public company private
- austhrow743 5y ago
  Can you please explain the irony?
- ComradePhil 5y ago
  Public companies are subject to attacks by billionaires using shorting and disinformation. No sensible company should go public in today's world.
  - csunbird 5y ago
    Going public is usually massively profitable for the founders although.
bastardoperator 5y ago
Speech has always had guardrails... "common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury."
- jesusofnazarath 5y ago
- nomel 5y ago
  Then read his comment as "more restrictive guardrails" or "moving the guardrails", to understand his point.
  - bastardoperator 5y ago
    His point is moot because twitter has never claimed to be a free speech platform and I wouldn't expect rights guaranteed to protect me from the US government apply to a private corporate entity.
    - switchbak 5y ago
      That Twitter never claimed to be a free speech platform? Please check the history of Jack Dorsey's statements, he was very much a proponent of free speech on his platform. Regardless of if his or the company's official claims, when network effects centralize virtually everyone into a small number of platforms, it becomes a defacto utility. This has wide ranging and damaging effects on actual democracy. I don't particularly care what statements Twitter has made, if their platform has such wide ranging negative effects then it becomes an issue that needs to be addressed. How that's addressed is another question, but being a private entity doesn't magically free them from accountability of the negative effects of their platform.
      - bastardoperator 5y ago
kjkjadksj 5y ago
You open the floodgates no matter what. What voices do you actually see dominating a completely free environment like this? To me it will just be government and corporate bot farms instead of actual people.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

notabee 5y ago

I think a much better guardrail would be better context. Unfortunately much of the average population may not be interested in that so much as getting their rage or cute animal picture hit, and that's going to be a huge societal challenge going forward as misinformation itself is now its own lever of power. Just muddying the water exerts a powerful influence on societal stability. But a platform designed explicitly to fill in the details surrounding an issue so that simple mistruths lose some of their power could help. Using dark algorithms and UI for light instead, and using all those carefully researched nudges to get people to find facts instead of rage mob.

switchbak 5y ago
That's an interesting proposition. I'm interested in the platforms out there to add in the missing nuance, but I must say I'm sad by what's happened with both Snopes and these 'fact checker' sites. I think a big problem is the short attention span of most people - myself absolutely included. But finding ways to amplify the influence of those who have paid attention and reduce it from those who only read the titles - that could be interesting as well. There's lots of info out there to use ML to discern low quality input, it'd be interesting to see it applied for good instead of evil! Maybe this is OpenAI's next challenge :)

Raptor22 5y ago

> You're opening the floodgates to massive governmental and corporate control. The irony of this statement in a discussion about taking a public company private

austhrow743 5y ago
Can you please explain the irony?
ComradePhil 5y ago
Public companies are subject to attacks by billionaires using shorting and disinformation. No sensible company should go public in today's world.
- csunbird 5y ago
  Going public is usually massively profitable for the founders although.

bastardoperator 5y ago

Speech has always had guardrails... "common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury."

jesusofnazarath 5y ago
nomel 5y ago
Then read his comment as "more restrictive guardrails" or "moving the guardrails", to understand his point.
- bastardoperator 5y ago
  His point is moot because twitter has never claimed to be a free speech platform and I wouldn't expect rights guaranteed to protect me from the US government apply to a private corporate entity.
  - switchbak 5y ago
    That Twitter never claimed to be a free speech platform? Please check the history of Jack Dorsey's statements, he was very much a proponent of free speech on his platform. Regardless of if his or the company's official claims, when network effects centralize virtually everyone into a small number of platforms, it becomes a defacto utility. This has wide ranging and damaging effects on actual democracy. I don't particularly care what statements Twitter has made, if their platform has such wide ranging negative effects then it becomes an issue that needs to be addressed. How that's addressed is another question, but being a private entity doesn't magically free them from accountability of the negative effects of their platform.
    - bastardoperator 5y ago

kjkjadksj 5y ago

You open the floodgates no matter what. What voices do you actually see dominating a completely free environment like this? To me it will just be government and corporate bot farms instead of actual people.