4 ms·

It's not a binary question. 1) You listed a broad range of issues. 2) Each of those issues have different definitions. "White supremacy" means KKK in red stat

by blagie 5y ago

It's not a binary question. 1) You listed a broad range of issues. 2) Each of those issues have different definitions. "White supremacy" means KKK in red states, and "the dominance of white culture in the design of American institutions" in woke culture. "Child abuse" can mean paedophilia or spanking. My experience with these questions is that one answer leads to one definition, and another to the other. I've been down this road with woke individuals before. "Yes" takes you to a definition which makes you look like a KKK-supporting pedophile, and "No" to a definition which leads to policies offensive to most people in the world. And that's about where I think Twitter should place standards: - Algorithms should poorly rank inflammatory, polarizing content. This is the bulk of where Twitter's market cap comes from, so Elon loses money. - Humans should remove content which most people in the world would find grossly offensive. Not woke white Westerners, but most people.

olliej 5y ago
It is binary, the question is: Should some content be censored? That is a yes/no question. I gave extremes of what content means, so that hopefully everyone would agree that some content should be censored. A free speech absolutist might say that the answer is no, but I suspect the overwhelming majority of people could find something above that they agree should be censored. My reason for being so aggressive here is because I am sick of the “anti-censor” brigade claiming that they’re simply fighting for all free speech. What I want people to acknowledge is that they do there is simply that there’s just been a bunch of things censored that they want to be able to say. We can argue about what that content is, but everyone here knows that different groups fundamentally disagree about a number of those things that are currently not allowed on Twitter. Personally I look at the things Twitter let’s you report, and which of those things are actually not allowed - many of the report pathways simply say “this is allowed, you can simply block this person” - the only things that I have actually ever seen actually get removed are people fairly explicitly calling for violence, saying entire races, lgbt people, specific religions, etc are “diseases”, “paedophiles”, “should be locked up, executed, …”, etc Based on that experience, and based on the conversation surrounding “anti-wokeness”, it sounds fairly clearly as though that is the content that people believe is being wrongly censored. Everyone here has seen the many, many reports from conservatives claiming that they are being unfairly censored and subjected to discrimination and bias on social media platforms. I’ve also seen how in every single study it has been found that there is no such bias. So again, we get to I know the kind of content that has been censored, and if people are making the claim that Twitter is censoring “too much” or that it needs to “protect free speech”, then that is the only content that is available to “uncensor”. I would love to be proved wrong, but I do not see any evidence of what people feel is being unfairly censored, that I do not believe falls into the above categories.
- AdrianAvtomat 5y ago
  All I see is a textbook reductio ad absurdum argument and aggressive demands to prove a negative. You've eliminated room for nuance in a discussion about a very complex and nuanced issue and displayed your bad faith for all to see. If you were shooting to portray the things you're advocating for in a haughty and intellectually bankrupt manner then you've succeeded admirably.
- blagie 5y ago
  Some content should be censored. If I sneak a camera into your bedroom, and illegally film videos of you having sex with your husband, and post those on a revenge porn site, that's a good example of content universally agreed to be censored. Even our former president doesn't fall into the bin of "explicitly calling for violence, saying entire races, lgbt people, specific religions, etc are 'diseases', 'paedophiles', 'should be locked up, executed, …'," I'm not going to debate whether he should have been censored; just that your argument is dishonest to an extreme. I'm not sure if that's intentional, but if not, you should re-examine your assumptions. You might be being dishonest with yourself. My own opinion is that the best way to make Twitter fair (or academia, whose studies you cite) is to have broad representation representing the world. This includes: - Middle Eastern Muslims - African Americans - African Africans (e.g. living in Africa) - South Americans - Indians - Chinese - Koreans - Russians - Folks in red states - Etc. Those refer to actual Koreans in Korea, not Korean Americans. If something offends a majority of people, remove it. If it only offends Western liberal white San Francisco types, keep it. You'll find most of the world doesn't agree with anyone else on issues like gender relations.
  - oceanplexian 5y ago
    The problem with this plan is the majority of the world didn't earn the right to be represented. If you want to "fairly" represent the cultures of the world (by population), Twitter would be run by a majority of CCP Chinese, and anything that contradicts the party would ultimately be censored, and people who speak against the party would be immediately reported so they can be imprisoned. Lots of cultures have attitudes towards human rights that are wrong. Some cultures are downright barbaric, and believe in things like stoning gays or executing women who commit adultery. They are incompatible with a free society. When their societies mature to the point where they can identify with our values, they can have a seat at the table.

by blagie 5y ago

olliej 5y ago

It is binary, the question is: Should some content be censored? That is a yes/no question. I gave extremes of what content means, so that hopefully everyone would agree that some content should be censored. A free speech absolutist might say that the answer is no, but I suspect the overwhelming majority of people could find something above that they agree should be censored. My reason for being so aggressive here is because I am sick of the “anti-censor” brigade claiming that they’re simply fighting for all free speech. What I want people to acknowledge is that they do there is simply that there’s just been a bunch of things censored that they want to be able to say. We can argue about what that content is, but everyone here knows that different groups fundamentally disagree about a number of those things that are currently not allowed on Twitter. Personally I look at the things Twitter let’s you report, and which of those things are actually not allowed - many of the report pathways simply say “this is allowed, you can simply block this person” - the only things that I have actually ever seen actually get removed are people fairly explicitly calling for violence, saying entire races, lgbt people, specific religions, etc are “diseases”, “paedophiles”, “should be locked up, executed, …”, etc Based on that experience, and based on the conversation surrounding “anti-wokeness”, it sounds fairly clearly as though that is the content that people believe is being wrongly censored. Everyone here has seen the many, many reports from conservatives claiming that they are being unfairly censored and subjected to discrimination and bias on social media platforms. I’ve also seen how in every single study it has been found that there is no such bias. So again, we get to I know the kind of content that has been censored, and if people are making the claim that Twitter is censoring “too much” or that it needs to “protect free speech”, then that is the only content that is available to “uncensor”. I would love to be proved wrong, but I do not see any evidence of what people feel is being unfairly censored, that I do not believe falls into the above categories.

AdrianAvtomat 5y ago
All I see is a textbook reductio ad absurdum argument and aggressive demands to prove a negative. You've eliminated room for nuance in a discussion about a very complex and nuanced issue and displayed your bad faith for all to see. If you were shooting to portray the things you're advocating for in a haughty and intellectually bankrupt manner then you've succeeded admirably.
blagie 5y ago
Some content should be censored. If I sneak a camera into your bedroom, and illegally film videos of you having sex with your husband, and post those on a revenge porn site, that's a good example of content universally agreed to be censored. Even our former president doesn't fall into the bin of "explicitly calling for violence, saying entire races, lgbt people, specific religions, etc are 'diseases', 'paedophiles', 'should be locked up, executed, …'," I'm not going to debate whether he should have been censored; just that your argument is dishonest to an extreme. I'm not sure if that's intentional, but if not, you should re-examine your assumptions. You might be being dishonest with yourself. My own opinion is that the best way to make Twitter fair (or academia, whose studies you cite) is to have broad representation representing the world. This includes: - Middle Eastern Muslims - African Americans - African Africans (e.g. living in Africa) - South Americans - Indians - Chinese - Koreans - Russians - Folks in red states - Etc. Those refer to actual Koreans in Korea, not Korean Americans. If something offends a majority of people, remove it. If it only offends Western liberal white San Francisco types, keep it. You'll find most of the world doesn't agree with anyone else on issues like gender relations.
- oceanplexian 5y ago
  The problem with this plan is the majority of the world didn't earn the right to be represented. If you want to "fairly" represent the cultures of the world (by population), Twitter would be run by a majority of CCP Chinese, and anything that contradicts the party would ultimately be censored, and people who speak against the party would be immediately reported so they can be imprisoned. Lots of cultures have attitudes towards human rights that are wrong. Some cultures are downright barbaric, and believe in things like stoning gays or executing women who commit adultery. They are incompatible with a free society. When their societies mature to the point where they can identify with our values, they can have a seat at the table.