3 ms·
Their core issue is this, even though they present it as a kind of afterthought: > ... the awkward fact that the sheer quantity of stuff posted to social media
by tgv 4y ago
Their core issue is this, even though they present it as a kind of afterthought:
> ... the awkward fact that the sheer quantity of stuff posted to social media every minute means that most of the time, humans will not be making those judgments at all.
Why conflate that with free speech? Even if algorithmic moderation blocks some of your utterances, that doesn't mean your right to free speech has been violated. Social media have a detrimental effect on everything they touch, so why pick that hill to die on? Just for the money?
- verisimi 4y agoWhat do you mean?! Its obviously true that if your comments or whatever are suppressed (by a machine) that your free speech has been violated!
- why_only_15 4y agoHere the problem is not that a machine is suppressing your comments but that the government is telling the machine to suppress your comments, which is a pretty clear violation of the principle of free speech. Come to think of it I'm not sure whether this would be constitutional in America.
- verisimi 4y agoPeople don't realise that government is slavery. Very simple really.
- tgv 4y agoIt isn't. It's a system to organize society and protect interests. These might not be the interests you take at heart, though, but that's politics, and politics are everywhere, even where there is no government.
- tgv 4y agoSo every letter to the editor must be published?
- why_only_15 4y agoThe government isn't involved in letters to the editor.
- tgv 4y agoYou can still go outside and shout your opinions to anybody. Your right hasn't been taken away.
- brigandish 4y ago> Even if algorithmic moderation blocks some of your utterances, that doesn't mean your right to free speech has been violated. Freedom of speech is the freedom (from interference) of (your) speech. An algorithm interfering with speech is no less a violation than if a human does it.
- sorokod 4y agoYes, as if an algorithm is some sort impartial god-like entity rather than a rats nest of code constantly tweaked by the organisation that owns it.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- tgv 4y agoA technical point: that doesn't imply you have the right to type whatever you want on some website or app. If a journalist edits an interview, is that censorship? Anyway, absolute freedom of speech doesn't exist and shouldn't exist. It's an insane idea.
- AdrianB1 4y agoIt kind of exists in the USA. Expressing you opinion, disregarding how brilliant or dumb it is, is a freedom they have.
- woodruffw 4y agoThe US does not have (and has never had) a doctrine of absolute free speech. Historically, we weren’t even particularly forward-thinking in our application of free expression (see: indecency laws, laws against political expression, &c).
- brigandish 4y ago> A technical point: that doesn't imply you have the right to type whatever you want on some website or app It's not a technical point, it's a different point. I gave a slightly expanded definition of what is freedom of speech. You are now questioning whether freedom of speech is or should be a right, and if so, under what circumstances. > If a journalist edits an interview, is that censorship? That depends on whether they edited it to censor or not, as editing is not a synonym for censoring, nor for interfering. As the Oxford English dictionary helpfully states: > interfere | ɪntəˈfɪə | > verb [no object] > 1 intervene in a situation without invitation or necessity > 2 (interfere with) prevent (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried out properly If they edit for a good reason who could claim they were interfering or censoring? > Anyway, absolute freedom of speech doesn't exist and shouldn't exist. It's an insane idea. Should it exist in your own home?