3 ms·

Okay, like, are tech companies paying you by the word for this? The fact that you just "have sympathies" about a giant evil ad company enabling genocide becaus

Okay, like, are tech companies paying you by the word for this? The fact that you just "have sympathies" about a giant evil ad company enabling genocide because it would be so deeply troubling if companies were to be held accountable for their actions really sums up... everything here. I have no further notes, I think we've covered it here. Your comment here was so very "the NRA's thoughts and prayers are with the families of the kids gunned down" that there's really nowhere else to go. You'd rather genocide than Google and Facebook be less profitable. Full stop. Because that's the true result of what I'm talking about: These companies aren't going to disappear because they're regulated and have to be accountable, as much as their shills will claim is plausible. The information age isn't going away. But when tech companies bear responsibility for their decisions, they probably won't make up half of the Fortune 10. They're abnormally profitable because they're also abnormally unregulated. And you'd rather genocide than fix it.

rektide 4y ago
> You'd rather genocide than Google and Facebook be less profitable. Full stop Again this abuse of Fear & emotions to deny engaging in actual discussion. I keep feeling like you have nothing but condemnation & scorn to offer, endless protest but no willingness to acknowledge, and that your words lack reason & justification & instead are loaded with emotion & zealous conviction. > a giant evil ad company enabling genocide Legally mandated genocidal information. The government & military itself were spreading the genocidal messages. I don't agree with this, everyone agrees the reaction could have been faster. But I also understand & appreciate that it wasn't always clear what was happening, that trying to respond to a government going bad, quietly, & pushing dark propoganda is not easy. You keep trying to make it look simple, to emphasize only how any disagreement, how any search of moderation is unreasonable: the word genocide sends chills down our spines, is starkly reprehensible. But the practical challenge here is still valid; identifying what's happening, figuring out how to deploy sufficient intelligence to resist governmental & civilian information war, fighting each battle, each piece of content, as it streams in from across the globe: the challenge is significant, is a war effort fought on behalf of a people, a hard war effort. Acknowledge that. Don't escape to reductionism. I think it's crass & foolish to regard companys with such grim-dark-shaded glasses. These companies are a mix of many things. Yes, they have ads (like all companies they seek to make money). Yes many are quite big/giants. But they also have some noble & good purposes (helping us find information, watch cool videos, share with our friends & family, host our content, provide online hangout places), and generally, I think they execute fairly well, that the tradeoffs are reasonable & all in all not badly slanted against users in the vast majority of circumstances. Ultimately they sell ads by competing to be better places than the other online places; that diversity & competition is something I cherish & which I believe in, keeps us pointed forward. You dismiss me out of hand, in my view because I have asked us to see & acknowledge shades of gray & difficulties & think these are hard problems. Again you violate site guidelines here, and reduce a long case to simplistic out of hand dismissal: > Please don't post shallow dismissals Your replies keep circling back to the simple, again in violation of guidelines: > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. And you have only belittled and insulted me, rather than taken my arguments as serious. Violation of this guideline: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Let me restate my case, yet again, because I agree it might not be clear where I'm coming from, why I would mount these defenses. I think different sites have a right to govern themselves. Taking that away takes away diversity. That's of tantamount importance to me. I believe some sites we have today will wreck & ruin themselves all on their own good time. But if we try to regulate & restrict, I believe we'll create legal quagmires that newer smaller would-be upstarts will be unable to ever face: we should not be creating vast new barriers. Legal permissiveness, with some acceptance of mistakes, is required. We cannot expect techno-mystical solutionism, nor have utopian expectations of perfect regulation. As for genocide, the fact that the state & military of Myanmar itself were disseminating much of the information is one basic neutron-moderator I'd try to carefully insert into your nuclear-blow-up reaction of accusations against me. Trying to understand, no, the government is lying to us, they are are committing genocide & using us is hard to understand. Particularly for an insular far off country that generally lacks good telecommunications infrastructure for people to express & share with; the people suffering themselves also use big platforms to get the word out about what is really happening, when they are able to get access. Please, let's have nuance & balance in our views. Figuring out what to do with user-content is not easy. All in all, I'm quite proud of how organized & sensible what we have is. Personally I'd prefer other models, would like to see something better distributed, but I cannot argue with the level of access people have, and how unhindered & how possible it is for people to participate & share. It's remarkable, & anyone snubbing what we have needs to be able to demonstrate that they have some appreciation for how vastly more able everyone on the planet is at communicating & expressing themselves. I don't see that moderation or sensibility in your calls for restriction & constraint, I don't see the Anti-Section 230 brigade willing to acknowledge or address that simple fact, that unignorable wonderful human dignity that has gotten created & expanded upon in this age, imperfect though it may be.

rektide 4y ago

> You'd rather genocide than Google and Facebook be less profitable. Full stop Again this abuse of Fear & emotions to deny engaging in actual discussion. I keep feeling like you have nothing but condemnation & scorn to offer, endless protest but no willingness to acknowledge, and that your words lack reason & justification & instead are loaded with emotion & zealous conviction. > a giant evil ad company enabling genocide Legally mandated genocidal information. The government & military itself were spreading the genocidal messages. I don't agree with this, everyone agrees the reaction could have been faster. But I also understand & appreciate that it wasn't always clear what was happening, that trying to respond to a government going bad, quietly, & pushing dark propoganda is not easy. You keep trying to make it look simple, to emphasize only how any disagreement, how any search of moderation is unreasonable: the word genocide sends chills down our spines, is starkly reprehensible. But the practical challenge here is still valid; identifying what's happening, figuring out how to deploy sufficient intelligence to resist governmental & civilian information war, fighting each battle, each piece of content, as it streams in from across the globe: the challenge is significant, is a war effort fought on behalf of a people, a hard war effort. Acknowledge that. Don't escape to reductionism. I think it's crass & foolish to regard companys with such grim-dark-shaded glasses. These companies are a mix of many things. Yes, they have ads (like all companies they seek to make money). Yes many are quite big/giants. But they also have some noble & good purposes (helping us find information, watch cool videos, share with our friends & family, host our content, provide online hangout places), and generally, I think they execute fairly well, that the tradeoffs are reasonable & all in all not badly slanted against users in the vast majority of circumstances. Ultimately they sell ads by competing to be better places than the other online places; that diversity & competition is something I cherish & which I believe in, keeps us pointed forward. You dismiss me out of hand, in my view because I have asked us to see & acknowledge shades of gray & difficulties & think these are hard problems. Again you violate site guidelines here, and reduce a long case to simplistic out of hand dismissal: > Please don't post shallow dismissals Your replies keep circling back to the simple, again in violation of guidelines: > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. And you have only belittled and insulted me, rather than taken my arguments as serious. Violation of this guideline: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Let me restate my case, yet again, because I agree it might not be clear where I'm coming from, why I would mount these defenses. I think different sites have a right to govern themselves. Taking that away takes away diversity. That's of tantamount importance to me. I believe some sites we have today will wreck & ruin themselves all on their own good time. But if we try to regulate & restrict, I believe we'll create legal quagmires that newer smaller would-be upstarts will be unable to ever face: we should not be creating vast new barriers. Legal permissiveness, with some acceptance of mistakes, is required. We cannot expect techno-mystical solutionism, nor have utopian expectations of perfect regulation. As for genocide, the fact that the state & military of Myanmar itself were disseminating much of the information is one basic neutron-moderator I'd try to carefully insert into your nuclear-blow-up reaction of accusations against me. Trying to understand, no, the government is lying to us, they are are committing genocide & using us is hard to understand. Particularly for an insular far off country that generally lacks good telecommunications infrastructure for people to express & share with; the people suffering themselves also use big platforms to get the word out about what is really happening, when they are able to get access. Please, let's have nuance & balance in our views. Figuring out what to do with user-content is not easy. All in all, I'm quite proud of how organized & sensible what we have is. Personally I'd prefer other models, would like to see something better distributed, but I cannot argue with the level of access people have, and how unhindered & how possible it is for people to participate & share. It's remarkable, & anyone snubbing what we have needs to be able to demonstrate that they have some appreciation for how vastly more able everyone on the planet is at communicating & expressing themselves. I don't see that moderation or sensibility in your calls for restriction & constraint, I don't see the Anti-Section 230 brigade willing to acknowledge or address that simple fact, that unignorable wonderful human dignity that has gotten created & expanded upon in this age, imperfect though it may be.