5 ms·

>She makes a good point that each of these companies has followed a similar >pattern of first courting the kinds of radical experimenters who blaze new >trails,

by brk 4y ago

>She makes a good point that each of these companies has followed a similar >pattern of first courting the kinds of radical experimenters who blaze new >trails, and then later kicking them off platforms because they are not >respectable IMO/IME this is not exactly how it happens. What really happens is that as these platforms grow, they attract the attention of religious zealot groups who conduct absolutely massive campaigns to take down any content that they personally see as inappropriate. They have their own private blogs and mailing lists, with people given names/emails to contact to lodge complaints about "highly offensive" content that they have never even viewed, they were just instructed to file complaints against it. A big part of the issue is that much of this content really only appeals to a small group of people, and many times those people do not even realize these attacks are happening in the background. The content platforms then decide it is easier to just ban this content so that they do not get overwhelmed with the religious zealot protests. I wish we could charge those kinds of groups with the impediment of free speech (at least in the US) and fine them out of existence.

bityard 4y ago
Religious groups have certainly been responsible for chilling _some_ content in modern times, but they are far from the biggest threat. The biggest threat is that only a handful of companies operate most of the Internet now and they want it to have all the diversity and culture of a suburban shopping mall.
- xbar 4y ago
  Religious content bans happen all the time. Consider the ban of Lightyear in 14 countries last week. Also, it has never been easier to form geographically dispersed but aligned cultural groups. I don't know which Internet operators you are talking about, but mine does not give a crap about the culture of the content I consume--only the ability to sell me ads about it.
  - Ironlikebike 4y ago
    Just because they don't broadcast that they're doing it doesn't mean it's not happening. I think companies embrace moral relativism and attempt to stay within the Overton Window (or at most dabble near the edges). It's a survival necessity because their own profitability will suffer if they are found to facilitate content that is outside of that window. The Overton Window does drift, which explains how content can suddenly become objectionable in a matter of months.
  - oarsinsync 4y ago
    UK cellular network operators by default enforce an ‘adult content filter’, and require you to provide proof of being over 18 to get this removed (typically in the form of a credit card number as an identifier, not as a mechanism to be charged). These content filters block large swaths of the internet. Urban Dictionary is the one that trips me up every time I change networks. LGBTQIA+ related content has typically gotten caught up in this as well. You’re lucky if your Internet operator does not care. Unfortunately, there’s plenty of places where censorship is rampant, under the guise of just “think of the children.”
- wrycoder 4y ago
  I don’t think their remark is limited to conventional religions. Zealot is the key word. People who are enthusiastically intolerant.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
  But why do companies want things so bland? It's because of the very vocal religious communities.
cratermoon 4y ago
> I wish we could charge those kinds of groups with the impediment of free speech (at least in the US) and fine them out of existence That would be an actual violation of free speech, penalizing a legal, private, first amendment-protected activity. Remember, the first amendment only prevents the government from constraining the speech of citizens. Telling an organization, especially a religious organization, what they can and cannot advocate for would be an egregious violation of first amendment protections. https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
- brk 4y ago
  I get what you are saying, but these groups effectively operate as a DDoS attack against content they do not like. Content which is not promoting or showing anything "bad", it just violates their beliefs. Those groups are, and would be, free to voice their concerns and beliefs on their own platforms, in their own buildings, etc. I am not saying they should not have an equal right to free speech, just that their should be a cost or penalty for trying to impose your beliefs on all of society via those kinds of organized actions.
  - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
    But isn't this category of "bad" the entire dispute? People opposed to pornography don't typically agree with your perception that it's just about their individual tastes; they argue that it is "bad", in precisely the same way as racial slurs or planning a crime or any of the things that you and I think obviously need to be prohibited.
  - davidro80 4y ago
  - cratermoon 4y ago
    > should be a cost or penalty for trying to impose your beliefs on all of society via those kinds of organized actions. At least in the US, "organized actions" would be protected under "right of the people peaceably to assemble" part of the First Amendment. Unless those organized actions presented a "clear and present danger"[1], it's difficult for me to see how a government could restrain organizing. 1 Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)
pmoriarty 4y ago
"She participated in the famous WELL, back in the 1980s. It is interesting how long this particular struggle, over moderation policies, has been going on." This has been going on at least since publishers existed (ie. centuries ago). Publishers have always held the reigns of power, and decided who had a voice and who didn't. That's where self-publishing comes in, but of course self-publishing and independent platforms/publishers won't have the reach of huge organizations. At least for now we still have a choice where to turn our attention, even if it's only a minority who'll make the effort to do so and stay informed from outside of mainstream media.
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  I think the difference is that in the past there were many publishers. You're right that editorialising and censorship has been going on forever, but in the past much of it was kind of (unintentionally) decentralized. Not that it was always perfect or anything, but this is a key difference. You can get content out there without going through Facebook/Google, but it's much harder. It's like the postal service doing the censorship. The challenges faced by Facebook and Google are also substantial, although most of these revolve around user-generated content, a bit different from publisher-generated content. Maybe it shouldn't treat them as identical.
  - bb88 4y ago
    > It's like the postal service doing the censorship. See 18 U.S. Code § 1461 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1461 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1461
0xcde4c3db 4y ago
> religious zealot groups who conduct absolutely massive campaigns The campaigns don't even need to be very big. The baseline of organic complaints against the average show/video/site is vanishingly small, so even a group of a few thousand people all hitting the same target at once looks like a tidal wave of backlash by comparison.
pas 4y ago
> What really happens is [...] Do we have data on this? How do you know this? How does this effect interact with the usual claim of YouTube self-policing to be able to sell ads?

by brk 4y ago

bityard 4y ago

Religious groups have certainly been responsible for chilling _some_ content in modern times, but they are far from the biggest threat. The biggest threat is that only a handful of companies operate most of the Internet now and they want it to have all the diversity and culture of a suburban shopping mall.

xbar 4y ago
Religious content bans happen all the time. Consider the ban of Lightyear in 14 countries last week. Also, it has never been easier to form geographically dispersed but aligned cultural groups. I don't know which Internet operators you are talking about, but mine does not give a crap about the culture of the content I consume--only the ability to sell me ads about it.
- Ironlikebike 4y ago
  Just because they don't broadcast that they're doing it doesn't mean it's not happening. I think companies embrace moral relativism and attempt to stay within the Overton Window (or at most dabble near the edges). It's a survival necessity because their own profitability will suffer if they are found to facilitate content that is outside of that window. The Overton Window does drift, which explains how content can suddenly become objectionable in a matter of months.
- oarsinsync 4y ago
  UK cellular network operators by default enforce an ‘adult content filter’, and require you to provide proof of being over 18 to get this removed (typically in the form of a credit card number as an identifier, not as a mechanism to be charged). These content filters block large swaths of the internet. Urban Dictionary is the one that trips me up every time I change networks. LGBTQIA+ related content has typically gotten caught up in this as well. You’re lucky if your Internet operator does not care. Unfortunately, there’s plenty of places where censorship is rampant, under the guise of just “think of the children.”
wrycoder 4y ago
I don’t think their remark is limited to conventional religions. Zealot is the key word. People who are enthusiastically intolerant.
Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
But why do companies want things so bland? It's because of the very vocal religious communities.

cratermoon 4y ago

> I wish we could charge those kinds of groups with the impediment of free speech (at least in the US) and fine them out of existence That would be an actual violation of free speech, penalizing a legal, private, first amendment-protected activity. Remember, the first amendment only prevents the government from constraining the speech of citizens. Telling an organization, especially a religious organization, what they can and cannot advocate for would be an egregious violation of first amendment protections. https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/

brk 4y ago
I get what you are saying, but these groups effectively operate as a DDoS attack against content they do not like. Content which is not promoting or showing anything "bad", it just violates their beliefs. Those groups are, and would be, free to voice their concerns and beliefs on their own platforms, in their own buildings, etc. I am not saying they should not have an equal right to free speech, just that their should be a cost or penalty for trying to impose your beliefs on all of society via those kinds of organized actions.
- SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
  But isn't this category of "bad" the entire dispute? People opposed to pornography don't typically agree with your perception that it's just about their individual tastes; they argue that it is "bad", in precisely the same way as racial slurs or planning a crime or any of the things that you and I think obviously need to be prohibited.
- davidro80 4y ago
- cratermoon 4y ago
  > should be a cost or penalty for trying to impose your beliefs on all of society via those kinds of organized actions. At least in the US, "organized actions" would be protected under "right of the people peaceably to assemble" part of the First Amendment. Unless those organized actions presented a "clear and present danger"[1], it's difficult for me to see how a government could restrain organizing. 1 Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)

pmoriarty 4y ago

"She participated in the famous WELL, back in the 1980s. It is interesting how long this particular struggle, over moderation policies, has been going on." This has been going on at least since publishers existed (ie. centuries ago). Publishers have always held the reigns of power, and decided who had a voice and who didn't. That's where self-publishing comes in, but of course self-publishing and independent platforms/publishers won't have the reach of huge organizations. At least for now we still have a choice where to turn our attention, even if it's only a minority who'll make the effort to do so and stay informed from outside of mainstream media.

Beltalowda 4y ago
I think the difference is that in the past there were many publishers. You're right that editorialising and censorship has been going on forever, but in the past much of it was kind of (unintentionally) decentralized. Not that it was always perfect or anything, but this is a key difference. You can get content out there without going through Facebook/Google, but it's much harder. It's like the postal service doing the censorship. The challenges faced by Facebook and Google are also substantial, although most of these revolve around user-generated content, a bit different from publisher-generated content. Maybe it shouldn't treat them as identical.
- bb88 4y ago
  > It's like the postal service doing the censorship. See 18 U.S. Code § 1461 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1461 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1461

0xcde4c3db 4y ago

> religious zealot groups who conduct absolutely massive campaigns The campaigns don't even need to be very big. The baseline of organic complaints against the average show/video/site is vanishingly small, so even a group of a few thousand people all hitting the same target at once looks like a tidal wave of backlash by comparison.

pas 4y ago

> What really happens is [...] Do we have data on this? How do you know this? How does this effect interact with the usual claim of YouTube self-policing to be able to sell ads?