5 ms·

I wonder why this same thing isn't working for social media. Why is it that people want to limit what people can say when they can easily limit what they hear?

doctorhandshake 4y ago
I agree with this - I think the ability to 'filter from the firehose' using a granular, user-controlled filtering is a realistic solution to the issues platforms face with differing opinions of what constitutes unacceptable speech. I think of augments as being a kind of graffiti, in a free-writing-anywhere sense, not in a public nuisance sense, and I think that even in the instance where we have the good problem of far too many high-quality augments sharing 3D and semantic space, we'll need high-quality context-and-user-specific filtering tools to allow us to find what we need (akin to search on the web), and, even further, to continue to navigate the physical world without getting hit by a bus.
anigbrowl 4y ago
They can't 'easily limit what they can hear'. Filtering is technically difficult for some people, and constantly updating and expanding filters can be time consuming - although this problem can be solved with tools like BlockTogether or other utilities that leverage shared data. Covert social signaling is constantly evolving though; trolls and other people actively look for ways to circumvent defenses, bypassing existing content filters or user filters. You can see this on Twitter; there's a busy secondary market in buying existing accounts (with various levels of age, quality, verification) and then naming and using them for trolling or influence campaigns. Dive into a contentious topic and note how many of the toxic participants have default usernames, very low follower counts, and (if you're really interested) atypical activity histories. This is not a comment on the source article, whose arguments seemed largely reasonable.
- spullara 4y ago
  I don't know why it would be any easier for an AR app to implement than it is for Twitter and other social media platforms.
Natsu 4y ago
There have been more than a few people who want to make an extension that lets people leave their own comments on sites. I seem to recall them hitting a lot of issues with that, because people don't want others to comment on 'their' sites.
JieJie 4y ago
It's my understanding what people are trying to limit here is the spreading of extremism. The theory is that people can be drawn in with what people call "dog whistles" that evade filters and once trust is established, proceed to deliver more extremist messages. These aren't just theories, these are how extremist ideologies get spread around the world, from ISIS to anti-government militias in the US. I think most people are quite agreeable to filters (personal blocks and mutes, etc.) to deal with speech we find unpleasant. What we don't want is for those filters to provide cover for extremist recruiters.
twiceaday 4y ago
I have always thought that people who call for censorship do it on behalf of some group they feel responsible for: children or the otherwise gullible people who lack critical thought.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  "gullible people who lack critical thought" comprise an enormous proportion of people, and many have influence one way or another, be it voting or violently storming a pizza shop with a rifle obviously we all have a vested interest in ensuring citizens are educated and informed
- lovich 4y ago
  More like how one would want a ban on drunk driving. Sure the bad behavior affects the person in engaging in it to a massively higher degree, but it’s still making externalities everyone has to deal with
indymike 4y ago
> Why is it that people want to limit what people can say when they can easily limit what they hear? People do not like words that do not confirm their own bias.
neilparikh 4y ago
https://slate.com/technology/2019/01/thoughts-and-prayers-ken-liu-short-story.html https://slate.com/technology/2019/01/thoughts-and-prayers-ke...

doctorhandshake 4y ago

I agree with this - I think the ability to 'filter from the firehose' using a granular, user-controlled filtering is a realistic solution to the issues platforms face with differing opinions of what constitutes unacceptable speech. I think of augments as being a kind of graffiti, in a free-writing-anywhere sense, not in a public nuisance sense, and I think that even in the instance where we have the good problem of far too many high-quality augments sharing 3D and semantic space, we'll need high-quality context-and-user-specific filtering tools to allow us to find what we need (akin to search on the web), and, even further, to continue to navigate the physical world without getting hit by a bus.

anigbrowl 4y ago

They can't 'easily limit what they can hear'. Filtering is technically difficult for some people, and constantly updating and expanding filters can be time consuming - although this problem can be solved with tools like BlockTogether or other utilities that leverage shared data. Covert social signaling is constantly evolving though; trolls and other people actively look for ways to circumvent defenses, bypassing existing content filters or user filters. You can see this on Twitter; there's a busy secondary market in buying existing accounts (with various levels of age, quality, verification) and then naming and using them for trolling or influence campaigns. Dive into a contentious topic and note how many of the toxic participants have default usernames, very low follower counts, and (if you're really interested) atypical activity histories. This is not a comment on the source article, whose arguments seemed largely reasonable.

spullara 4y ago
I don't know why it would be any easier for an AR app to implement than it is for Twitter and other social media platforms.

Natsu 4y ago

There have been more than a few people who want to make an extension that lets people leave their own comments on sites. I seem to recall them hitting a lot of issues with that, because people don't want others to comment on 'their' sites.

JieJie 4y ago

It's my understanding what people are trying to limit here is the spreading of extremism. The theory is that people can be drawn in with what people call "dog whistles" that evade filters and once trust is established, proceed to deliver more extremist messages. These aren't just theories, these are how extremist ideologies get spread around the world, from ISIS to anti-government militias in the US. I think most people are quite agreeable to filters (personal blocks and mutes, etc.) to deal with speech we find unpleasant. What we don't want is for those filters to provide cover for extremist recruiters.

twiceaday 4y ago

I have always thought that people who call for censorship do it on behalf of some group they feel responsible for: children or the otherwise gullible people who lack critical thought.

ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
"gullible people who lack critical thought" comprise an enormous proportion of people, and many have influence one way or another, be it voting or violently storming a pizza shop with a rifle obviously we all have a vested interest in ensuring citizens are educated and informed
lovich 4y ago
More like how one would want a ban on drunk driving. Sure the bad behavior affects the person in engaging in it to a massively higher degree, but it’s still making externalities everyone has to deal with

indymike 4y ago

> Why is it that people want to limit what people can say when they can easily limit what they hear? People do not like words that do not confirm their own bias.

neilparikh 4y ago

https://slate.com/technology/2019/01/thoughts-and-prayers-ken-liu-short-story.html https://slate.com/technology/2019/01/thoughts-and-prayers-ke...