3 ms·
On one hand, there should ideally be no discrimination. So, hate speech directed even at white males should be disallowed. On the other hand, society resolved
by danuker 4y ago
On one hand, there should ideally be no discrimination. So, hate speech directed even at white males should be disallowed.
On the other hand, society resolved through politics (such as Affirmative Action) that the compound interest and lasting synergistic effects of historical discrimination should be compensated for somewhat. The only way to do that is through more discrimination (i.e. relatively penalizing the least historically discriminated-against people).
I suspect this selective enforcement of the rules is one kind of such relative penalization.
What I don't understand is why do private companies take it upon themselves to do this. Is it genuine stakeholder concern (in conflict with profits)? ESG criteria giving them access to cheaper funding or tax breaks? Plain marketing? Virtue signalling?
- dd36 4y agoTwitter has corporate users and advertisers. If it became 4chan, that would all evaporate. It also has professionals. There’s a point at which unmoderated content drives out all but the trolls, spammers, and haters.
- danuker 4y agoI don't have a stance on principled moderation of content. Only on arbitrary enforcement.
- impowski 4y agoPeople are lazy they think that some sort of compensation will resolve all their issues but it’s not. Everyone knows that these companies control people because they are constantly engaged on their platforms they can push anything they want. Companies will support any dominating regime for their own good it doesn’t matter if it’s democrats or republicans, fascists or communists, etc.
- danuker 4y agoHow are companies benefitting by pushing something, rather than trying to stay politically neutral?
- tsol 4y ago>The only way to do that is through more discrimination (i.e. relatively penalizing the least historically discriminated-against people). Which is done by creating opportunities for historically discriminated groups, not blindly handicapping white people for being white. I'm not white, but it's really worrying to me that that's allowed. Today it's them, tomorrow it's me, then it's you.
- danuker 4y agoI agree with you. Rule of law should be upheld, and laws should be objective. For instance, taxes for minority X will be Y% smaller for the next Z decades. This is why I don't like where companies are currently going - arbitrary enforcement. Why not make the laws or rules clear? Because it affords them some level of plausible deniability to push agendae.
- colinmhayes 4y agoHAve you ever looked at the ads on 4chan/pornhub/generic "free speech" site? That's the reason twitter doesn't allow anti-semetic speech.
- drak0n1c 4y agoUsually there is no deeper reason than the fact that those private companies are staffed at the administrative and policy level by college-educated yuppies living in San Francisco and New York City, and that demographic has become increasingly ideological in the last few years and bought into the idea that progressive toxicity is either a socially good form of tough love/bullying/peer pressure or at least that restricting it disproportionately damages vulnerable groups, etc while what is labeled regressive toxicity is assumed to be heinous, destroying society, and deserving of quick permanent bans. Companies are not perfectly rational calculators that always know best how to make money. They are made up of people, and people are flawed. People can be deluded into thinking that their bias toward pet issues is profit-neutral or even profit-positive. It happens in the non-politicized corporate sphere all the time - boondoggles is the term.