7 ms·

> Why do we need an absolute free speech platform? What good does it do? This is exactly the right question to ask. I'm convinced that it's not possible to hav

by shafyy 4y ago

> Why do we need an absolute free speech platform? What good does it do? This is exactly the right question to ask. I'm convinced that it's not possible to have constructive "free speech" social media platform. There's always the need for moderation.

btbuildem 4y ago
I agree, but I'd like to play with what "moderation" means. A great example of when moderation fails / is abused is Reddit, or the big socials like IG. The bots can be overly sensitive / have lots of false positives, and the individuals in charge of moderation are not accountable to anyone (except maybe advertisers, indirectly). I would like to see a platform where moderation exists, but it's "opt-in" only. Meaning, the mods / bots can tag / categorize user posts, and other users can control the visibility of tagged material. This way everything -- the most vile, twisted, hateful and disturbing things are still permitted a place to exist, but they're effectively shadowbanned by individual choice. Start with some sane defaults, and allow people to peel back the lid on the box of horrors if they want to. This could work with age-restrictions (users below a certain age cannot see certain tags) as well as satisfy advertisers that their ads are shown next to the most innoffensive, oatmeal-bland content (they choose tags next to which their ads are never shown).
mariusor 4y ago
I think moderation should be about the words that are being said, not the ideas that are being discussed. A free speech platform should allow a wide range of topics, but it's not expected to stand for all manner of trolling and bad faith argumentation. I think that conflating the two is tripping a lot of people up in the debate about the topic.
- btbuildem 4y ago
  So how does that work when a hip-hop artist says the n-word vs a neonazi says the n-word?
- shafyy 4y ago
  I disagree. There are limits to what ideas constitute free speech in many modern countries. As an extreme example, an idea that puts forward genocide as acceptable form of action should never be allowed under "free speech", even if it's said with nice words. This and other examples are ruled under law in many developed countries.
  - francisofascii 4y ago
    > an idea that puts forward genocide as acceptable form of action should never be allowed under "free speech" See I have a problem with the word "never". How about "rarely" or at least "once". A terrible idea should be given an audience once. Let it it be quickly refuted, then go back to better conversations. If someone brings it up again, point them back to the earlier discussion. That way it is established why it is a bad idea.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      "That way it is established why it is a bad idea." Is that how most arguments on the internet end?
      - jat850 4y ago
        In practice, almost never. Internet arguments seldom result in both sides agreeing on a single outcome. Nobody is convincing anyone else of anything on the internet (most of the time).
      - francisofascii 4y ago
        Sometimes. Threads are archived. Questions closed but not deleted. New questions/comments disallowed. It meets a middle ground between absolute free speech and absolute moderation.
        themitigating 4y ago
        What I meant was people don't normally end a discussion, especially political, with one side admitting loss and agreeing that the other way right.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  In the end you end up with the same problem. All the "exterminate the jews" types go to the free speech platforms at which point everyone else leaves, even if the people with the ideas that aren't liked are using respectful language. It's not just the bad faith and trolling that make people want to leave the site, it's the base level ideas of the people who have been moderated off other platforms.
  - mmastrac 4y ago
    > The moral of the story is: if you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches. It will be a terrible place to live even if witch-hunts are genuinely wrong. https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservative-the-eternal-struggle/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservativ...
  - mariusor 4y ago
    I think that a platform where people expect the ugly ideas to be debated (in good faith) will have the users that are willing to do that[1]. Not every platform needs to have _all_ the users. I know that it's a bit of an anathema on a discussion board built by venture capitalists to say that the goal of a social platform should not be to maximize the amount of users and engagement, but here we are. I think optimizing your service for "everyone" is a bad strategy in competing with existing social networks, especially coming from an "indie" background. Not that Parler is exactly indie. [1] I'm saying this as someone that is working towards a discussion platform that targets smallish to medium communities formed around a common interest. In this world if moms wanting to share their latest knitting project are excluded from a service that targets free speech people, that's fine, there can be a knitting community out there also for them. Having these two communities intermingle by using something like ActivityPub is a way to keep "the network effect" but keep them separate enough.
    - eropple 4y ago
      > I think that a platform where people expect the ugly ideas to be debated (in good faith) will have the users that are willing to do that[1]. This does not actually...happen. At least not over the medium and long term. What actually happens, and you can see this in practice, is that decent people are not particularly interested, over long periods of time, in arguing that no, there is no globalist (read: Jewish) conspiracy to take over the world. They lose interest almost immediately, while the frothers intellectually crossbreed and turn from one particular flavor of bigot into all the flavors of bigot. The problem isn't, as you are characterizing, that a platform must have "all the users". The problem is that this strategy hyperconcentrates relatively anodyne conservatives into literal-not-figurative fascists, and has been doing so for quite a while. The active creation of intellectual cul-de-sacs, of epistemic closures for hateful beliefs, is a major factor in why we're where we are right now.
- themitigating 4y ago
  If I think jews control the world and I calmly discuss it, present circumstantial evidence, etc would that be acceptable? Sure I'm using offense terms but that's not as bad as claiming they control the world. Or if I thought slavery should be brought back but I don't use the n word. Is that really the issue?
  - mariusor 4y ago
    I personally would dismiss you as a lunatic and racist in both cases and move on with my day. However I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to make a fool of yourself if you so choose. Making you feel like a martyr because you are being "censored" is worse in my opinion than allowing you to express your points of view and hopefully be receptive to counter arguments.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      What of people that read hypothetical posts like mine and decide to shoot up a synagogue. https://www.wired.com/story/pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting-gab-tree-of-life/ https://www.wired.com/story/pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting-ga...
      - mariusor 4y ago
        I think you're trivializing the issue quite a bit. But yes, I dislike the paternalism of considering everyone else on the internet stupid and incapable to making informed decisions when facing questionable points of view. I'm not qualified to speak with any authority about this issue, but my opinion is that people that are willing to shoot other people most likely have other incentives than reading a singular's dude online hate ramblings. The problem lies with the fact that they gets ostracized and _all_ they are able to read are the hateful things. If you go through the thread above, you'll see that my stance is the complete opposite of that: let's allow people say the "bad" things and balance them out with other peoples' "good" things. This theoretically would ensure that this person is not exposed to only hate and negativity, and will hopefully make a better decision than ending others' life and their own. Forcing this unbalanced individual to retreat into a corner of the internet where his opinion on other people goes unchallenged is unquestionably A BAD THING, and I doubt I'll change my mind on this fact any time soon.
mikkergp 4y ago
> I'm convinced that it's not possible to have constructive I don't know that when the rubber hits the road people are meaningfully trying to make a constructive free speech platform. The nihilism is the point.

by shafyy 4y ago

btbuildem 4y ago

I agree, but I'd like to play with what "moderation" means. A great example of when moderation fails / is abused is Reddit, or the big socials like IG. The bots can be overly sensitive / have lots of false positives, and the individuals in charge of moderation are not accountable to anyone (except maybe advertisers, indirectly). I would like to see a platform where moderation exists, but it's "opt-in" only. Meaning, the mods / bots can tag / categorize user posts, and other users can control the visibility of tagged material. This way everything -- the most vile, twisted, hateful and disturbing things are still permitted a place to exist, but they're effectively shadowbanned by individual choice. Start with some sane defaults, and allow people to peel back the lid on the box of horrors if they want to. This could work with age-restrictions (users below a certain age cannot see certain tags) as well as satisfy advertisers that their ads are shown next to the most innoffensive, oatmeal-bland content (they choose tags next to which their ads are never shown).

mariusor 4y ago

I think moderation should be about the words that are being said, not the ideas that are being discussed. A free speech platform should allow a wide range of topics, but it's not expected to stand for all manner of trolling and bad faith argumentation. I think that conflating the two is tripping a lot of people up in the debate about the topic.

btbuildem 4y ago
So how does that work when a hip-hop artist says the n-word vs a neonazi says the n-word?
shafyy 4y ago
I disagree. There are limits to what ideas constitute free speech in many modern countries. As an extreme example, an idea that puts forward genocide as acceptable form of action should never be allowed under "free speech", even if it's said with nice words. This and other examples are ruled under law in many developed countries.
- francisofascii 4y ago
  > an idea that puts forward genocide as acceptable form of action should never be allowed under "free speech" See I have a problem with the word "never". How about "rarely" or at least "once". A terrible idea should be given an audience once. Let it it be quickly refuted, then go back to better conversations. If someone brings it up again, point them back to the earlier discussion. That way it is established why it is a bad idea.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    "That way it is established why it is a bad idea." Is that how most arguments on the internet end?
    - jat850 4y ago
      In practice, almost never. Internet arguments seldom result in both sides agreeing on a single outcome. Nobody is convincing anyone else of anything on the internet (most of the time).
    - francisofascii 4y ago
      Sometimes. Threads are archived. Questions closed but not deleted. New questions/comments disallowed. It meets a middle ground between absolute free speech and absolute moderation.
      - themitigating 4y ago
        What I meant was people don't normally end a discussion, especially political, with one side admitting loss and agreeing that the other way right.
colinmhayes 4y ago
In the end you end up with the same problem. All the "exterminate the jews" types go to the free speech platforms at which point everyone else leaves, even if the people with the ideas that aren't liked are using respectful language. It's not just the bad faith and trolling that make people want to leave the site, it's the base level ideas of the people who have been moderated off other platforms.
- mmastrac 4y ago
  > The moral of the story is: if you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches. It will be a terrible place to live even if witch-hunts are genuinely wrong. https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservative-the-eternal-struggle/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservativ...
- mariusor 4y ago
  I think that a platform where people expect the ugly ideas to be debated (in good faith) will have the users that are willing to do that[1]. Not every platform needs to have _all_ the users. I know that it's a bit of an anathema on a discussion board built by venture capitalists to say that the goal of a social platform should not be to maximize the amount of users and engagement, but here we are. I think optimizing your service for "everyone" is a bad strategy in competing with existing social networks, especially coming from an "indie" background. Not that Parler is exactly indie. [1] I'm saying this as someone that is working towards a discussion platform that targets smallish to medium communities formed around a common interest. In this world if moms wanting to share their latest knitting project are excluded from a service that targets free speech people, that's fine, there can be a knitting community out there also for them. Having these two communities intermingle by using something like ActivityPub is a way to keep "the network effect" but keep them separate enough.
  - eropple 4y ago
    > I think that a platform where people expect the ugly ideas to be debated (in good faith) will have the users that are willing to do that[1]. This does not actually...happen. At least not over the medium and long term. What actually happens, and you can see this in practice, is that decent people are not particularly interested, over long periods of time, in arguing that no, there is no globalist (read: Jewish) conspiracy to take over the world. They lose interest almost immediately, while the frothers intellectually crossbreed and turn from one particular flavor of bigot into all the flavors of bigot. The problem isn't, as you are characterizing, that a platform must have "all the users". The problem is that this strategy hyperconcentrates relatively anodyne conservatives into literal-not-figurative fascists, and has been doing so for quite a while. The active creation of intellectual cul-de-sacs, of epistemic closures for hateful beliefs, is a major factor in why we're where we are right now.
themitigating 4y ago
If I think jews control the world and I calmly discuss it, present circumstantial evidence, etc would that be acceptable? Sure I'm using offense terms but that's not as bad as claiming they control the world. Or if I thought slavery should be brought back but I don't use the n word. Is that really the issue?
- mariusor 4y ago
  I personally would dismiss you as a lunatic and racist in both cases and move on with my day. However I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to make a fool of yourself if you so choose. Making you feel like a martyr because you are being "censored" is worse in my opinion than allowing you to express your points of view and hopefully be receptive to counter arguments.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    What of people that read hypothetical posts like mine and decide to shoot up a synagogue. https://www.wired.com/story/pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting-gab-tree-of-life/ https://www.wired.com/story/pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting-ga...
    - mariusor 4y ago
      I think you're trivializing the issue quite a bit. But yes, I dislike the paternalism of considering everyone else on the internet stupid and incapable to making informed decisions when facing questionable points of view. I'm not qualified to speak with any authority about this issue, but my opinion is that people that are willing to shoot other people most likely have other incentives than reading a singular's dude online hate ramblings. The problem lies with the fact that they gets ostracized and _all_ they are able to read are the hateful things. If you go through the thread above, you'll see that my stance is the complete opposite of that: let's allow people say the "bad" things and balance them out with other peoples' "good" things. This theoretically would ensure that this person is not exposed to only hate and negativity, and will hopefully make a better decision than ending others' life and their own. Forcing this unbalanced individual to retreat into a corner of the internet where his opinion on other people goes unchallenged is unquestionably A BAD THING, and I doubt I'll change my mind on this fact any time soon.

mikkergp 4y ago

> I'm convinced that it's not possible to have constructive I don't know that when the rubber hits the road people are meaningfully trying to make a constructive free speech platform. The nihilism is the point.