4 ms·

A platform that hosted both objectionable speech and regular speech together might be tolerable to read. But the most of the regular speech ends up on popular p

by tlb 4y ago

A platform that hosted both objectionable speech and regular speech together might be tolerable to read. But the most of the regular speech ends up on popular platforms than ban objectionable speech, so the free-speech sites are left with mostly the objectionable stuff, which makes them pretty unpleasant to read. It makes it hard to start a new platform. People start free-speech platforms with good intentions of having open debate about controversial topics. But they quickly get overrun by hate mongers and trolls, and become too noxious for most people to read. Intentional or not, it's a good strategy by the existing platforms to kick out the nasty people, ensuring that they're first to sign up for every new social network.

shadowgovt 4y ago
The hidden piece of the puzzle here is that objectionable speech pushes regular speech out. Most users don't want to wade through toxicity to get to signal. If they're discussing a topic of interest, say baking, and someone comes in and starts ranting on how a vast global conspiracy made up of surprisingly-homogeneous ethnicity given its global scale is pushing up the price of yeast to weaken the market for white bread, either the moderators squelch that noise or people who want to talk about baking go somewhere else to do it. Given their own freedom, when given a choice, users tend to select moderated channels over unmoderated ones. We've been doing the Internet long enough to know this to be true.
- tlb 4y ago
  I don’t think bad speech pushes out good speech directly. Rather, it pushes out the audience, and the good speakers follow. The end result is the same, but it’s important to understand exactly where the mechanism is failing if you want to fix it.
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  > Given their own freedom, when given a choice, users tend to select moderated channels over unmoderated ones. We've been doing the Internet long enough to know this to be true. This is true, but unfortunately the same mistakes keep being made because people don't pay attention to the history of the internet or didn't grow up during that era. We've known that completely unfettered discussion leads to self destruction since the Usenet era. But the lessons aren't heeded or ignored, so we get people that either stay ignorant or learn the hard way.
mynameisvlad 4y ago
4chan has hosted anything and has done so for longer than other social media sites. Maybe toxic people just congregate in places where their speech is accepted, therefore making the rest of the site toxic as well. Maybe it’s not “hate mongers and trolls” that overrun sites and that the concept of free speech and being able to say anything just naturally brings out the worst people and the worst in people.

by tlb 4y ago

shadowgovt 4y ago

The hidden piece of the puzzle here is that objectionable speech pushes regular speech out. Most users don't want to wade through toxicity to get to signal. If they're discussing a topic of interest, say baking, and someone comes in and starts ranting on how a vast global conspiracy made up of surprisingly-homogeneous ethnicity given its global scale is pushing up the price of yeast to weaken the market for white bread, either the moderators squelch that noise or people who want to talk about baking go somewhere else to do it. Given their own freedom, when given a choice, users tend to select moderated channels over unmoderated ones. We've been doing the Internet long enough to know this to be true.

tlb 4y ago
I don’t think bad speech pushes out good speech directly. Rather, it pushes out the audience, and the good speakers follow. The end result is the same, but it’s important to understand exactly where the mechanism is failing if you want to fix it.
fzeroracer 4y ago
> Given their own freedom, when given a choice, users tend to select moderated channels over unmoderated ones. We've been doing the Internet long enough to know this to be true. This is true, but unfortunately the same mistakes keep being made because people don't pay attention to the history of the internet or didn't grow up during that era. We've known that completely unfettered discussion leads to self destruction since the Usenet era. But the lessons aren't heeded or ignored, so we get people that either stay ignorant or learn the hard way.

mynameisvlad 4y ago

4chan has hosted anything and has done so for longer than other social media sites. Maybe toxic people just congregate in places where their speech is accepted, therefore making the rest of the site toxic as well. Maybe it’s not “hate mongers and trolls” that overrun sites and that the concept of free speech and being able to say anything just naturally brings out the worst people and the worst in people.