3 ms·

Everyone seems to say there’s no moderation policy that will please everyone. Sounds right. But the real physical world has freedom of speech and it works prett

by 55555 4y ago

Everyone seems to say there’s no moderation policy that will please everyone. Sounds right. But the real physical world has freedom of speech and it works pretty well. There’s a KKK meeting going on somewhere right now and yet none of us are bothered. Is the issue really freedom of speech or is it that Twitter puts people who would absolutely hate each other into the same room? What if you just fix that second part instead of worrying about the first?

root_axis 4y ago
> the real physical world has freedom of speech and it works pretty well If someone were to enter a privately owned "public square" in the physical world and start yelling racial slurs, they'd be removed by the cops.
- airhangerf15 4y ago
  No, that is protected and has been for decades: Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center
  - ericbarrett 4y ago
    That ruling is (a) only relevant in California, (b) has been significantly narrowed since it was issued in the 1970s, and (c) involved political solicitation, not simply yelling slurs.
- zug_zug 4y ago
  Fascinating, I didn't know that ruling. However, to the larger point, in pre-internet times if you were to enter a public forum and shout racial obscenities it wouldn't be possible to do so anonymously, I imagine you'd get cited for creating a public disturbance (possibly thrown out on appeal if you bought an expensive lawyer?), and you'd suffer multiyear reputational damage [at least in small town]. These mechanisms seem to work - I scarcely ever seen in-person behavior that sinks to the level of online behavior. And I think we're all happier for it, imagine if the public playground allowed strangers from all over the world to shout whatever phrase they want anonymously with no transportation cost.
AlexandrB 4y ago
> What if you just fix that second part instead of worrying about the first? I think that's an entirely different product. Something closer to Discord or Telegram. Would be interesting to see a pivot along these lines.
- 55555 4y ago
  AI / GPT3 / sentiment analysis is probably roughly at the point where they could just _not_ show you posts you're likely to strongly disagree with. I know there's other issues around echo chambers, though, I just think if someone thought about this for a long time, they may be able to figure something out. Back when Google+ was being planned, they took it as a given that not everything should be said to everyone.
guerrilla 4y ago
> and yet none of us are bothered What? I think a lot of people are very bothered by that... especially the victims.
- airhangerf15 4y ago
  what victims? Are Christians victims because satanists are gathering privately somewhere else to have their own ceremonies?
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    Christianity and Satanism aren't inherently and (usually) intentionally harmful. The KKK is literally a terrorist organization meeting for the purpose of conspiring to commit acts of terror and spread racism, with the explicit intention, that that propaganda has the specific effect of harming people. That's what their goal is, to hurt people, for the benefit of their own in-group.

by 55555 4y ago

root_axis 4y ago

> the real physical world has freedom of speech and it works pretty well If someone were to enter a privately owned "public square" in the physical world and start yelling racial slurs, they'd be removed by the cops.

airhangerf15 4y ago
No, that is protected and has been for decades: Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center
- ericbarrett 4y ago
  That ruling is (a) only relevant in California, (b) has been significantly narrowed since it was issued in the 1970s, and (c) involved political solicitation, not simply yelling slurs.
zug_zug 4y ago
Fascinating, I didn't know that ruling. However, to the larger point, in pre-internet times if you were to enter a public forum and shout racial obscenities it wouldn't be possible to do so anonymously, I imagine you'd get cited for creating a public disturbance (possibly thrown out on appeal if you bought an expensive lawyer?), and you'd suffer multiyear reputational damage [at least in small town]. These mechanisms seem to work - I scarcely ever seen in-person behavior that sinks to the level of online behavior. And I think we're all happier for it, imagine if the public playground allowed strangers from all over the world to shout whatever phrase they want anonymously with no transportation cost.

AlexandrB 4y ago

> What if you just fix that second part instead of worrying about the first? I think that's an entirely different product. Something closer to Discord or Telegram. Would be interesting to see a pivot along these lines.

55555 4y ago
AI / GPT3 / sentiment analysis is probably roughly at the point where they could just _not_ show you posts you're likely to strongly disagree with. I know there's other issues around echo chambers, though, I just think if someone thought about this for a long time, they may be able to figure something out. Back when Google+ was being planned, they took it as a given that not everything should be said to everyone.

guerrilla 4y ago

> and yet none of us are bothered What? I think a lot of people are very bothered by that... especially the victims.

airhangerf15 4y ago
what victims? Are Christians victims because satanists are gathering privately somewhere else to have their own ceremonies?
- guerrilla 4y ago
  Christianity and Satanism aren't inherently and (usually) intentionally harmful. The KKK is literally a terrorist organization meeting for the purpose of conspiring to commit acts of terror and spread racism, with the explicit intention, that that propaganda has the specific effect of harming people. That's what their goal is, to hurt people, for the benefit of their own in-group.