5 ms·

Only illegal content should be moderated away by the platform, and only illegal in the sense of real human danger, not normal pornography or anti gay laws of Sa

Only illegal content should be moderated away by the platform, and only illegal in the sense of real human danger, not normal pornography or anti gay laws of Saudi Arabia. Everything else, give users the tools to moderate themselves. I wish you could have "filter lists" you can just subscribe to like ad block. You don't want to see something? Subscribe to a filter list. Or a community. Don't want someone to say something that is legal? Too bad.

sneak 4y ago
The issue that people have is not that they can see it. It’s that other people can see it. Filter lists for one’s own experience are not the goal of that outrage. Keeping certain information from spreading to others (controlling what third parties can see) is the desire. The censorship urge is not “I am offended by this”, but more “if my neighbors read things like this, I am afraid”. I think it stems from a low-trust society and the assumption that the median members of society lack critical thinking skills.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  > assumption that the median members of society lack critical thinking skills. That seems like a pretty valid position to hold.
  - sneak 4y ago
    I think such a belief is incompatible with the idea of democracy, and that if that position is valid, than dictatorships and monarchies are also valid, as in that worldview, median people cannot be trusted to decide representatives for democratic processes. I think it is the view taken by the true leadership of all world superpowers. I don’t think I share it.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      A benevolent dictatorship is the best government.
      - krono 4y ago
        Benevolence that favours me, might not be particularly advantageous to thee
        themitigating 4y ago
        Objectively benevolent
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      Whether a hypothesis is inconvenient or uncomfortable to contemplate is largely orthogonal to its likely correctness. I would estimate perhaps 20% of the population (perhaps 30% of the 18-70 population) as demonstrating what I consider reasonable critical thinking skills.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
astrange 4y ago
Nobody would want to do that, for the same reason gmail is popular; everything would be instantly covered in spam and you don't have the time to fight spammers. The main value of a platform is getting rid of spam for you.
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  The fight against spam is entirely different from the fight against misinformation. It is dishonest to compare it to removing certain political talking points or discrediting or deplatforming them.
  - astrange 4y ago
    And yet you said only illegal content should be moderated away, but spam isn’t illegal so… (Politics and spam are also of course closely related, I get unsolicited donation SMS all the time.)
    - raxxorraxor 4y ago
      Depends. In my jurisdiction spam is very much illegal if it didn't get consent from the user.
themitigating 4y ago
And what if advertisers leave because of public pressure over that content?
Dah00n 4y ago
>Only illegal content should be moderated away by the platform, and only illegal in the sense of real human danger, not normal pornography or anti gay laws of Saudi Arabia. Who decides what is normal or harming people? Facebook - on a page for users in Saudi Arabia - most definitely should not use US or EU or any other local law to decide what Saudi Arabian users should and should not see and what is or isn't harmful ("gosh, you can see her nipple!"). It is very clear in law in most countries that if a website is directed at users in X country then the laws of X country is what governs what is and isn't allowed. What you are arguing is that for example GDPR shouldn't govern Facebook. That is a standpoint, sure, but it isn't how courts see it. In my experience it is often people in the US or EU that argue that laws they don't agree with (anti-gay laws of Saudi Arabia or Russia?) should not be upheld but if it is the other way around and their own laws are something they support (like maybe GDPR or showing a nipple) then it should be allowed. You can't have both.
- nradov 4y ago
  You can have both. All large social media platforms have the technical capability to selectively block specific content in certain countries based on the user's location. They have been doing this for years. It's a necessity just to be allowed to continue operating in some countries.

sneak 4y ago

The issue that people have is not that they can see it. It’s that other people can see it. Filter lists for one’s own experience are not the goal of that outrage. Keeping certain information from spreading to others (controlling what third parties can see) is the desire. The censorship urge is not “I am offended by this”, but more “if my neighbors read things like this, I am afraid”. I think it stems from a low-trust society and the assumption that the median members of society lack critical thinking skills.

sokoloff 4y ago
> assumption that the median members of society lack critical thinking skills. That seems like a pretty valid position to hold.
- sneak 4y ago
  I think such a belief is incompatible with the idea of democracy, and that if that position is valid, than dictatorships and monarchies are also valid, as in that worldview, median people cannot be trusted to decide representatives for democratic processes. I think it is the view taken by the true leadership of all world superpowers. I don’t think I share it.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    A benevolent dictatorship is the best government.
    - krono 4y ago
      Benevolence that favours me, might not be particularly advantageous to thee
      - themitigating 4y ago
        Objectively benevolent
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    Whether a hypothesis is inconvenient or uncomfortable to contemplate is largely orthogonal to its likely correctness. I would estimate perhaps 20% of the population (perhaps 30% of the 18-70 population) as demonstrating what I consider reasonable critical thinking skills.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

astrange 4y ago

Nobody would want to do that, for the same reason gmail is popular; everything would be instantly covered in spam and you don't have the time to fight spammers. The main value of a platform is getting rid of spam for you.

raxxorraxor 4y ago
The fight against spam is entirely different from the fight against misinformation. It is dishonest to compare it to removing certain political talking points or discrediting or deplatforming them.
- astrange 4y ago
  And yet you said only illegal content should be moderated away, but spam isn’t illegal so… (Politics and spam are also of course closely related, I get unsolicited donation SMS all the time.)
  - raxxorraxor 4y ago
    Depends. In my jurisdiction spam is very much illegal if it didn't get consent from the user.

themitigating 4y ago

And what if advertisers leave because of public pressure over that content?

Dah00n 4y ago

>Only illegal content should be moderated away by the platform, and only illegal in the sense of real human danger, not normal pornography or anti gay laws of Saudi Arabia. Who decides what is normal or harming people? Facebook - on a page for users in Saudi Arabia - most definitely should not use US or EU or any other local law to decide what Saudi Arabian users should and should not see and what is or isn't harmful ("gosh, you can see her nipple!"). It is very clear in law in most countries that if a website is directed at users in X country then the laws of X country is what governs what is and isn't allowed. What you are arguing is that for example GDPR shouldn't govern Facebook. That is a standpoint, sure, but it isn't how courts see it. In my experience it is often people in the US or EU that argue that laws they don't agree with (anti-gay laws of Saudi Arabia or Russia?) should not be upheld but if it is the other way around and their own laws are something they support (like maybe GDPR or showing a nipple) then it should be allowed. You can't have both.

nradov 4y ago
You can have both. All large social media platforms have the technical capability to selectively block specific content in certain countries based on the user's location. They have been doing this for years. It's a necessity just to be allowed to continue operating in some countries.