4 ms·

Personal user filtering can't be the only form of moderation. There is some content that I don't care if it exists as long as I don't see it. Spam is one examp

• MikePlacid 4y ago
  > Its mere existence made normal users less likely to use Reddit despite users needing to go out of their way to see that objectionable content. To me it’s kind of perverse logic. If a platform hosts persons that some powerful group of people want to be removed - than I can trust the platform to less likely to remove me, when and if I cross some powerful or just loud and anger people. Like: there is a lot of people in the US that I do not like, but I rather live in a country with 14th Amendment than in a country without one. I’ve tried both :)
  • slg 4y ago
    It’s funny you mention the 14th Amendment. It is a little over 150 years old. For the first century interracial marriage wasn't on the list of protections provided by the 14th. When enough people consistently say you shouldn't be allowed to do something, we won't allow you to do it. When enough people say you should be allowed, you will be. Maybe that is cynical, but that is life in a democracy. Churchill was right about it being the worst form of government.
    • MikePlacid 4y ago
      > It is a little over 150 years old. Not everywhere in the world. I’ve spent 40 years in a country without one. > When enough people consistently say you shouldn't be allowed to do something, we won't allow you to do it. Exactly. You guys can lose your 1st amendment pretty quickly.
      • slg 4y ago
        >Exactly. You guys can lose your 1st amendment pretty quickly. The example of the 14th Amendment was meant to show that these amendments don't have some innate meaning or special true power. The 1st Amendment only ever means what the majority wants it to mean (a loose definition of majority, the US is a republic not a democracy, etc.). We will never lose the 1st Amendment, however we are constantly having a debate over what the 1st Amendment actually means. From a practical perspective, your rights are not innate or god given, they are majority given. That is how these systems work and no one has yet found a system that can improve on that approach.
• concordDance 4y ago
  > However there is some content that its existence on the platform makes me less likely to use the platform even if I never see it. This really confuses me. Does the fact that people send racist insults at each other in Call of Duty matches via the Internet make you less likely to use the internet?
  • tempestn 4y ago
    I think the idea is that the platform has the power to prevent people from saying these things you find (extremely) objectionable, and so you feel compelled not to use said platform if they refuse to do so (and thereby appear to be passively endorsing the behavior).
    • MikePlacid 4y ago
      > and thereby appear to be passively endorsing the behavior). This “passive endorsing” is a great social construct! It allows anybody to go after TMobile for passively endorsing all the lies I said to pretty women over the phone.
      • tempestn 4y ago
        That seems like a bit of a strawman. There's a pretty significant difference between public and private speech. Regardless, I'm not arguing what or when these platforms should censor. Just trying to explain why certain content on a platform could cause someone to choose to stop using that platform, even if they're not personally exposed to that content.
        • MikePlacid 4y ago
          > Just trying to explain why certain content on a platform could cause someone to choose to stop using that platform, even if they're not personally exposed to that content. This explanation seems pretty strange to me. 1. If I am not exposed to some content - how do I know that it exist? 2. If I see that platform does not delete an objectionable content and does not force me to contact it - I would feel much safer in re that my non-objectionable would not be deleted too.
• u801e 4y ago
  > However there is some content that its existence on the platform makes me less likely to use the platform even if I never see it. > ... > /r/jailbait is one of the early examples that comes to mind. It hosted risqué, but apparently legal photos of underage girls. Reddit couldn't just tell people "Don't visit those subreddits if you don't want to see that content". Most people found the content objectionable enough to want it removed completely. Its mere existence made normal users less likely to use Reddit despite users needing to go out of their way to see that objectionable content. Are there metrics showing that reddit usage decreased because of subreddits like that? It's possible that most normal users who aren't actively searching for such content may not even be aware of that subreddit's existence and the number that are aware of it and who would choose not to use reddit is not signficant enough to affect overall usage patterns. On the usenet side, Andrew Cuomo (back when he was the attorney general of New York) made a deal with a number of large ISPs in terms of dealing with CP getting posted to usenet. It's almost certain that those who were just using usenet for their discussions were not searching for CP on usenet, so their usage patterns would not have been affected. But what did affect it was ISPs dropping usenet service, which lead to people no longer posting and groups dying off because no one was posting. This isn't something that would happen to reddit unless all major ISPs started blocking access to it.