3 ms·

This argument comes with the rather absurd assumption that the only material that's being blocked is that which the community agrees is harmful. When more often

This argument comes with the rather absurd assumption that the only material that's being blocked is that which the community agrees is harmful. When more often than not it's simply the material that is from individually small enough third-parties where the content doesn't really matter. On top of that, there isn't community agreement as much as there is community ignorance. For every case we hear about of someone being banned or blocked by an automated system despite doing nothing wrong, there are hundreds more similar cases which simply don't gain enough traction for the 'community' to hold the service provider responsible.

panarky 4y ago
> rather absurd assumption that the only material that's being blocked ... It's fallacious reasoning to assert that any system that is less than 100% perfect should be changed. If the current system meets the community's expectations 98% of the time, and alternative systems meet the community's expectations 90% of the time or less, it would be silly to throw out the current system. That's like saying stop signs at intersections should be removed because sometimes I have to stop when there are no other cars there, and sometimes other drivers fail to stop when they should, and some stop signs have been defaced or knocked down.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  This point is pointless. The question is whether federation works, or whether it instead degrades into a short list of large providers. It's amusing that the first response to that point being made is to miss it, and to somehow paint the isolation of smaller servers as a strength of federation (because it gives users control over what they see.) Then the next one is literally an argument that decentralization will inevitably centralize, because that centralization will satisfy the communities expectations 98% of the time. The last paragraph wanders very close to claiming that it is childish and entitled to expect your decentralization not to be centralized. Doesn't that just enthusiastically reinforce idlewords's claim?
- dotnet00 4y ago
  So, if certain minorities have more representation in crime statistics in an area, it is acceptable to have a bias in random searches towards them because doing so meets the expectations of the majority to have to deal with neither crime nor random searches compared to the alternative of unbiased searches which lower arrest rates and expose the majority to more searches? Even putting aside the slightly absurd difference in stakes with my example, there's also the issue that you're just arguing for centralization, which defeats the point of a system designed for federation in the first place.
pessimizer 4y ago
> This argument comes with the rather absurd assumption that the only material that's being blocked is that which the community agrees is harmful. The new orthodoxy requires us to assume that all censorship is in good faith. "What were you doing to make them censor you?" is the question of the day.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  > "What were you doing to make them censor you?" is the question of the day. And the answer increasingly often is, "I did not censor the other people quickly enough and visibly enough when I was told to."
  - esarbe 4y ago
    It's almost like humans have a tendency to come to an agreement about what is acceptable speech and what is not and to want these rules enforced. Like when you go into a pub and start yelling insults at the guests, the patron will "censor" you by throwing your out of their private locality.

panarky 4y ago

> rather absurd assumption that the only material that's being blocked ... It's fallacious reasoning to assert that any system that is less than 100% perfect should be changed. If the current system meets the community's expectations 98% of the time, and alternative systems meet the community's expectations 90% of the time or less, it would be silly to throw out the current system. That's like saying stop signs at intersections should be removed because sometimes I have to stop when there are no other cars there, and sometimes other drivers fail to stop when they should, and some stop signs have been defaced or knocked down.

pessimizer 4y ago
This point is pointless. The question is whether federation works, or whether it instead degrades into a short list of large providers. It's amusing that the first response to that point being made is to miss it, and to somehow paint the isolation of smaller servers as a strength of federation (because it gives users control over what they see.) Then the next one is literally an argument that decentralization will inevitably centralize, because that centralization will satisfy the communities expectations 98% of the time. The last paragraph wanders very close to claiming that it is childish and entitled to expect your decentralization not to be centralized. Doesn't that just enthusiastically reinforce idlewords's claim?
dotnet00 4y ago
So, if certain minorities have more representation in crime statistics in an area, it is acceptable to have a bias in random searches towards them because doing so meets the expectations of the majority to have to deal with neither crime nor random searches compared to the alternative of unbiased searches which lower arrest rates and expose the majority to more searches? Even putting aside the slightly absurd difference in stakes with my example, there's also the issue that you're just arguing for centralization, which defeats the point of a system designed for federation in the first place.

pessimizer 4y ago

> This argument comes with the rather absurd assumption that the only material that's being blocked is that which the community agrees is harmful. The new orthodoxy requires us to assume that all censorship is in good faith. "What were you doing to make them censor you?" is the question of the day.

TeMPOraL 4y ago
> "What were you doing to make them censor you?" is the question of the day. And the answer increasingly often is, "I did not censor the other people quickly enough and visibly enough when I was told to."
- esarbe 4y ago
  It's almost like humans have a tendency to come to an agreement about what is acceptable speech and what is not and to want these rules enforced. Like when you go into a pub and start yelling insults at the guests, the patron will "censor" you by throwing your out of their private locality.