4 ms·

Because it's not very interesting because nobody has a good faith reason to argue in favor allowing SPAM. I assume it's being used to demonstrate the arbitrary

by jchw 4y ago

Because it's not very interesting because nobody has a good faith reason to argue in favor allowing SPAM. I assume it's being used to demonstrate the arbitrary nature of what speech people would want to allow, but it's a bit pointless. SPAM falls in the category of things that arguably are simply abuse of the system, using it in an unintended way. SPAM is not discourse, or an ideology, or a belief. SPAM is a pattern of behaviors. The general idea is simple: in principle, expressions that are legal should not be disallowed on moral grounds, but disruptive patterns of behavior absolutely should be.

ceejayoz 4y ago
Which side of that line does neo-Nazis trolling Twitter count as?
- jchw 4y ago
  Trolling is a pretty vague word, it doesn't really mean anything. So it's hard to really reply to this with any degree of seriousness, if it even was serious to begin with. That said, on properly moderated forums, trolling would usually be moderated, by a human that proactively moderates discussions. Social media can't really do that because the scale of the moderation team they'd need to do it would be literally unthinkable. It's clear that they need huge moderation teams just to upkeep the crappy standard of handing reports inconsistently that they have today. Exactly what to do with that information, I don't know.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    Trolling is online speech used to deliberately upset others. That's it. That's what it means. It has a clear definition. You might have wanted to say that no one can agree on what speech is trolling and what speech isn't, but that's not because the word is vague. It's because people disagree on the deliberate and the upset part.
    - jchw 4y ago
      No, I didn't mean to say that. Case in point... Even that definition is vague.
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        Can you elaborate? It seems definitionally straight forward to me, so I'm not sure what I'm missing.
        jchw 4y ago
        "online speech used to deliberately upset others" does not actually distinguish trolling versus other malicious behaviors, such as just being rude and flippant on purpose, so it is not very precise. It also doesn't really describe the actual kinds of behaviors that trolls engage in, but rather constitutes a class of behaviors that are not necessarily obviously connected, so it's vague. There's a lot of different ways that people troll, and different kinds of trolling, and I don't feel like that definition really summarizes it. For example, the term "concern trolling" is generally included in the umbrella, but it's actually more subtle than just being used to upset others; it's subversive, but the goal isn't necessarily just to upset others. Truthfully, the two observations are related: The word "trolling" being kind of vague is probably the main reason why people do not agree on what actually constitutes it.
        andsoitis 4y ago
        from this thread, it sounds like you're saying spam has a clear, precise definition but trolling does not. what then, in your mind, is the clear, precise definition of spam?
        jchw 4y ago
        I'm a little frustrated here, because I never attempted to imply that SPAM is easier to define than trolling. If that's somehow something people are legitimately reading out of my replies, then I must've messed up somewhere. All I have been trying to suggest is that nobody has made a good faith argument in favor of allowing SPAM, which is not the case for trolling. But the thing is, while neither have a concise definition, and social media moderation are imperfect at dealing with both situations, it is MUCH easier for a human to distinguish SPAM from trolling. In some types of trolling, the very point of it is that it is difficult to distinguish from a good-faith post; if it wasn't, it would be bad bait. Whereas many SPAM patterns, by nature of being SPAM, are detectable just by looking at posting patterns and not even contents, which is basically the way that social media handles such content. You can't do that for human trolls, because human trolls don't look much different from a high level as other users do, especially depending on what kind of troll you're dealing with. I am kind of surprised at how many different ways people have interpreted what I said. I'm frankly feeling a little defeated.
- concordDance 4y ago
  How does one tell which ones are trolling and which ones are sincerely expressing their beliefs?
varnaud 4y ago
Some people like to post a word or a short sentence or some kind of artwork many, many times, everywhere they can. They enjoy knowing their message is seen by many. For them, it's not pointless. At what point does it become spam and we restrict what these people view as free speech?
- jchw 4y ago
  I hate that I am answering this, as if it's really a question posed in good faith. But again, the problem isn't the expression. The word or artwork isn't the problem. The problem is the disruptive behavior pattern.
UncleMeat 4y ago
Is a whole bunch of people calling somebody a "fa***t" in DMs discourse? Lots of people have told me that this isn't illegal so Twitter should do nothing.
- naasking 4y ago
  Is a whole bunch of people calling someone a Nazi any different? It's a signal of social disapproval, even if it's distasteful. I think you can meaningfully distinguish individuals expressing distasteful speech from coordinated campaigns and harassment, and spam falls under the latter.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    We can have a discussion about what sort of speech is unacceptable on a social media platform. My concern is largely with the people who insist that we shouldn't even have the conversation about insulting messages because of free speech absolutism or whatever. The "oh but lefties are mean too" argument immediately retreats from the idea of free speech absolutism. I'm down for that.
    - naasking 4y ago
      > My concern is largely with the people who insist that we shouldn't even have the conversation about insulting messages because of free speech absolutism or whatever. That's not where I would draw the line against free speech absolutism. Insults or rudeness from individuals should be permitted, insults from groups/coordinated campaigns is where I would draw that line because that starts crossing into inciting a mob. Mobs of any political persuasion are undesirable. Uncoordinated-coordination seems like an emergent phenomenon of social media though, which is why this is a tough issue. It's almost like we need some kind of back pressure against virality to keep mobs in check.
- jchw 4y ago
  This is a good example of a question posed in bad faith. I shouldn't have to reply, but unfortunately in this situation if I don't address it, it looks like I'm simply unable to, which is not the case. I have a stunning revelation to make: I am not in favor of allowing all legal things on the principle that because they're legal, they should be allowed. In fact, given that the thing you're replying to is arguing in favor of moderating SPAM, I figured it would be apparent. Apparently, it is not. Furthermore... Like SPAM, harassing someone in the DMs by simply calling them homophobic or racial slurs is not "free expression." It's harassment. Harassment, libel, etc. are not things that everyone (hopefully not most) who believe in free expression as a principle are trying to defend. I'm mostly not going to address the "lots of people have told me" and disregard it, since it's probably made up for the bait. But if not, I mean... Good for all of those lunatics, I guess. I'm not associated with them, and I don't like Twitter or any social media platform to begin with.
freejazz 4y ago
It's more that the SPAM issue shows that "speech people" don't have an actual working methodology of distinguishing 'good' speech from 'bad' speech any more than the very people they complain of being censorious.
- jchw 4y ago
  Even "free speech absolutists" are not actually absolutists, because almost all of them have the asterisk of "within the law." The law is quite arbitrary too, with my most favorite bit of nonsense being obscenity law. The point isn't that you should allow everything all the time, it's that in general banishing ideas or expressions because they're immoral sucks, and I don't like it out of principle. There are, of course, other reasons why we limit expression, and some of those are more reasonable in nature, even if it's not always a good idea. That all having been said... SPAM and harassment are not problems because of the expression itself, they're problems because of the disruptive patterns of behavior. The point is not that you can't say something, or have a given opinion, or etc. I'm not really sure how this came to be everyone's ultimate catch 22 on free expression when there's more obvious caveats, such as how arbitrary the law is. But as arbitrary as the law is, it's like gofmt. Nobody's favorite, but everybody's favorite. (This is possibly one of the worst HN analogies this month, which now that I think about it, should probably be a thing someone tracks.)
  - freejazz 4y ago
    "That all having been said... SPAM and harassment are not problems because of the expression itself, they're problems because of the disruptive patterns of behavior. The point is not that you can't say something, or have a given opinion, or etc." Okay, but to ban speech on this is once again to pass judgment on its value to the contribution of the discourse or whatever avenue for communication is at issue. That's why the absolutist position is ridiculous. It isn't navigable from any perspective save for the very perspective they are already criticizing. Also, I'm not sure why you chose the word arbitrary. That's not what arbitrary means. Obscenity laws aren't arbitrary at all, they are based in specific judgments related to a community's perception of what is and isn't acceptable. I'm not saying obscenity laws are good or especially well-reasoned, but they are clearly not arbitrary. Perhaps you meant subjective/un-objective?

by jchw 4y ago

ceejayoz 4y ago

Which side of that line does neo-Nazis trolling Twitter count as?

jchw 4y ago
Trolling is a pretty vague word, it doesn't really mean anything. So it's hard to really reply to this with any degree of seriousness, if it even was serious to begin with. That said, on properly moderated forums, trolling would usually be moderated, by a human that proactively moderates discussions. Social media can't really do that because the scale of the moderation team they'd need to do it would be literally unthinkable. It's clear that they need huge moderation teams just to upkeep the crappy standard of handing reports inconsistently that they have today. Exactly what to do with that information, I don't know.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Trolling is online speech used to deliberately upset others. That's it. That's what it means. It has a clear definition. You might have wanted to say that no one can agree on what speech is trolling and what speech isn't, but that's not because the word is vague. It's because people disagree on the deliberate and the upset part.
  - jchw 4y ago
    No, I didn't mean to say that. Case in point... Even that definition is vague.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      Can you elaborate? It seems definitionally straight forward to me, so I'm not sure what I'm missing.
      - jchw 4y ago
        "online speech used to deliberately upset others" does not actually distinguish trolling versus other malicious behaviors, such as just being rude and flippant on purpose, so it is not very precise. It also doesn't really describe the actual kinds of behaviors that trolls engage in, but rather constitutes a class of behaviors that are not necessarily obviously connected, so it's vague. There's a lot of different ways that people troll, and different kinds of trolling, and I don't feel like that definition really summarizes it. For example, the term "concern trolling" is generally included in the umbrella, but it's actually more subtle than just being used to upset others; it's subversive, but the goal isn't necessarily just to upset others. Truthfully, the two observations are related: The word "trolling" being kind of vague is probably the main reason why people do not agree on what actually constitutes it.
        andsoitis 4y ago
        from this thread, it sounds like you're saying spam has a clear, precise definition but trolling does not. what then, in your mind, is the clear, precise definition of spam?
        jchw 4y ago
        I'm a little frustrated here, because I never attempted to imply that SPAM is easier to define than trolling. If that's somehow something people are legitimately reading out of my replies, then I must've messed up somewhere. All I have been trying to suggest is that nobody has made a good faith argument in favor of allowing SPAM, which is not the case for trolling. But the thing is, while neither have a concise definition, and social media moderation are imperfect at dealing with both situations, it is MUCH easier for a human to distinguish SPAM from trolling. In some types of trolling, the very point of it is that it is difficult to distinguish from a good-faith post; if it wasn't, it would be bad bait. Whereas many SPAM patterns, by nature of being SPAM, are detectable just by looking at posting patterns and not even contents, which is basically the way that social media handles such content. You can't do that for human trolls, because human trolls don't look much different from a high level as other users do, especially depending on what kind of troll you're dealing with. I am kind of surprised at how many different ways people have interpreted what I said. I'm frankly feeling a little defeated.
concordDance 4y ago
How does one tell which ones are trolling and which ones are sincerely expressing their beliefs?

varnaud 4y ago

Some people like to post a word or a short sentence or some kind of artwork many, many times, everywhere they can. They enjoy knowing their message is seen by many. For them, it's not pointless. At what point does it become spam and we restrict what these people view as free speech?

jchw 4y ago
I hate that I am answering this, as if it's really a question posed in good faith. But again, the problem isn't the expression. The word or artwork isn't the problem. The problem is the disruptive behavior pattern.

UncleMeat 4y ago

Is a whole bunch of people calling somebody a "fa***t" in DMs discourse? Lots of people have told me that this isn't illegal so Twitter should do nothing.

naasking 4y ago
Is a whole bunch of people calling someone a Nazi any different? It's a signal of social disapproval, even if it's distasteful. I think you can meaningfully distinguish individuals expressing distasteful speech from coordinated campaigns and harassment, and spam falls under the latter.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  We can have a discussion about what sort of speech is unacceptable on a social media platform. My concern is largely with the people who insist that we shouldn't even have the conversation about insulting messages because of free speech absolutism or whatever. The "oh but lefties are mean too" argument immediately retreats from the idea of free speech absolutism. I'm down for that.
  - naasking 4y ago
    > My concern is largely with the people who insist that we shouldn't even have the conversation about insulting messages because of free speech absolutism or whatever. That's not where I would draw the line against free speech absolutism. Insults or rudeness from individuals should be permitted, insults from groups/coordinated campaigns is where I would draw that line because that starts crossing into inciting a mob. Mobs of any political persuasion are undesirable. Uncoordinated-coordination seems like an emergent phenomenon of social media though, which is why this is a tough issue. It's almost like we need some kind of back pressure against virality to keep mobs in check.
jchw 4y ago
This is a good example of a question posed in bad faith. I shouldn't have to reply, but unfortunately in this situation if I don't address it, it looks like I'm simply unable to, which is not the case. I have a stunning revelation to make: I am not in favor of allowing all legal things on the principle that because they're legal, they should be allowed. In fact, given that the thing you're replying to is arguing in favor of moderating SPAM, I figured it would be apparent. Apparently, it is not. Furthermore... Like SPAM, harassing someone in the DMs by simply calling them homophobic or racial slurs is not "free expression." It's harassment. Harassment, libel, etc. are not things that everyone (hopefully not most) who believe in free expression as a principle are trying to defend. I'm mostly not going to address the "lots of people have told me" and disregard it, since it's probably made up for the bait. But if not, I mean... Good for all of those lunatics, I guess. I'm not associated with them, and I don't like Twitter or any social media platform to begin with.

freejazz 4y ago

It's more that the SPAM issue shows that "speech people" don't have an actual working methodology of distinguishing 'good' speech from 'bad' speech any more than the very people they complain of being censorious.

jchw 4y ago
Even "free speech absolutists" are not actually absolutists, because almost all of them have the asterisk of "within the law." The law is quite arbitrary too, with my most favorite bit of nonsense being obscenity law. The point isn't that you should allow everything all the time, it's that in general banishing ideas or expressions because they're immoral sucks, and I don't like it out of principle. There are, of course, other reasons why we limit expression, and some of those are more reasonable in nature, even if it's not always a good idea. That all having been said... SPAM and harassment are not problems because of the expression itself, they're problems because of the disruptive patterns of behavior. The point is not that you can't say something, or have a given opinion, or etc. I'm not really sure how this came to be everyone's ultimate catch 22 on free expression when there's more obvious caveats, such as how arbitrary the law is. But as arbitrary as the law is, it's like gofmt. Nobody's favorite, but everybody's favorite. (This is possibly one of the worst HN analogies this month, which now that I think about it, should probably be a thing someone tracks.)
- freejazz 4y ago
  "That all having been said... SPAM and harassment are not problems because of the expression itself, they're problems because of the disruptive patterns of behavior. The point is not that you can't say something, or have a given opinion, or etc." Okay, but to ban speech on this is once again to pass judgment on its value to the contribution of the discourse or whatever avenue for communication is at issue. That's why the absolutist position is ridiculous. It isn't navigable from any perspective save for the very perspective they are already criticizing. Also, I'm not sure why you chose the word arbitrary. That's not what arbitrary means. Obscenity laws aren't arbitrary at all, they are based in specific judgments related to a community's perception of what is and isn't acceptable. I'm not saying obscenity laws are good or especially well-reasoned, but they are clearly not arbitrary. Perhaps you meant subjective/un-objective?