5 ms·

And yet people only have so much time, and so much of it continues to be dominated by work and transportation to/from work (if you’re not lucky enough to have t

by judge2020 4y ago

And yet people only have so much time, and so much of it continues to be dominated by work and transportation to/from work (if you’re not lucky enough to have the option of remote work). When you’ve been busy and focused for the better part of 10 hours, bettering oneself for immaterial gains is going to be unappealing when you could doom scroll TikTok, watch the latest hit TV series, or even better yourself in areas with easily-realized gains, like physical workouts or educating for a career change. That’s why people opt for moderated communities, actually learning to handle content and ignore repugnant or vile content takes diligence and building that up is time-consuming, so they’ll happily pay money (via ads or directly) to offload filtering out that content.

rhaksw 4y ago
> That’s why people opt for moderated communities, actually learning to handle content and ignore repugnant or vile content takes diligence and building that up is time-consuming, so they’ll happily pay money (via ads or directly) to offload filtering out that content. The catch here is that people are not aware that their content is frequently shadow moderated. Even if you do try to engage with vitriolic commentary, your comment may be removed without your knowledge, and the forum will still show you your comment as if it's not removed. It works like this on Reddit for all comments [1], but again as I said, all forums now engage in shadow moderation. And at the end of the day it is also an us problem, not just a them problem, because we're often the ones reporting the content that gets taken down. When people are made aware that this is happening, they do call for change, for example [2], > ...what is the supposed rationale for making you think a removed post is still live and visible? > ...So the mods delete comments, but have them still visible to the writer. How sinister. > ...what’s stunning is you get no notification and to you the comment still looks up. Which means mods can set whatever narrative they want without answering to anyone. Here's another way to think about whether or not to use shadow moderation. If you think it's a good idea to use it, then you think it's an effective tool for changing minds. Your ideological opponent, whose comments you want to secretly hide (lest they give you more trouble), is, by your definition, immoral. The extreme left and right both think this of each other. And since they are immoral, they will make more immoral use of this tool than you do, thereby effecting more influence than you, which is precisely the opposite of what you set out to achieve. Therefore the only winning move is not to play [3]. You cannot support the use of a tool in the world without your opponent eventually getting their hands on it. So it's really a game of: who can make the first truly free speech forum that encourages rather than secretly shuts down debate? [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/CantSayAnything/comments/ynfu22/write_any_comment_here_20221106/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CantSayAnything/comments/ynfu22/wri... [2] https://www.reveddit.com/about/faq/#react https://www.reveddit.com/about/faq/#react [3] https://youtu.be/MpmGXeAtWUw?t=74 https://youtu.be/MpmGXeAtWUw?t=74
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  Yes, yes, but extremists don't want to co-exist on a level playing field overseen by Uncle Sam, or any other Uncle. They want be the Uncle and wipe out serious dissent. To them, the tool is not the problem. The other side having the tool is the problem.
  - rhaksw 4y ago
    > Yes, yes, but The refrain "I believe in free speech, BUT" is so common that first amendment lawyers regularly joke about it [0] [1] [2]. "Free speech for me— but not for thee" is also the title of an excellent book by Nat Hentoff [3] Personally I like how ACLU founder Roger Baldwin put it to historian Arthur Schlesigner, Jr.: > Arthur: "What possible reason is there for giving civil liberties to people who will use those civil liberties in order to destroy the civil liberties of all the rest?" > Roger: "That's a classic argument, you know. That's what they said about the Nazis and the Communists, that if they got into power they'd suppress all the rest of us. Therefore, we'd suppress ‘em first. We're going to use their method before they can use it. > Well that is contrary to our experience. In a democratic society, if you let them all talk, even those who would deny civil liberties and would overthrow the government, that's the best way to prevent them from doing it." [4] [0] https://youtu.be/0ZpsiLX9_HY?t=419 https://youtu.be/0ZpsiLX9_HY?t=419 [1] https://youtu.be/J1iZffRFs8s?t=736 https://youtu.be/J1iZffRFs8s?t=736 [2] https://youtu.be/-ByRjHwknbc?t=1210 https://youtu.be/-ByRjHwknbc?t=1210 [3] https://archive.org/details/freespeechformeb0000hent/page/n9/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/freespeechformeb0000hent/page/n9... [4] https://youtu.be/ND_uY_KXGgY?t=1225 https://youtu.be/ND_uY_KXGgY?t=1225
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      > Well that is contrary to our experience. In a democratic society, if you let them all talk, even those who would deny civil liberties and would overthrow the government, that's the best way to prevent them from doing it. This isn't empirically true though, as someone else mentions in this thread there's a fair amount of evidence that past a certain point, more free speech makes fomenting a populist revolt to end democracy easier, not harder, and that if democratic stability is what you're opting for, something more akin to western Europe's laws would be better than the US's. Like, as much as I like the ACLU, the argument you're presenting is functionally "trust us", which, no, I don't trust the free speech advocacy org to have an objective view on the dangers of unrestricted speech. It is contrary to your nature.

rhaksw 4y ago

> That’s why people opt for moderated communities, actually learning to handle content and ignore repugnant or vile content takes diligence and building that up is time-consuming, so they’ll happily pay money (via ads or directly) to offload filtering out that content. The catch here is that people are not aware that their content is frequently shadow moderated. Even if you do try to engage with vitriolic commentary, your comment may be removed without your knowledge, and the forum will still show you your comment as if it's not removed. It works like this on Reddit for all comments [1], but again as I said, all forums now engage in shadow moderation. And at the end of the day it is also an us problem, not just a them problem, because we're often the ones reporting the content that gets taken down. When people are made aware that this is happening, they do call for change, for example [2], > ...what is the supposed rationale for making you think a removed post is still live and visible? > ...So the mods delete comments, but have them still visible to the writer. How sinister. > ...what’s stunning is you get no notification and to you the comment still looks up. Which means mods can set whatever narrative they want without answering to anyone. Here's another way to think about whether or not to use shadow moderation. If you think it's a good idea to use it, then you think it's an effective tool for changing minds. Your ideological opponent, whose comments you want to secretly hide (lest they give you more trouble), is, by your definition, immoral. The extreme left and right both think this of each other. And since they are immoral, they will make more immoral use of this tool than you do, thereby effecting more influence than you, which is precisely the opposite of what you set out to achieve. Therefore the only winning move is not to play [3]. You cannot support the use of a tool in the world without your opponent eventually getting their hands on it. So it's really a game of: who can make the first truly free speech forum that encourages rather than secretly shuts down debate? [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/CantSayAnything/comments/ynfu22/write_any_comment_here_20221106/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CantSayAnything/comments/ynfu22/wri... [2] https://www.reveddit.com/about/faq/#react https://www.reveddit.com/about/faq/#react [3] https://youtu.be/MpmGXeAtWUw?t=74 https://youtu.be/MpmGXeAtWUw?t=74

actionfromafar 4y ago
Yes, yes, but extremists don't want to co-exist on a level playing field overseen by Uncle Sam, or any other Uncle. They want be the Uncle and wipe out serious dissent. To them, the tool is not the problem. The other side having the tool is the problem.
- rhaksw 4y ago
  > Yes, yes, but The refrain "I believe in free speech, BUT" is so common that first amendment lawyers regularly joke about it [0] [1] [2]. "Free speech for me— but not for thee" is also the title of an excellent book by Nat Hentoff [3] Personally I like how ACLU founder Roger Baldwin put it to historian Arthur Schlesigner, Jr.: > Arthur: "What possible reason is there for giving civil liberties to people who will use those civil liberties in order to destroy the civil liberties of all the rest?" > Roger: "That's a classic argument, you know. That's what they said about the Nazis and the Communists, that if they got into power they'd suppress all the rest of us. Therefore, we'd suppress ‘em first. We're going to use their method before they can use it. > Well that is contrary to our experience. In a democratic society, if you let them all talk, even those who would deny civil liberties and would overthrow the government, that's the best way to prevent them from doing it." [4] [0] https://youtu.be/0ZpsiLX9_HY?t=419 https://youtu.be/0ZpsiLX9_HY?t=419 [1] https://youtu.be/J1iZffRFs8s?t=736 https://youtu.be/J1iZffRFs8s?t=736 [2] https://youtu.be/-ByRjHwknbc?t=1210 https://youtu.be/-ByRjHwknbc?t=1210 [3] https://archive.org/details/freespeechformeb0000hent/page/n9/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/freespeechformeb0000hent/page/n9... [4] https://youtu.be/ND_uY_KXGgY?t=1225 https://youtu.be/ND_uY_KXGgY?t=1225
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    > Well that is contrary to our experience. In a democratic society, if you let them all talk, even those who would deny civil liberties and would overthrow the government, that's the best way to prevent them from doing it. This isn't empirically true though, as someone else mentions in this thread there's a fair amount of evidence that past a certain point, more free speech makes fomenting a populist revolt to end democracy easier, not harder, and that if democratic stability is what you're opting for, something more akin to western Europe's laws would be better than the US's. Like, as much as I like the ACLU, the argument you're presenting is functionally "trust us", which, no, I don't trust the free speech advocacy org to have an objective view on the dangers of unrestricted speech. It is contrary to your nature.