3 ms·

Discrimination as alleged by conservatives but pooh-poohed as others as merely delusional is now clearly proved. How can tech self-regulate itself, or should t

Discrimination as alleged by conservatives but pooh-poohed as others as merely delusional is now clearly proved. How can tech self-regulate itself, or should there be external agencies who would watch the growing power of tech companies? and who would watch them? Decentralization never seems to take off, so we seem to be left with these existing players like twitter, meta, google ...who are de-facto monopolies....

JetAlone 4y ago
Right, so now that this thing has been proved we're moving on to the "They did and it's a good thing" phase.
smoldesu 4y ago
> How can tech self-regulate itself Would it be a stretch to suggest 'the government'?
- someNameIG 4y ago
  Outside of removing things like CSAM wouldn't it be illegal for the government to tell social media how it must moderate? I'm from the US though so not an expert or it's laws.
  - srj 4y ago
    DMCA and court orders in the US. Many more in other countries.
    - someNameIG 4y ago
      True. Still nothing about banning or shadow banning though, or even needing to tell users they do so.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    Telephone companies are forced by the government to carry certain speech. Similar laws could be expanded to other major communication platforms.
jacobsenscott 4y ago
- user3939382 4y ago
  “The people I disagree with politically can have free speech in the mediums that have the least reach while my political tribe will freely exercise our speech on the mediums with the most reach” is a bad faith argument I keep hearing from fake leftists who are really hardline authoritarians.
  - michaelmrose 4y ago
    The mediums which have the most reach have the most reach explicitly because they have less spam porn hate and crazy. If twitter gets more "democratic" more crazy, more hateful, less desirable and less popular shall we suggest the next big platform welcome an equal number of undesirables?
    - user3939382 4y ago
      The problem is that for a lot of people “hate and crazy” is a euphemism for “political ideas I disagree with”. This isn’t new or original. Anyone can classify their political opponents as crazy, dumb, misguided, “hateful” is the new one, ignorant, *ist. I think a healthier framing is, people who disagree with me politically have their reasons for doing so and the best for everyone is if we have a dialog.
      - HDThoreaun 4y ago
        I think the problem is that you can't accept that twitter users don't want to engage with your bs, and that lead to twitter shadow banning it.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        4y ago
afavour 4y ago
To me the evidence seems to point to the opposite, like the screenshot of LibsOfTikTok: that account was being shielded from moderation action by a warning note saying not to act without speaking to a superior first. Sounds like the account was at benefit, not detriment.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- MisterMower 4y ago
  You think that was to protect them? I figured it was because they didn’t want any heavy handed actions to be “misinterpreted” as them putting their finger on the scale. Those actions required more political finesse. They specifically said in their communications that LibsOfTikTok hadn’t violated any rules directly. Why the suspensions then?

JetAlone 4y ago

Right, so now that this thing has been proved we're moving on to the "They did and it's a good thing" phase.

smoldesu 4y ago

> How can tech self-regulate itself Would it be a stretch to suggest 'the government'?

someNameIG 4y ago
Outside of removing things like CSAM wouldn't it be illegal for the government to tell social media how it must moderate? I'm from the US though so not an expert or it's laws.
- srj 4y ago
  DMCA and court orders in the US. Many more in other countries.
  - someNameIG 4y ago
    True. Still nothing about banning or shadow banning though, or even needing to tell users they do so.
- stale2002 4y ago
  Telephone companies are forced by the government to carry certain speech. Similar laws could be expanded to other major communication platforms.

jacobsenscott 4y ago

user3939382 4y ago
“The people I disagree with politically can have free speech in the mediums that have the least reach while my political tribe will freely exercise our speech on the mediums with the most reach” is a bad faith argument I keep hearing from fake leftists who are really hardline authoritarians.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  The mediums which have the most reach have the most reach explicitly because they have less spam porn hate and crazy. If twitter gets more "democratic" more crazy, more hateful, less desirable and less popular shall we suggest the next big platform welcome an equal number of undesirables?
  - user3939382 4y ago
    The problem is that for a lot of people “hate and crazy” is a euphemism for “political ideas I disagree with”. This isn’t new or original. Anyone can classify their political opponents as crazy, dumb, misguided, “hateful” is the new one, ignorant, *ist. I think a healthier framing is, people who disagree with me politically have their reasons for doing so and the best for everyone is if we have a dialog.
    - HDThoreaun 4y ago
      I think the problem is that you can't accept that twitter users don't want to engage with your bs, and that lead to twitter shadow banning it.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - 4y ago

afavour 4y ago

To me the evidence seems to point to the opposite, like the screenshot of LibsOfTikTok: that account was being shielded from moderation action by a warning note saying not to act without speaking to a superior first. Sounds like the account was at benefit, not detriment.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
MisterMower 4y ago
You think that was to protect them? I figured it was because they didn’t want any heavy handed actions to be “misinterpreted” as them putting their finger on the scale. Those actions required more political finesse. They specifically said in their communications that LibsOfTikTok hadn’t violated any rules directly. Why the suspensions then?