3 ms·

> I think there might be a reason two sides aren't talking. Both sides can certainly find a reason not to speak to each other. The left claims the right is hat

by rhaksw 4y ago

> I think there might be a reason two sides aren't talking. Both sides can certainly find a reason not to speak to each other. The left claims the right is hateful, the right claims the left is obscene. It's always been like that, with one having the power to censor the other. Here's an example [1]. One side, a well known entrepeneur/investor, is arguing for no censorship, and the other side, a well known disinformation researcher [2], argues for limits of the reach of certain content. One has blocked the other, so they no longer communicate directly. Five years ago, someone at Twitter might have observed this interaction and decided, "I'm going to secretly action content. That will satisfy both the disinfo labeler and the anti-censorship crowd." Yet in doing so, as we can see, nobody is satisfied. They're still not talking to each other, and they don't understand why. The reason is due to the secrecy built into all of these platforms where an unknown third party is actioning content without anyone involved in the conversation knowing about it. See also Free speech for me--but not for thee : how the American left and right relentlessly censor each other [3] (Nat Hentoff, 1992) [1] https://twitter.com/noUpside/status/1599532506252214272 https://twitter.com/noUpside/status/1599532506252214272 [2] https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-is-not-the-same-as-free-reach/ https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-is-not-the-same-as-f... [3] https://archive.org/details/freespeechformeb0000hent/page/n9/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/freespeechformeb0000hent/page/n9...

anigbrowl 4y ago
Interesting though these points are (and I'm familiar, as I am personally acquainted with DiResta), I think you are looking at this issue in too abstract a manner. Ther's no obligation to have dialog with others who are actively threatening to kill you. Don't owe them a conversation or even a hearing. I don't disagree with your characterization that 'the left claims the right is hateful, the right claims the left is obscene.' But there is a clear qualitative difference between the two sides in terms of the willingness to insinuate, actually issue, and finally carry out death threats, and it's not a wholly new phenomenon. I put it to you that the people who are amused by and choose to promote messages like 'rope, tree, journalist: some assembly required' do not actually give a shit about free speech but are opportunistically employing the grievance for political leverage. Get back to me on this when the right stops openly calling to murder people on such a frequent basis and I'll be happy to consider it in more abstract terms. I see why you're concerned about this, but having extensive first hand experience of political violence I think shadow bans are a relatively minor issue by comparison.
- rhaksw 4y ago
  > Ther's no obligation to have dialog with others who are actively threatening to kill you. I never said there was. Even free speech law has limits and may punish such speech. What I advocate is for authors of secretly removed content to be able to discover the removal, because even if the comment is vitriolic, the offending author may perceive the lack of a response as tacit approval of their words. > But there is a clear qualitative difference between the two sides in terms of the willingness to insinuate, actually issue, and finally carry out death threats Left wing extremists are currently saying that words are violence [1]. This is wrong, short of something that "in context, directly causes specific imminent serious harm", a definition from Nadine Strossen [2]. [1] https://archive.ph/1NeiV https://archive.ph/1NeiV [2] https://books.google.com/books?&hl=en&id=whBQDwAAQBAJ&q=in+context%2C+it+directly+causes+specific+imminent+serious+harm https://books.google.com/books?&hl=en&id=whBQDwAAQBAJ&q=in+c...
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > Left wing extremists are currently saying that words are violence [1]. It’s the Republican, Trump-appointed, FBI director’s assessment that extremist right-wing political violence (read homegrown right-wing terrorism) is far and away a bigger problem than left-wing violence. Jan 6 I hoped would have demonstrated that clearly once and for all. After that day, it has become impossible to “both sides” political violence in the US — it really is asymmetrically coming from the right.
    - rhaksw 4y ago
      It's not my intent to pick sides. I highlighted the left there only because parent focused on the right. Regarding shadow moderation, I can promise you that every side of every issue in every geography and on every major platform uses it. See the talk linked in my profile for examples.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - TheHappyOddish 4y ago

by rhaksw 4y ago

anigbrowl 4y ago

Interesting though these points are (and I'm familiar, as I am personally acquainted with DiResta), I think you are looking at this issue in too abstract a manner. Ther's no obligation to have dialog with others who are actively threatening to kill you. Don't owe them a conversation or even a hearing. I don't disagree with your characterization that 'the left claims the right is hateful, the right claims the left is obscene.' But there is a clear qualitative difference between the two sides in terms of the willingness to insinuate, actually issue, and finally carry out death threats, and it's not a wholly new phenomenon. I put it to you that the people who are amused by and choose to promote messages like 'rope, tree, journalist: some assembly required' do not actually give a shit about free speech but are opportunistically employing the grievance for political leverage. Get back to me on this when the right stops openly calling to murder people on such a frequent basis and I'll be happy to consider it in more abstract terms. I see why you're concerned about this, but having extensive first hand experience of political violence I think shadow bans are a relatively minor issue by comparison.

rhaksw 4y ago
> Ther's no obligation to have dialog with others who are actively threatening to kill you. I never said there was. Even free speech law has limits and may punish such speech. What I advocate is for authors of secretly removed content to be able to discover the removal, because even if the comment is vitriolic, the offending author may perceive the lack of a response as tacit approval of their words. > But there is a clear qualitative difference between the two sides in terms of the willingness to insinuate, actually issue, and finally carry out death threats Left wing extremists are currently saying that words are violence [1]. This is wrong, short of something that "in context, directly causes specific imminent serious harm", a definition from Nadine Strossen [2]. [1] https://archive.ph/1NeiV https://archive.ph/1NeiV [2] https://books.google.com/books?&hl=en&id=whBQDwAAQBAJ&q=in+context%2C+it+directly+causes+specific+imminent+serious+harm https://books.google.com/books?&hl=en&id=whBQDwAAQBAJ&q=in+c...
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > Left wing extremists are currently saying that words are violence [1]. It’s the Republican, Trump-appointed, FBI director’s assessment that extremist right-wing political violence (read homegrown right-wing terrorism) is far and away a bigger problem than left-wing violence. Jan 6 I hoped would have demonstrated that clearly once and for all. After that day, it has become impossible to “both sides” political violence in the US — it really is asymmetrically coming from the right.
  - rhaksw 4y ago
    It's not my intent to pick sides. I highlighted the left there only because parent focused on the right. Regarding shadow moderation, I can promise you that every side of every issue in every geography and on every major platform uses it. See the talk linked in my profile for examples.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - TheHappyOddish 4y ago