6 ms·

This whole argument is moot because it doesn't acknowledge the very obvious elephant in the room: the spam problem.

by aredox 4y ago

leephillips 4y ago
The article mentions the spam problem repeatedly. It’s one of the main threads.
- space_fountain 4y ago
  Does it? It mentions advertising a bit, and I think I could get to what the authors take would be, but it didn’t mention spam as far as I can tell
  - leephillips 4y ago
    The word “spam” occurs multiple times. And he discusses the problem of unsolicited messaging in various contexts, without always using the word. Honestly, I think I’m going to have to avoid HN, at least the comment sections. They’re more and more filled with low-effort spittle, hysterical vitriol, or just plain nonsense.
    - space_fountain 4y ago
      Hum, so I did read the entire article, probably should have searched the text for spam though. It still doesn’t feel like heavy engagement to me though. Probably why it slipped my mind: 1-2 Mention 1 excludes spam saying it needs to be consensual 3-8 is mad about not being able to reliably stop things going to spam (I’ve never actually personally had a problem with this but idk) 9. Is saying spam filters should be opt in per sender (which seems pretty unworkable) 10. Is just a tag for the article Still not seeing a major thread acknowledging that spam is a problem
    - aredox 4y ago
      Sorry that you take it like that. I tried to delete my initial comment because I felt it was too curt and I didn't have time then to expand. Yes, spam is quoted several times in the initial article, but it is not "acknowledged" as the hard problem it is, and dismissed as an excuse - which it isn't. I did read the links and it doesn't help, even Doctorow 's argument (which is exactly about how difficult spam fighting is and how it devolves into centralisation and privilege).
bitwize 4y ago
The elephant in the room is the fascist problem. Before Musk, one of the metrics by which Twitter would evaluate whether to ban someone was: how many trans people will die if we allow this person to keep tweeting? (A competing metric was, regrettably, how big a PR black eye will the far right give us if we ban them, which led to people being banned more slowly than maybe they should have.) It's a social benefit to muzzle fascists. Fascist ideology plays to our deepest, most visceral hatreds and fears, which means it spreads like wildfire. "A lie can run halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes" and all that. And when considering whether American standards of "free speech" are universally applicable, do bear in mind that the USA is a shithole banana republic with a far worse fascist problem than most of the rest of the OECD.
- lilboiluvr69 4y ago
  If everyday citizens cannot be trusted to tell truth from fiction, or to choose democracy over fascism, how can they be trusted to elect their rulers? Why believe in democracy at all? And while I believe wealth disparity, healthcare, and fascism are all real, sadly neglected problems in the United States, I would strongly caution you against hyperbolic criticisms. You should reflect on what you think of when you think 'banana republic', and in what ways day to day life for the average citizen of the United States are comparable to say, the average citizen of Zambia.
  - bitwize 4y ago
    When I think of "banana republic" I think of a puppet government installed by corporations to ensure the corporations' profitability -- much like the United Fruit Company did to Honduras and Guatemala, hence the name. The USA has exactly this kind of government: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
    - lilboiluvr69 4y ago
      I am familiar with the research cited in that article. I am also familiar with the United States' prolonged history of foreign interference and human rights abuse. But in the United States I can openly kiss my same-sex husband in public. In Zambia I would be arrested. The average citizen of the United States still enjoys a relatively high standard of living. Sanitary conditions. High wealth (compared to the rest of the world). Human rights. I find comparisons to banana republics to be hyperbole which ultimately distracts from your arguments.

This whole argument is moot because it doesn't acknowledge the very obvious elephant in the room: the spam problem.

by aredox 4y ago

This whole argument is moot because it doesn't acknowledge the very obvious elephant in the room: the spam problem.

leephillips 4y ago

The article mentions the spam problem repeatedly. It’s one of the main threads.

space_fountain 4y ago
Does it? It mentions advertising a bit, and I think I could get to what the authors take would be, but it didn’t mention spam as far as I can tell
- leephillips 4y ago
  The word “spam” occurs multiple times. And he discusses the problem of unsolicited messaging in various contexts, without always using the word. Honestly, I think I’m going to have to avoid HN, at least the comment sections. They’re more and more filled with low-effort spittle, hysterical vitriol, or just plain nonsense.
  - space_fountain 4y ago
    Hum, so I did read the entire article, probably should have searched the text for spam though. It still doesn’t feel like heavy engagement to me though. Probably why it slipped my mind: 1-2 Mention 1 excludes spam saying it needs to be consensual 3-8 is mad about not being able to reliably stop things going to spam (I’ve never actually personally had a problem with this but idk) 9. Is saying spam filters should be opt in per sender (which seems pretty unworkable) 10. Is just a tag for the article Still not seeing a major thread acknowledging that spam is a problem
  - aredox 4y ago
    Sorry that you take it like that. I tried to delete my initial comment because I felt it was too curt and I didn't have time then to expand. Yes, spam is quoted several times in the initial article, but it is not "acknowledged" as the hard problem it is, and dismissed as an excuse - which it isn't. I did read the links and it doesn't help, even Doctorow 's argument (which is exactly about how difficult spam fighting is and how it devolves into centralisation and privilege).

bitwize 4y ago

The elephant in the room is the fascist problem. Before Musk, one of the metrics by which Twitter would evaluate whether to ban someone was: how many trans people will die if we allow this person to keep tweeting? (A competing metric was, regrettably, how big a PR black eye will the far right give us if we ban them, which led to people being banned more slowly than maybe they should have.) It's a social benefit to muzzle fascists. Fascist ideology plays to our deepest, most visceral hatreds and fears, which means it spreads like wildfire. "A lie can run halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes" and all that. And when considering whether American standards of "free speech" are universally applicable, do bear in mind that the USA is a shithole banana republic with a far worse fascist problem than most of the rest of the OECD.

lilboiluvr69 4y ago
If everyday citizens cannot be trusted to tell truth from fiction, or to choose democracy over fascism, how can they be trusted to elect their rulers? Why believe in democracy at all? And while I believe wealth disparity, healthcare, and fascism are all real, sadly neglected problems in the United States, I would strongly caution you against hyperbolic criticisms. You should reflect on what you think of when you think 'banana republic', and in what ways day to day life for the average citizen of the United States are comparable to say, the average citizen of Zambia.
- bitwize 4y ago
  When I think of "banana republic" I think of a puppet government installed by corporations to ensure the corporations' profitability -- much like the United Fruit Company did to Honduras and Guatemala, hence the name. The USA has exactly this kind of government: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
  - lilboiluvr69 4y ago
    I am familiar with the research cited in that article. I am also familiar with the United States' prolonged history of foreign interference and human rights abuse. But in the United States I can openly kiss my same-sex husband in public. In Zambia I would be arrested. The average citizen of the United States still enjoys a relatively high standard of living. Sanitary conditions. High wealth (compared to the rest of the world). Human rights. I find comparisons to banana republics to be hyperbole which ultimately distracts from your arguments.