4 ms·

> Only the original author may remove content they produce. Counter example: Cyber bullying. Person A and B talk on twitter about how to best hurt person C, da

by xg15 4y ago

> Only the original author may remove content they produce. Counter example: Cyber bullying. Person A and B talk on twitter about how to best hurt person C, damage C's reputation, invite others to hurt C, etc. C himself is never part of the conversation. As for A, B and all the others which are part of the conversation, none of those people have any interest to end the conversation or to retract anything they said. Nevertheless, the conversation can cause real harm to C, even though C is not part of it. How would Jack's philosophy deal with that?

nathias 4y ago
why would a protocol do the task of a state? if it's illegal the person C can go to the police
- pjc50 4y ago
  Jack is trying to design it specifically to prevent the state being able to intervene at all. Also, which state? These things may be international.
  - nathias 4y ago
    why would the state intervene with the protocol? the state interacts with their citizens, and should leave everyone else alone (any state)
    - consumer451 4y ago
      So in Jack's model, as far as I understand it, a bad actor could dox and post a bounty on someone's life, lose or destroy their key, and no one in the world could delete or block this information? Do I have that scenario correct? Counterpoint/question: Isn't this already all possible on TOR? Would ease of access make Jack's proposal more dangerous?
      - nathias 4y ago
        I think Jack's model it would decrease the reach of illegal content, but it would still be accessible if you had a direct link.
        krapp 4y ago
        Jack's model is that moderation should only occur due to algorithms - but algorithms in this context are designed to maximize engagement, which means maximizing the reach of "illegal" content, because controversy leads engagement. "algorithmic moderation" is a contradiction in terms, and counter to the incentives of social media. Although strictly illegal content is a red herring since not even most "free speech" platforms (not on the dark web) are willing to risk jail time for hosting content that explicitly breaks the law - certainly not Reddit. What we're really talking about is technically legal but still harmful content, although at the extreme I guess the free speech extremist position has to allow illegal content as well.
        consumer451 4y ago
        > Jack's model is that moderation should only occur due to algorithms This is super hand wavy on his part. [0] So algorithms just rise from the virgin snow having solved human philosophy and sorted all social norms? No humans were involved in the making of these algorithms? It's really hard to take a proposal seriously when it contains something like that. Please someone explain to me how I can NOT read it as: "Responsibility for the platform I created? No, no, I only chose the team who coded it and I only oversaw the creation of this magic algo. That absolves me of everything!" [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/restofthefuckingowl/ https://www.reddit.com/r/restofthefuckingowl/
        nathias 4y ago
        I find this type of harm reduction discourse really weasely, I imagine you have no problem with www and email, that are also such free sepeech exteremes that allow harmful content.
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  Why would the protocol go out of its way to do the job of a person whose aim is to usurp any of these powers? It takes very little imagination to see what could happen if you provide Jack’s proposed platform, every single coup in the world is precedent.
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  > if it's illegal the person C can go to the police Just to be clear - as long as they stay away from outright illegal content, A and B can cyber-bully C? Because there's a whole swathe of behaviours that can make someone's life a misery without crossing into illegality...
  - erlich 4y ago
    How and who decides if its actually cyber-bullying and whether C was bullying A and B?
eyelidlessness 4y ago
I addressed this in my comment, but it seems Jack thinks this was his mistake at Twitter. It’s Person C’s onus to block Persons A & B. Never mind if A and or B maim or kill C in actual meatspace, speech not only must go on but it must absolutely be unfettered by every single platform or else someone will claim speech has become something less than free. To Jack, who has perfectly demonstrated the absolutist position, I have no care in the world whether to approve of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to force others to let you say it to enough people that someone winds up dead.
- erlich 4y ago
  How do you know person C is acting in good faith though? What if person C is actually plotting to hurt person A and B, and accusing them of the reverse?
  - eyelidlessness 4y ago
    That isn’t the scenario described by OP. In their scenario: 1. Person C isn’t accusing anyone of anything at all, and needn’t do so because, 2. Persons A & B are openly posting their threats and incitement on the platform. 3. Even if person C is provoking persons A & B with similar threats and incitement elsewhere, that doesn’t justify their behavior in kind. All of that said, this kind of skepticism—pervasive in these discussions—is itself often introduced in bad faith. I don’t think that’s the case here, I think you’ve probably misread the original comment, but its frequent use as a bad faith tool promotes this kind of error as well.
    - erlich 4y ago
      Maybe you are not aware, but for many of the main contraversies about bans on Twitter, the main debate is about what constitutes a threat. It's never clear-cut threats or incitement. As evidenced in the Twitter Files. And there is no objective measure.
      - eyelidlessness 4y ago
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
I think he's saying it wouldn't. He's focused on stopping authoritarian government getting involved, and has decided that other concerns are not as important as that. In his view any type of regulation is a slippery slope to 1984 so he needs to design something which cannot be regulated.
- consumer451 4y ago
  This seems like a very specific type of utopian thinking. The utopia being that the world can be dealt with using absolute blanket rules which have binary outcomes. The problem with the world IRL is that nearly everything is grey and complicated. I mean, a truly "good" moderating algorithm would require AGI more or less, no?
valty 4y ago
Legally, Twitter is not responsible for content posted by third parties because of Section 230. So Twitter will do what is best for their business. The problem is that for each of your statements, the truth is always subjective. And a semblance of truth can only be established in a court of law. Otherwise it's just someone or some group's opinion. If there was actual reputation damage, then it must at least involve a false statement, and then fulfil the rest of the legal criteria for defamation as judged by a court. There could also be a scenario where person C has conspired to have person A and B banned based on false accusations. Say Twitter had no intervention: Person C should block users A and B. And they should notify their network that they have blocked these users and recommend that they should also block these users. A and B still remain on the platform though at the disgust of person C. Person C may file a defamation suit if they want, and Twitter must cooperate with law enforcement. Person C could also leave the platform. People could also leave the platform because of what they have seen happen to person C. And finally, advertisers may leave the platform because of what happened. Less users + less advertisers = less money. So naturally the platform wants to avoid this. Hence, they must create their own rules to avoid users and advertisers leaving, and find the right balance. The optimum is a set of rules that maximizes long-term revenue. Now person A and B can still talk, and they can still do everything that person C accused them of, but just not on that platform. They might go to another social media platform to continue exactly the same behavior. So you have to ask yourself, what is the difference between this happening on one platform vs the other? If it's causing real harm, surely it will cause real harm if done on another platform too.

by xg15 4y ago

nathias 4y ago

why would a protocol do the task of a state? if it's illegal the person C can go to the police

pjc50 4y ago
Jack is trying to design it specifically to prevent the state being able to intervene at all. Also, which state? These things may be international.
- nathias 4y ago
  why would the state intervene with the protocol? the state interacts with their citizens, and should leave everyone else alone (any state)
  - consumer451 4y ago
    So in Jack's model, as far as I understand it, a bad actor could dox and post a bounty on someone's life, lose or destroy their key, and no one in the world could delete or block this information? Do I have that scenario correct? Counterpoint/question: Isn't this already all possible on TOR? Would ease of access make Jack's proposal more dangerous?
    - nathias 4y ago
      I think Jack's model it would decrease the reach of illegal content, but it would still be accessible if you had a direct link.
      - krapp 4y ago
        Jack's model is that moderation should only occur due to algorithms - but algorithms in this context are designed to maximize engagement, which means maximizing the reach of "illegal" content, because controversy leads engagement. "algorithmic moderation" is a contradiction in terms, and counter to the incentives of social media. Although strictly illegal content is a red herring since not even most "free speech" platforms (not on the dark web) are willing to risk jail time for hosting content that explicitly breaks the law - certainly not Reddit. What we're really talking about is technically legal but still harmful content, although at the extreme I guess the free speech extremist position has to allow illegal content as well.
        consumer451 4y ago
        > Jack's model is that moderation should only occur due to algorithms This is super hand wavy on his part. [0] So algorithms just rise from the virgin snow having solved human philosophy and sorted all social norms? No humans were involved in the making of these algorithms? It's really hard to take a proposal seriously when it contains something like that. Please someone explain to me how I can NOT read it as: "Responsibility for the platform I created? No, no, I only chose the team who coded it and I only oversaw the creation of this magic algo. That absolves me of everything!" [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/restofthefuckingowl/ https://www.reddit.com/r/restofthefuckingowl/
        nathias 4y ago
        I find this type of harm reduction discourse really weasely, I imagine you have no problem with www and email, that are also such free sepeech exteremes that allow harmful content.
eyelidlessness 4y ago
Why would the protocol go out of its way to do the job of a person whose aim is to usurp any of these powers? It takes very little imagination to see what could happen if you provide Jack’s proposed platform, every single coup in the world is precedent.
zimpenfish 4y ago
> if it's illegal the person C can go to the police Just to be clear - as long as they stay away from outright illegal content, A and B can cyber-bully C? Because there's a whole swathe of behaviours that can make someone's life a misery without crossing into illegality...
- erlich 4y ago
  How and who decides if its actually cyber-bullying and whether C was bullying A and B?

eyelidlessness 4y ago

I addressed this in my comment, but it seems Jack thinks this was his mistake at Twitter. It’s Person C’s onus to block Persons A & B. Never mind if A and or B maim or kill C in actual meatspace, speech not only must go on but it must absolutely be unfettered by every single platform or else someone will claim speech has become something less than free. To Jack, who has perfectly demonstrated the absolutist position, I have no care in the world whether to approve of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to force others to let you say it to enough people that someone winds up dead.

erlich 4y ago
How do you know person C is acting in good faith though? What if person C is actually plotting to hurt person A and B, and accusing them of the reverse?
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  That isn’t the scenario described by OP. In their scenario: 1. Person C isn’t accusing anyone of anything at all, and needn’t do so because, 2. Persons A & B are openly posting their threats and incitement on the platform. 3. Even if person C is provoking persons A & B with similar threats and incitement elsewhere, that doesn’t justify their behavior in kind. All of that said, this kind of skepticism—pervasive in these discussions—is itself often introduced in bad faith. I don’t think that’s the case here, I think you’ve probably misread the original comment, but its frequent use as a bad faith tool promotes this kind of error as well.
  - erlich 4y ago
    Maybe you are not aware, but for many of the main contraversies about bans on Twitter, the main debate is about what constitutes a threat. It's never clear-cut threats or incitement. As evidenced in the Twitter Files. And there is no objective measure.
    - eyelidlessness 4y ago

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

I think he's saying it wouldn't. He's focused on stopping authoritarian government getting involved, and has decided that other concerns are not as important as that. In his view any type of regulation is a slippery slope to 1984 so he needs to design something which cannot be regulated.

consumer451 4y ago
This seems like a very specific type of utopian thinking. The utopia being that the world can be dealt with using absolute blanket rules which have binary outcomes. The problem with the world IRL is that nearly everything is grey and complicated. I mean, a truly "good" moderating algorithm would require AGI more or less, no?

valty 4y ago

Legally, Twitter is not responsible for content posted by third parties because of Section 230. So Twitter will do what is best for their business. The problem is that for each of your statements, the truth is always subjective. And a semblance of truth can only be established in a court of law. Otherwise it's just someone or some group's opinion. If there was actual reputation damage, then it must at least involve a false statement, and then fulfil the rest of the legal criteria for defamation as judged by a court. There could also be a scenario where person C has conspired to have person A and B banned based on false accusations. Say Twitter had no intervention: Person C should block users A and B. And they should notify their network that they have blocked these users and recommend that they should also block these users. A and B still remain on the platform though at the disgust of person C. Person C may file a defamation suit if they want, and Twitter must cooperate with law enforcement. Person C could also leave the platform. People could also leave the platform because of what they have seen happen to person C. And finally, advertisers may leave the platform because of what happened. Less users + less advertisers = less money. So naturally the platform wants to avoid this. Hence, they must create their own rules to avoid users and advertisers leaving, and find the right balance. The optimum is a set of rules that maximizes long-term revenue. Now person A and B can still talk, and they can still do everything that person C accused them of, but just not on that platform. They might go to another social media platform to continue exactly the same behavior. So you have to ask yourself, what is the difference between this happening on one platform vs the other? If it's causing real harm, surely it will cause real harm if done on another platform too.