4 ms·

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?

by erlich 4y ago

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
    As you’re well aware I replied to a very well specified hypothetical and I responded to its specific conditions. It was about clear threats by participating persons against a non participating person. Continuing to interject suspicion of the hypothetical target of those clear threats is very much an example of bad faith.
    - erlich 4y ago
      I am questioning the premise of the hypothetical as unrealistic. Now if you want to solely debate your hypothetical, then how about you simply don't reply to my branch of inquiry? No one is forcing you to. You choose the debates you want to engage in. The point of HN is for intellectual curiosity - which I would think involves exploring many branches of discussion. It's not about trying to win debates.
      - eyelidlessness 4y ago
        > I am questioning the premise of the hypothetical as unrealistic. You… think it’s unrealistic that two people with no other distinguishing characteristics than letters A & B might make threats and incite others on a social media platform with no limits to their doing so, against another person with no distinguishing characteristic other than the letter C? How can that possibly be good faith? > Now if you want to solely debate your hypothetical, then how about you simply don't reply to my branch of inquiry? I’m not even trying to debate anything, I noticed that you moved the goalposts and pointed it out in hopes you’d appreciate the clarification, not that you’d triple down and insist that even a very simple proposition of two people abusing an unmoderated platform should be turned around to scrutinize their targeted victim without any shred of reason to think their target had anything to scrutinize other than your apparent determination to find it. Don’t you realize that you’re demonstrating exactly the kind of bias I earned about?

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?

by 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
  As you’re well aware I replied to a very well specified hypothetical and I responded to its specific conditions. It was about clear threats by participating persons against a non participating person. Continuing to interject suspicion of the hypothetical target of those clear threats is very much an example of bad faith.
  - erlich 4y ago
    I am questioning the premise of the hypothetical as unrealistic. Now if you want to solely debate your hypothetical, then how about you simply don't reply to my branch of inquiry? No one is forcing you to. You choose the debates you want to engage in. The point of HN is for intellectual curiosity - which I would think involves exploring many branches of discussion. It's not about trying to win debates.
    - eyelidlessness 4y ago
      > I am questioning the premise of the hypothetical as unrealistic. You… think it’s unrealistic that two people with no other distinguishing characteristics than letters A & B might make threats and incite others on a social media platform with no limits to their doing so, against another person with no distinguishing characteristic other than the letter C? How can that possibly be good faith? > Now if you want to solely debate your hypothetical, then how about you simply don't reply to my branch of inquiry? I’m not even trying to debate anything, I noticed that you moved the goalposts and pointed it out in hopes you’d appreciate the clarification, not that you’d triple down and insist that even a very simple proposition of two people abusing an unmoderated platform should be turned around to scrutinize their targeted victim without any shred of reason to think their target had anything to scrutinize other than your apparent determination to find it. Don’t you realize that you’re demonstrating exactly the kind of bias I earned about?