3 ms·

Regulations serve a purpose. I am more afraid of what would happen if everything became decentralized. An effort I hope we can agree on was when platforms start

by WASDx 4y ago

Regulations serve a purpose. I am more afraid of what would happen if everything became decentralized. An effort I hope we can agree on was when platforms started removing COVID-19 misinformation.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
barnabee 4y ago
Regulations are fine but enforcement via corporate gatekeepers is not, and neither is creating a world in which breaking the law is impossible. Regulations create consequences for breaking them, and that is a good thing. Pairing regulations with control that prevents crime and civil disobedience is something completely different.
barnabee 4y ago
I don’t agree that you should prevent people from saying wrong things in case someone happens to read/hear and believe them, no. If it’s wrong, counter it with warning labels explaining who thinks it’s wrong and why. Yes, the consequence might be that at the margins, more people believe wrong things even given the warnings (though despite some pretty concerted efforts it seems pretty conclusive to me that that’s going to happen anyway, and perhaps the desire to stem the flow of misinformation has only created more conspiracy theories), but alternative of state control of what is acceptable thought / expression is far worse. (Note that I am fine with, and would even encourage preventing companies from profiting from furthering misinformation, for example by having algorithms that promote it beyond a account’s followers or a post’s organic reach because it produces clicks and ad revenue, but that is very different.)
sschueller 4y ago
But they aren't following laws, they are following their own arbitrary rules that fit their business and their personal politics. Same goes for merchants like Visa that will deny you access to their system even though what you are selling is legal.
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  I'd be okay if Visa and Kickstarted blocked porn, for instance, but I want them to be clear about it and make any card-denied messages explain this to merchant and customer. What I don't like is this gray area where CC companies won't block Pornhub for years of CSAM scandals but then finally get the nerve when a story catches the news.
  - sschueller 4y ago
    I am not OK with it because it is not illegal to pay for porn with cash. Since Visa/mastercard have a defacto monopoly on electronic payments and every one is going cashless it should be required by law for them to accept payment for anything just like cash. Visa/mastercard should however be not held responsible for the transactions if they have been used to pay for illegal things. Like the phone company and calls that facilitate illegal activity. I didn't vote for visa nor mastercard. I voted for the government I have and they decide what is legal and what is not.
    - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
      My reasoning is that if they stated their policies clearly and had to do so to enforce them that we would be able to have other processors that would move into that area. The theory is that porn is has lots of chargeback and legal risks and another company focused on this area could do so in a better fashion. I support breaking down this monopoly as well though, because I acknowledge the ground reality of where we are now.
LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
I've never been banned from as many platforms as in early 2020 when I was explaining that without an evidence stating "the virus came from the Wuhan lab" is just as unscientific than "the virus DIDN'T COME from the Wuhan lab". They'd gladly post Fauci saying "it didn't" all day long and block anyone (me) saying "we can't know without investigating!" I'm not part of the rep/dem "Chyna" fight. I just my countries to push the WHO to do the proper investigations because it's the only way we improve our safety standards. So no, I can't see any value in politically driven censorship.
dude187 4y ago
Your example is a clear case of government over reach damaging to society and trust in science

by WASDx 4y ago

Regulations serve a purpose. I am more afraid of what would happen if everything became decentralized. An effort I hope we can agree on was when platforms started removing COVID-19 misinformation.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

barnabee 4y ago

Regulations are fine but enforcement via corporate gatekeepers is not, and neither is creating a world in which breaking the law is impossible. Regulations create consequences for breaking them, and that is a good thing. Pairing regulations with control that prevents crime and civil disobedience is something completely different.

barnabee 4y ago

I don’t agree that you should prevent people from saying wrong things in case someone happens to read/hear and believe them, no. If it’s wrong, counter it with warning labels explaining who thinks it’s wrong and why. Yes, the consequence might be that at the margins, more people believe wrong things even given the warnings (though despite some pretty concerted efforts it seems pretty conclusive to me that that’s going to happen anyway, and perhaps the desire to stem the flow of misinformation has only created more conspiracy theories), but alternative of state control of what is acceptable thought / expression is far worse. (Note that I am fine with, and would even encourage preventing companies from profiting from furthering misinformation, for example by having algorithms that promote it beyond a account’s followers or a post’s organic reach because it produces clicks and ad revenue, but that is very different.)

sschueller 4y ago

But they aren't following laws, they are following their own arbitrary rules that fit their business and their personal politics. Same goes for merchants like Visa that will deny you access to their system even though what you are selling is legal.

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
I'd be okay if Visa and Kickstarted blocked porn, for instance, but I want them to be clear about it and make any card-denied messages explain this to merchant and customer. What I don't like is this gray area where CC companies won't block Pornhub for years of CSAM scandals but then finally get the nerve when a story catches the news.
- sschueller 4y ago
  I am not OK with it because it is not illegal to pay for porn with cash. Since Visa/mastercard have a defacto monopoly on electronic payments and every one is going cashless it should be required by law for them to accept payment for anything just like cash. Visa/mastercard should however be not held responsible for the transactions if they have been used to pay for illegal things. Like the phone company and calls that facilitate illegal activity. I didn't vote for visa nor mastercard. I voted for the government I have and they decide what is legal and what is not.
  - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
    My reasoning is that if they stated their policies clearly and had to do so to enforce them that we would be able to have other processors that would move into that area. The theory is that porn is has lots of chargeback and legal risks and another company focused on this area could do so in a better fashion. I support breaking down this monopoly as well though, because I acknowledge the ground reality of where we are now.

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago

I've never been banned from as many platforms as in early 2020 when I was explaining that without an evidence stating "the virus came from the Wuhan lab" is just as unscientific than "the virus DIDN'T COME from the Wuhan lab". They'd gladly post Fauci saying "it didn't" all day long and block anyone (me) saying "we can't know without investigating!" I'm not part of the rep/dem "Chyna" fight. I just my countries to push the WHO to do the proper investigations because it's the only way we improve our safety standards. So no, I can't see any value in politically driven censorship.

dude187 4y ago

Your example is a clear case of government over reach damaging to society and trust in science