4 ms·
it's a hard tradeoff between false positives and false negatives. it's like being a soccer referee or a judge, you can be almost perfect but the screwups are al
by RockyMcNuts 4y ago
it's a hard tradeoff between false positives and false negatives. it's like being a soccer referee or a judge, you can be almost perfect but the screwups are all anyone remembers. short of putting everyone away for life, some convict is going to get out and do something, and some tabloid is going to question why this person was on the street. You do the best you can subject to the Constitution, the laws, and common sense.
there is so much absolute garbage bad faith BS on social media that is poison to a civilized society and a democracy, that there is no choice but to do the best we can to try to spread less of it. you don't get to throw up your hands and say, there is no perfect arbiter of truth and decency so let's say, anything goes. of course that's what all the worst burn-it-down extremists would like to see.
A lot of US institutions were exposed as unfit for purpose by the pandemic and we have to do better. But I'm not sure Twitter would be near the top of the list.
And somehow, the new regime seems able to make everything worse.
- _-____-_ 4y agoIf it's such a hard tradeoff then maybe don't make the trade in the first place. Just don't censor speech. Problem solved. Insisting on censoring speech in this case is what's known as a Hegelian dialectic: there is a problem, we need to solve the problem, here's how we solve the problem.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago[flagged]
- ryanSrich 4y ago> If you are running a social media platform for the masses, you have to censor certain things, and you have to abide by all regulations. You can’t just X. Legally speaking yes. You absolutely have to censor a decent amount of content. Outside of what is legally required (at least in the US), I’d be in favor of allowing the community to block and mute to curate their own experience. It seems a losing battle to rely on the whims of the people that run the business of Twitter/Facebook/etc. to be the deciders of what should and should not be allowed. > We have already seen that musk’s pathetic approach via free speech absolutism does not work. Is this tongue and cheek? Musk’s policies are the antithesis of free speech.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago[flagged]
- PartiallyTyped 4y agoTo the people who downvote this, care to point what your issue is besides your fee-fees getting hurt by somebody on the internet who explained why your opinion of how social media should run is juvenile?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- RockyMcNuts 4y agoYou have the power to choose, but no power to escape the necessity of choice. If you choose to do nothing you still have made a choice. Life doesn't require anyone to confront bad stuff that only grows worse if it is tolerated. Life does, however, require everyone to live with the consequences of our choices.
- int_19h 4y agoSpeaking of making everything worse... I'm far left politically. I found COVID very concerning, I'm fully vaccinated, and I still wear a mask indoors. And yet, after seeing some of the tweets that were labelled as "misleading", I believe that the way the govt and Twitter moderators handled this was a disaster that makes me extremely unlikely to trust anything that either will have to say on any contentious topics in the future. And if I'm not the only one, what do you think this lack of trust will do to "civilized society and democracy"?
- RockyMcNuts 4y agoSomeone saying, this looks misleading, here's why, if there is room for good-faith argument about it, it helps me trust them. Certainly more than suspending journalists on trumped-up pretexts. I'm less worried about a possibly incorrect 'misleading' tag than I am about weirdo elected officials who make false claims about things I can see with my own eyes, say everyone else is lying, say anyone who disagrees is un-American or a traitor, push divisive conspiracy theories and call for imprisoning our own medical professionals. And given all their other claims and agitprop, it's hard to take seriously a claim that the label violates their First Amendment rights or is a breach of trust.