3 ms·

Could you maybe list some examples less contrived than "we gloriously behead a poultry farmer"? Needless to say completely fictitious partisan warfare is unlik

by ajross 4y ago

Could you maybe list some examples less contrived than "we gloriously behead a poultry farmer"? Needless to say completely fictitious partisan warfare is unlikely to convince an actual court. In point of fact there probably is some stuff to worry about, but where we've seen it it's been almost exclusively in off label sites. Unpopular opinion: the core tech portals have been remarkably good stewards of the public good in the face of genuine extremis in the discourse the public wants to engage in. Everyone's got their favorite Moment of Clear Censorship that Must Not Be Permitted, but name any forum and any topic, and I'll be able to show you (with a quick seearch using tools provided by these very tech giants) extensive unimpeded discussion. To wit: SCOTUS isn't going to step in because one tweet got taken down. There are thousands just like it that weren't censored.

phoehne 4y ago
I'm torn on that. I finally just read the actual text instead of relying on my memory of 1996. I get what you're saying, but it isn't a discussion like this one here. It's more like the platforms pick and choose what you're likely to see next. There's not just showing up in the order they were posted or the most relevant things. It might be by how angry they predict it will make me, continue to engage, and get more impressions. You see it in crowds, for example, when people go from having one energetic but good time to being put in a state where they are likely to commit violence. I don't know if Travis Scott is more legend than phenomena, or if the Woodstock '99 people realized they created a metal festival. Human beings are weird creatures and we can do horrific things, given the right context and environment. I think the actual text is rarely a cause for concern, but the manipulation around it is. You can take the same group of people and have an orderly discussion on defenestration, but work them up and you can get an actual defenestration. So if a company is manipulating the flow of information to create an emotional state, on purpose, I'm not sure that company should be 100% in the clear on it. Especially since the law seems to be more about good faith efforts at restricting access to content.

by ajross 4y ago

phoehne 4y ago

I'm torn on that. I finally just read the actual text instead of relying on my memory of 1996. I get what you're saying, but it isn't a discussion like this one here. It's more like the platforms pick and choose what you're likely to see next. There's not just showing up in the order they were posted or the most relevant things. It might be by how angry they predict it will make me, continue to engage, and get more impressions. You see it in crowds, for example, when people go from having one energetic but good time to being put in a state where they are likely to commit violence. I don't know if Travis Scott is more legend than phenomena, or if the Woodstock '99 people realized they created a metal festival. Human beings are weird creatures and we can do horrific things, given the right context and environment. I think the actual text is rarely a cause for concern, but the manipulation around it is. You can take the same group of people and have an orderly discussion on defenestration, but work them up and you can get an actual defenestration. So if a company is manipulating the flow of information to create an emotional state, on purpose, I'm not sure that company should be 100% in the clear on it. Especially since the law seems to be more about good faith efforts at restricting access to content.