3 ms·

>It’s about not spreading hate & lies. As determined by your local Ministry of Truth, of course. You could see why many people might be skeptical of their bene

>It’s about not spreading hate & lies. As determined by your local Ministry of Truth, of course. You could see why many people might be skeptical of their benevolence. Let's face it. A lot of these platforms will absolutely ban you for saying true things in a problematic fashion, eg. FBI crime statistics. It's widely accepted and celebrated and it doesn't pass the laugh test to say that it's just about stopping misinformation or whatever. Because you're hurting The Cause and that can't be allowed.

guraf 3y ago
I don't think you are wrong per se, I've seen first hand that dismissal or even censorship of FBI crime stats. But even though the data is truthful and I wish we could discuss it, it's hard to deny that the goal of the poster is usually to legitimize hate and after a few heated discussions the mods learn to recognize it as a red flag and they act early. I know, it sounds like a slippery slope fallacy. But we've seen how platforms turn out when it's allowed. Eg voat or gab.
- yanderekko 3y ago
  Yeah, I mean I get the rationale, but at that point you're pivoting from "we're combating clear hate/misinformation" - which can perhaps be readily justified to a reasonable impartial observer - to "we're combating speech/expression that we think is harmful", which in many cases cannot. In an era of high partisan hatred (ie. today) this will lead to community splintering.
  - photonerd 3y ago
    The word “clear” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your first quote, because in combination with the second quote it is simply excusing hate speech by saying it only matters if it’s clear to you rather than the reality: clear to those directly affected. Because that is what you’re complaining about: the harassed voicing their concerns and having people make moderation choices based on that.

3 ms·

>It’s about not spreading hate & lies. As determined by your local Ministry of Truth, of course. You could see why many people might be skeptical of their bene

by yanderekko 3y ago

guraf 3y ago
I don't think you are wrong per se, I've seen first hand that dismissal or even censorship of FBI crime stats. But even though the data is truthful and I wish we could discuss it, it's hard to deny that the goal of the poster is usually to legitimize hate and after a few heated discussions the mods learn to recognize it as a red flag and they act early. I know, it sounds like a slippery slope fallacy. But we've seen how platforms turn out when it's allowed. Eg voat or gab.
- yanderekko 3y ago
  Yeah, I mean I get the rationale, but at that point you're pivoting from "we're combating clear hate/misinformation" - which can perhaps be readily justified to a reasonable impartial observer - to "we're combating speech/expression that we think is harmful", which in many cases cannot. In an era of high partisan hatred (ie. today) this will lead to community splintering.
  - photonerd 3y ago
    The word “clear” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your first quote, because in combination with the second quote it is simply excusing hate speech by saying it only matters if it’s clear to you rather than the reality: clear to those directly affected. Because that is what you’re complaining about: the harassed voicing their concerns and having people make moderation choices based on that.