5 ms·

Controversial stuff in this day and age but these kind of interventions on large scale social media networks are positive in my mind. I'll share some thoughts a

Controversial stuff in this day and age but these kind of interventions on large scale social media networks are positive in my mind. I'll share some thoughts and counter arguments Keep in mind I'm European, and not American. I think we have a different view on this. Especially e.g. countries with a coloured history of hate speech like Germany. 1. Ideas need to be open so they can be challenged: These platforms don't create discussions, they create echo chambers. Nobody of their right mind engages with the crazies online as it's obviously a waste of time. Try to go to Facebook and debate with any of their "Flat earth" groups. It's absolutely futile. These "debates" are better for recruiting new people into hateful ideology than building understanding. 2. "Free speech" something or another: There is no such thing as "free speech" because there are already limits to speech. We've already drawn an arbitrary line on what's legal and harassment, death threats, racism, discrimination, defamation and multitudes of other types of speech are already controlled. If something is illegal to say to someones face, why should it be legal to say online? Not to mention that discussions about free speech spans borders and laws are different across them. 3. Who defines what's hate speech? I'm not an American, but I am at the mercy of your platforms. I for one would much rather that at EU-based body, or my government (I know this sounds crazy for an American, but we have more trust in our institutions) decides what's OK to say rather than tech billionaires like Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, or Sundar Pichai. These people are already making moderation decisions, which is inevitable with large-scale social media. Make these policy decisions openly. Make them democratically. Large scale social media platforms are cesspools already. Unmoderated social platforms turn into cesspools by default. Moderation of these platforms must be moved out of private companies and into the public sphere so we as a society can agree on what is right, and what is wrong.

shapenamer 3y ago
I'm not European but I find it incredibly bizarre that you would prefer such a thing. The worst Elon Musk can do to you is kick you off his platform. As soon as a government gets involved you're looking at being potentially locked in a cage like an animal for expressing your opinion. They say the people get the government they deserve though.
- dotandgtfo 3y ago
  If your opinion consists of propagating hate, encouraging hate crimes and sharing death threats online I believe it's in order with a fine and potentially a light prison sentence for repeat offenders, yes. I don't believe that my government will turn to tyranny suddenly when it's generally had a pretty good history of not going off the rails. I don't buy the slippery slope argument/fallacy. >They say the people get the government they deserve though. Touche. I'd be more concerned about this in the US with your highly polarized yo-yo politics.
  - shapenamer 3y ago
    Making death threats is already illegal and is not a "hate crime". You're advocating for governments to make more speech illegal, speech that you don't agree with. As far as your government turning to tyranny. I can't think of many governments that turned to tyranny multiple times. They are usually removed, or stay in power. "My government is not currently tyrannical so I'm confident it will stay that way", is a strange way to think if you've read much history, imo.
    - dotandgtfo 3y ago
      >You're advocating for governments to make more speech illegal Yes, and I'm arguing for stricter enforcement of current laws around these topics. I'm not saying that people can't discuss immigration policy. I'm saying that people shouldn't discuss immigration policy through inciting to violence and racism. And I'm saying that Elon Musk is absolutely the last person I'd want to be the arbiter of what speech is legal or not. Yes, the Norwegian government has some not so great history of discriminating against the native population hundreds of years ago, the Roma people last century, LGB people ~30 years ago and most recently drug users. But thinking that "Because there's always a slim chance my government can go rogue we should minimise its power" is a strange and uniquely American way of thinking by the way. My views are not uncommon in Europe. But they are at odds with the US/Libertarian slant you find here.
      - shapenamer 3y ago
caeril 3y ago
> these kind of interventions on large scale social media networks are positive in my mind. I have an earnest and legitimate question for you and everyone else of this mindset: Do you believe that these social networks, the media, and the government will always be on the right side of history? I don't really understand being a proponent of arrogating this enormous control of communications if there is a nonzero chance that the bad guys will be defining the terms of service ten or more years down the road. Do you guys who advocate for this really believe that the risk of, for example, a Christian revival is precisely zero? That control of this apparatus would literally never shift, and the speech of your LGBTQ friends would never be brutally repressed by it? That's the only thing I can possibly see as justification for being a proponent of building and normalizing the use of a censorship machine: the solid, perfect, unshakable, 100% conviction that the bad guys would never, ever, get their hands on it. But if that's the mentality, I don't understand, because history does not support this degree of confidence.
- dotandgtfo 3y ago
  > I have an earnest and legitimate question for you and everyone else of this mindset: Do you believe that these social networks, the media, and the government will always be on the right side of history? Yes, I believe the local conditions where I am (Northern Europe and by extension the major powers in the EU) will stay stable enough for the foreseeable future that this will not turn into a 1984 scenario. I also understand why people of the United States may have a different view on this considering the unstable political situation you guys are in. I also want to make it clear that this instability is another argument on why relying on American tech platforms to moderate speech in the EU isn't a great option either. > Do you guys who advocate for this really believe that the risk of, for example, a Christian revival is precisely zero? That control of this apparatus would literally never shift, and the speech of your LGBTQ friends would never be brutally repressed by it? Yes, I do believe that it is exceedingly unlikely in Norway and the EU generally for the foreseeable future. Far less likely than the US at least. I think a major point that you need to understand to empathize with this perspective is that capitalism and technological advance is viewed with considerably less optimism and trust in the EU. Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, Google (Search). All of these companies have a massive impact on the European public sphere. And none of these companies give a shit about the content they are promoting. How many Norwegian speaking moderators does Facebook have? How many Swiss? How many Lithuanian? How many Romanian? I bet way too few, and I bet their policies are more hands-off than hands-on. The more hands-on the more unpopular a platform becomes. I also bet that most moderation decisions are made by algorithms and not humans, which definitively affects speech. While these companies make billions unleashing software that stokes racial and ethnic tensions, polarises, legitimately makes people less informed. Algorithms that structurally amplify the simple, and deprioritise the complex. All in the name of engagement, retention and monetization. The effect these platforms have on Europe is massive, and I have more faith in democratic governments taking some of the reigns on this than the current state of American tech billionaires and board meetings behind closed doors. Americans have essentially accepted that corporations can use the populace as cattle to monetise. The EU has a different view on this. The current state of affairs is worse than the chances of misuse in the future is essentially the argument for moving power to the government or enforcing more controls on the platforms in this case.

shapenamer 3y ago

I'm not European but I find it incredibly bizarre that you would prefer such a thing. The worst Elon Musk can do to you is kick you off his platform. As soon as a government gets involved you're looking at being potentially locked in a cage like an animal for expressing your opinion. They say the people get the government they deserve though.

dotandgtfo 3y ago
If your opinion consists of propagating hate, encouraging hate crimes and sharing death threats online I believe it's in order with a fine and potentially a light prison sentence for repeat offenders, yes. I don't believe that my government will turn to tyranny suddenly when it's generally had a pretty good history of not going off the rails. I don't buy the slippery slope argument/fallacy. >They say the people get the government they deserve though. Touche. I'd be more concerned about this in the US with your highly polarized yo-yo politics.
- shapenamer 3y ago
  Making death threats is already illegal and is not a "hate crime". You're advocating for governments to make more speech illegal, speech that you don't agree with. As far as your government turning to tyranny. I can't think of many governments that turned to tyranny multiple times. They are usually removed, or stay in power. "My government is not currently tyrannical so I'm confident it will stay that way", is a strange way to think if you've read much history, imo.
  - dotandgtfo 3y ago
    >You're advocating for governments to make more speech illegal Yes, and I'm arguing for stricter enforcement of current laws around these topics. I'm not saying that people can't discuss immigration policy. I'm saying that people shouldn't discuss immigration policy through inciting to violence and racism. And I'm saying that Elon Musk is absolutely the last person I'd want to be the arbiter of what speech is legal or not. Yes, the Norwegian government has some not so great history of discriminating against the native population hundreds of years ago, the Roma people last century, LGB people ~30 years ago and most recently drug users. But thinking that "Because there's always a slim chance my government can go rogue we should minimise its power" is a strange and uniquely American way of thinking by the way. My views are not uncommon in Europe. But they are at odds with the US/Libertarian slant you find here.
    - shapenamer 3y ago

caeril 3y ago

> these kind of interventions on large scale social media networks are positive in my mind. I have an earnest and legitimate question for you and everyone else of this mindset: Do you believe that these social networks, the media, and the government will always be on the right side of history? I don't really understand being a proponent of arrogating this enormous control of communications if there is a nonzero chance that the bad guys will be defining the terms of service ten or more years down the road. Do you guys who advocate for this really believe that the risk of, for example, a Christian revival is precisely zero? That control of this apparatus would literally never shift, and the speech of your LGBTQ friends would never be brutally repressed by it? That's the only thing I can possibly see as justification for being a proponent of building and normalizing the use of a censorship machine: the solid, perfect, unshakable, 100% conviction that the bad guys would never, ever, get their hands on it. But if that's the mentality, I don't understand, because history does not support this degree of confidence.

dotandgtfo 3y ago
> I have an earnest and legitimate question for you and everyone else of this mindset: Do you believe that these social networks, the media, and the government will always be on the right side of history? Yes, I believe the local conditions where I am (Northern Europe and by extension the major powers in the EU) will stay stable enough for the foreseeable future that this will not turn into a 1984 scenario. I also understand why people of the United States may have a different view on this considering the unstable political situation you guys are in. I also want to make it clear that this instability is another argument on why relying on American tech platforms to moderate speech in the EU isn't a great option either. > Do you guys who advocate for this really believe that the risk of, for example, a Christian revival is precisely zero? That control of this apparatus would literally never shift, and the speech of your LGBTQ friends would never be brutally repressed by it? Yes, I do believe that it is exceedingly unlikely in Norway and the EU generally for the foreseeable future. Far less likely than the US at least. I think a major point that you need to understand to empathize with this perspective is that capitalism and technological advance is viewed with considerably less optimism and trust in the EU. Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, Google (Search). All of these companies have a massive impact on the European public sphere. And none of these companies give a shit about the content they are promoting. How many Norwegian speaking moderators does Facebook have? How many Swiss? How many Lithuanian? How many Romanian? I bet way too few, and I bet their policies are more hands-off than hands-on. The more hands-on the more unpopular a platform becomes. I also bet that most moderation decisions are made by algorithms and not humans, which definitively affects speech. While these companies make billions unleashing software that stokes racial and ethnic tensions, polarises, legitimately makes people less informed. Algorithms that structurally amplify the simple, and deprioritise the complex. All in the name of engagement, retention and monetization. The effect these platforms have on Europe is massive, and I have more faith in democratic governments taking some of the reigns on this than the current state of American tech billionaires and board meetings behind closed doors. Americans have essentially accepted that corporations can use the populace as cattle to monetise. The EU has a different view on this. The current state of affairs is worse than the chances of misuse in the future is essentially the argument for moving power to the government or enforcing more controls on the platforms in this case.