5 ms·

I'm unsure you comprehended what I wrote because your examples prove my point: people are products of their culture. What I'm also saying is that technology is

by hgs3 3y ago

I'm unsure you comprehended what I wrote because your examples prove my point: people are products of their culture. What I'm also saying is that technology is not to blame. Humans have been killing each other since the species inception so to blame "online builtin boards" or Facebook is ridiculous. Trying to curb culture through censorship is lazy. Cultures change on their own, for better or worse, in the absence of censorship. Tyrants love censorship because it superficially offers an immediate solution while further empowering them.

noduerme 3y ago
I think you're intentionally ignoring the fact that Facebook is not a "technology", it is a private company that uses a public technology, and makes a profit on every message it amplifies and every datum it aggregates over what would otherwise be unobstructed lines of communication. "Culture" is not Facebook, and holding a message-bearer responsible for the open messages they choose to broadcast and re-broadcast is not the same thing as censorship; and neither of those are tantamount to stifling technological progress. Facebook didn't just pop into existence as some magical technology or culture, it simply is a corporation that rides on top of infrastructure that it doesn't have any control over. Its only purpose is to take what one person says and show it to other people it thinks want to hear that message. It's not novel in any way, but it is a publisher and as such, should be beholden to the same rules of truth - and responsible for the messages it rebroadcasts. It is not censorship when a party sues another party for libel. It's not censorship when promoters of genocide are tried for aiding and abetting genocide. You don't understand what censorship is.
- hgs3 3y ago
  I have not conflated censorship and libel. The article this topic links to is about moderation and I disagree with silencing speech. There is no need for the uncharitable interpretation. The Facebook staff do not sit around picking and choosing which messages they'll broadcast, nor should they. If you find a message disagreeable, then be upset with the one who wrote it. Do not shoot the messenger [1]. I would like real change to come about as a result of a well educated society, not by silencing speech, blaming technology or the messenger. Respectfully, your contrived examples of genocide and Nazi's read as ramblings. Please logically and concisely make your points without invoking Godwin's law [2] or the spiritual equivalent. If you disagree with my perspective, then that's fine. We'll have to agree to disagree. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
  - Devasta 3y ago
    Facebook has armies of employees tweaking algorithms to determine what should and shouldn't be broadcasted, it's bizarre to suggest otherwise. At one stage they weighted angry responses to a post as being worth five times more than a like, which is why FB is filled with so many deranged anger addicts, fertile ground for far right actors like Matt Walsh. Their examples aren't contrived, you just lack the fortitude to admit your views have no grounding in reality.
    - hgs3 3y ago
      Algorithms are not a substitute for a human and Facebook is not the only means of broadcasting messages. If there is a problem, then address the root cause: ask why someone felt compelled to write hate. Every person with Internet access should have equal access to its wealth of information. Why do some people spend their time on Facebook becoming "deranged anger addicts" instead of educating themselves on Khan Academy? Also, assuming what I think ("I bet when you see ...") and attacking me personally (questioning my "fortitude") is not a good look. If your points are sound, then let them stand on their own without the personal attacks. Unless I'm mistaken, I think we both want the same end result, but there is a difference in our approach: I'd rather address the root cause (bottom-up) instead of the symptoms working back to the root (top-down). > At one stage they weighted angry responses to a post as being worth five times more than a like ... Do not blame Facebook for this. Ask yourself why they did this. Hint: you've already said the answer, but did not commit.
      - Devasta 3y ago
        They weighted it because Facebook execs wanted engagement, and didn't care what that engagement was. A college friend reaching out after five years? Engagement. Your stacker finding you after years of evading them? Engagement. A daughter wishing her mother a happy birthday? Engagement. Matt Walsh telling his audience that all trans people are inherently vile sexual predators? Engagement. Even if you can reason with individuals, that means nothing on someone like Matt Walshes scale. Even if 98% of people disagree with him, that is still a successful result for him as he has millions of devoted followers who will champion his causes. We very obviously do not want the same results, you are suggesting solutions you know don't work.

by hgs3 3y ago

noduerme 3y ago

I think you're intentionally ignoring the fact that Facebook is not a "technology", it is a private company that uses a public technology, and makes a profit on every message it amplifies and every datum it aggregates over what would otherwise be unobstructed lines of communication. "Culture" is not Facebook, and holding a message-bearer responsible for the open messages they choose to broadcast and re-broadcast is not the same thing as censorship; and neither of those are tantamount to stifling technological progress. Facebook didn't just pop into existence as some magical technology or culture, it simply is a corporation that rides on top of infrastructure that it doesn't have any control over. Its only purpose is to take what one person says and show it to other people it thinks want to hear that message. It's not novel in any way, but it is a publisher and as such, should be beholden to the same rules of truth - and responsible for the messages it rebroadcasts. It is not censorship when a party sues another party for libel. It's not censorship when promoters of genocide are tried for aiding and abetting genocide. You don't understand what censorship is.

hgs3 3y ago
I have not conflated censorship and libel. The article this topic links to is about moderation and I disagree with silencing speech. There is no need for the uncharitable interpretation. The Facebook staff do not sit around picking and choosing which messages they'll broadcast, nor should they. If you find a message disagreeable, then be upset with the one who wrote it. Do not shoot the messenger [1]. I would like real change to come about as a result of a well educated society, not by silencing speech, blaming technology or the messenger. Respectfully, your contrived examples of genocide and Nazi's read as ramblings. Please logically and concisely make your points without invoking Godwin's law [2] or the spiritual equivalent. If you disagree with my perspective, then that's fine. We'll have to agree to disagree. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
- Devasta 3y ago
  Facebook has armies of employees tweaking algorithms to determine what should and shouldn't be broadcasted, it's bizarre to suggest otherwise. At one stage they weighted angry responses to a post as being worth five times more than a like, which is why FB is filled with so many deranged anger addicts, fertile ground for far right actors like Matt Walsh. Their examples aren't contrived, you just lack the fortitude to admit your views have no grounding in reality.
  - hgs3 3y ago
    Algorithms are not a substitute for a human and Facebook is not the only means of broadcasting messages. If there is a problem, then address the root cause: ask why someone felt compelled to write hate. Every person with Internet access should have equal access to its wealth of information. Why do some people spend their time on Facebook becoming "deranged anger addicts" instead of educating themselves on Khan Academy? Also, assuming what I think ("I bet when you see ...") and attacking me personally (questioning my "fortitude") is not a good look. If your points are sound, then let them stand on their own without the personal attacks. Unless I'm mistaken, I think we both want the same end result, but there is a difference in our approach: I'd rather address the root cause (bottom-up) instead of the symptoms working back to the root (top-down). > At one stage they weighted angry responses to a post as being worth five times more than a like ... Do not blame Facebook for this. Ask yourself why they did this. Hint: you've already said the answer, but did not commit.
    - Devasta 3y ago
      They weighted it because Facebook execs wanted engagement, and didn't care what that engagement was. A college friend reaching out after five years? Engagement. Your stacker finding you after years of evading them? Engagement. A daughter wishing her mother a happy birthday? Engagement. Matt Walsh telling his audience that all trans people are inherently vile sexual predators? Engagement. Even if you can reason with individuals, that means nothing on someone like Matt Walshes scale. Even if 98% of people disagree with him, that is still a successful result for him as he has millions of devoted followers who will champion his causes. We very obviously do not want the same results, you are suggesting solutions you know don't work.