3 ms·

Uhm, did it say somewhere in the declaration that disagreement was not allowed? > we need to use judgment Who's 'we' in this case?

by ertian 3y ago

digging 3y ago
> Who's 'we' in this case? Today: Corporate overlords, which is Bad. That's why I don't propose that there is a solution-in-isolation to improper censorship. It can only work in a holistic approach to greater transparency and respect within our society and on our tech platforms for discourse. Getting rid of speech restraints entirely (a solution-in-isolation) just results in a different, implicit censorship, where marginalized voices self-censor because they are afraid. So, in other words, it's not really a solution that leads to a better world, it's just an alternative Bad Situation to the one we're in now. It's easy for people to think it's a solution because it's simplistic and because it is extreme, which means it aligns with an ideal that people hold, and everyone believes their ideals are sustainable if implemented to the extreme (yes yes even me etc) edit: and, yeah, my quip above was kind of stupid.
- ertian 3y ago
  > where marginalized voices self-censor because they are afraid. I just read an article the other day saying that the majority of Americans don't feel comfortable stating their opinions in public. For university students the number was quite a bit higher (I wanna say 65%). If self-censorship is a problem, then it's one we should be confronting now, not just worrying about in hypothetical futures. I agree with you that the solution is...well, more sophisticated and self-moderating systems. I was going to say 'more sophisticated censorship', but actually I think that should be a last resort. The single biggest part of the problem, I think, is the incentives facing media, tech, and news companies. Social media companies have every incentive to drive engagement, which often means promoting the most controversial posts and people. Then media & news companies are incentivized to report on or debate with those posts & people in order to generate clicks and ad views, which raises their profile still further. The result is that we all see the worst (or at least, most extreme) behavior and opinions on the other side. This makes our opponents into a caricature, while at the same time we end up adopting and defending the extremists on our own side. Being constantly exposed to the nuts on the far side leads to the belief that censorship is good and necessary. If we just aligned the incentives for the health and benefit of the readers, the crazies would sink to the bottom and be forgotten. That's hard to do, but I'm holding out some hope for federated social media. Of course...that still leaves news & media companies.
  - digging 3y ago
    > I just read an article the other day saying that the majority of Americans don't feel comfortable stating their opinions in public. Sure but I am not necessarily concerned about all of those people. For example, I think the majority of Americans still don't believe in systemic racism. Like they don't believe it exists. If they're afraid to share such anti-scientific beliefs in public, then I consider that a good start.

Uhm, did it say somewhere in the declaration that disagreement was not allowed? > we need to use judgment Who's 'we' in this case?

by ertian 3y ago

Uhm, did it say somewhere in the declaration that disagreement was not allowed? > we need to use judgment Who's 'we' in this case?

digging 3y ago

> Who's 'we' in this case? Today: Corporate overlords, which is Bad. That's why I don't propose that there is a solution-in-isolation to improper censorship. It can only work in a holistic approach to greater transparency and respect within our society and on our tech platforms for discourse. Getting rid of speech restraints entirely (a solution-in-isolation) just results in a different, implicit censorship, where marginalized voices self-censor because they are afraid. So, in other words, it's not really a solution that leads to a better world, it's just an alternative Bad Situation to the one we're in now. It's easy for people to think it's a solution because it's simplistic and because it is extreme, which means it aligns with an ideal that people hold, and everyone believes their ideals are sustainable if implemented to the extreme (yes yes even me etc) edit: and, yeah, my quip above was kind of stupid.

ertian 3y ago
> where marginalized voices self-censor because they are afraid. I just read an article the other day saying that the majority of Americans don't feel comfortable stating their opinions in public. For university students the number was quite a bit higher (I wanna say 65%). If self-censorship is a problem, then it's one we should be confronting now, not just worrying about in hypothetical futures. I agree with you that the solution is...well, more sophisticated and self-moderating systems. I was going to say 'more sophisticated censorship', but actually I think that should be a last resort. The single biggest part of the problem, I think, is the incentives facing media, tech, and news companies. Social media companies have every incentive to drive engagement, which often means promoting the most controversial posts and people. Then media & news companies are incentivized to report on or debate with those posts & people in order to generate clicks and ad views, which raises their profile still further. The result is that we all see the worst (or at least, most extreme) behavior and opinions on the other side. This makes our opponents into a caricature, while at the same time we end up adopting and defending the extremists on our own side. Being constantly exposed to the nuts on the far side leads to the belief that censorship is good and necessary. If we just aligned the incentives for the health and benefit of the readers, the crazies would sink to the bottom and be forgotten. That's hard to do, but I'm holding out some hope for federated social media. Of course...that still leaves news & media companies.
- digging 3y ago
  > I just read an article the other day saying that the majority of Americans don't feel comfortable stating their opinions in public. Sure but I am not necessarily concerned about all of those people. For example, I think the majority of Americans still don't believe in systemic racism. Like they don't believe it exists. If they're afraid to share such anti-scientific beliefs in public, then I consider that a good start.