17 ms·

if I invest a lot of money to make a nice forum like HN or a social media site, don't I get to determine the right policies to keep a nice private space? doesn

if I invest a lot of money to make a nice forum like HN or a social media site, don't I get to determine the right policies to keep a nice private space? doesn't it infringe my rights if people use my site and my money to harass people or to spread stuff that is against my economic interest, religion, values, etc. or that I just don't like and didn't intend? if people are going to run around using AI to spread deepfake ragebait memes, shouldn't I get to enforce policies using the same technology they use to pollute the space?

TeMPOraL 3y ago
This feels like a blend of reasonable and bad-faith arguments, like the motte just missing its bailey. Maybe strolling around the latent space would help disentangle mottes and baileys in general discourse. But then I fear it'll only push the conflict to a meta level.
- RockyMcNuts 3y ago
  that feels like obfuscation fallacy, because I have no idea what you are proposing in practice. deciding when free speech crosses a line into a nexus to criminal activity like fraud, libel, conspiracy, incitement, disturbing the peace is hard. deciding when it crosses a line into simply violating community standards designed to further the goals of the community and forum owners, and violates the right or expectation of others for civil discourse is also hard. it's a bias-variance problem, you can ban the n-word but people find other ways to make people unwelcome, a demagogue can say they are just asking questions when they are pretty plainly trying to start a riot and get people harassed and swatted and feel like they will suffer violence if they disagree. I don't see anything inherently wrong with using AI tools to help make decisions like that. all that AI that controls what shows up in your feed is already implicitly doing that. inherently when one guy thinks he's making a stand for free speech, someone else is going to think he's coddling extremists who are strategically flooding the zone with bullshit, driving out civil discourse and worse.

TeMPOraL 3y ago

This feels like a blend of reasonable and bad-faith arguments, like the motte just missing its bailey. Maybe strolling around the latent space would help disentangle mottes and baileys in general discourse. But then I fear it'll only push the conflict to a meta level.

RockyMcNuts 3y ago
that feels like obfuscation fallacy, because I have no idea what you are proposing in practice. deciding when free speech crosses a line into a nexus to criminal activity like fraud, libel, conspiracy, incitement, disturbing the peace is hard. deciding when it crosses a line into simply violating community standards designed to further the goals of the community and forum owners, and violates the right or expectation of others for civil discourse is also hard. it's a bias-variance problem, you can ban the n-word but people find other ways to make people unwelcome, a demagogue can say they are just asking questions when they are pretty plainly trying to start a riot and get people harassed and swatted and feel like they will suffer violence if they disagree. I don't see anything inherently wrong with using AI tools to help make decisions like that. all that AI that controls what shows up in your feed is already implicitly doing that. inherently when one guy thinks he's making a stand for free speech, someone else is going to think he's coddling extremists who are strategically flooding the zone with bullshit, driving out civil discourse and worse.