3 ms·
Having social media companies attempting to guess at the intention behind ambiguous phrases seems like a bad idea. Some people are certainly implying support f
by danenania 3y ago
Having social media companies attempting to guess at the intention behind ambiguous phrases seems like a bad idea.
Some people are certainly implying support for genocide when they say "from the river to the sea", while others are not. Same for "Greater Israel".
The only sane place to draw the line imo is at explicit support for hatred or violence. Even that standard can be fuzzy, but if there's a reasonable doubt about intent, I don't think we want corporations or governments making those judgments.
- faeriechangling 3y agoModeration isn’t so clean-cut that elegant rules like “no EXPLICIT support”. You’ll have people who spend all day ducking around these rules to say IMPLICITLY hateful things and it’ll cause a furor over legitimate grievances with the moderation. I recall back during the furor over drawing Mohammad peoppe an extremist Muslim group said about Matt stone/trey Parker that they "will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh". Is allowing that sort of speech, what appears to be a death threat in response to free expression, protecting free speech? Or is it enabling a culture of self-censorship due to fears of violent reprisals? Things are complicated, you must be flexible. In this case, I want to be reasonable. I have heard people use “from the river to the sea” in hateful ways many times. People seem legitimately upset by it and are not just putting on airs. It doesn’t advance the discourse in a productive way.
- smsm42 3y ago[flagged]