3 ms·

So does Google, Facebook, Tumblr, Cloudflare, GoDaddy, and Dreamhost. Should we stop linking to all information on all of these platforms because some of the i

by sneak 3y ago

So does Google, Facebook, Tumblr, Cloudflare, GoDaddy, and Dreamhost. Should we stop linking to all information on all of these platforms because some of the information is undesirable to some people? Do you allow others to poison your well like that? If so, that strikes me as easily exploitable. Also, the idea that this sort of content is inherently dangerous doesn’t hold water. I’m not going to become a white supremacist because Twitter showed me a racist tweet. Information and ideology is not inherently dangerous.

mschuster91 3y ago
> Also, the idea that this sort of content is inherently dangerous doesn’t hold water. I’m not going to become a white supremacist because Twitter showed me a racist tweet. Information and ideology is not inherently dangerous. There's been enough work that suggests a close link between exposure to propaganda and getting funneled in to increasingly more radical material, e.g. [1]. Particularly regarding Twitter, it's noticeable that it's not just one racist tweet that gets shown to you when you deliberately click on one - the space below will be filled with similar kind of content, and you can see a marked increase of far-right crap on your algorithmic timeline as well, with every little interaction you have with far-right content. It was bad before Musk, but since his takeover it's gotten really really bad. [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/29/276000/a-study-of-youtube-comments-shows-how-its-turning-people-onto-the-alt-right/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/29/276000/a-study-o...
- sneak 3y ago
  Your link mentions YouTube. Under your logic, should we also stop using YouTube because its recommendations will radicalize us? This line of thinking doesn’t make sense to me. Furthermore, bad ideology and its ideologues won’t go away simply because we individually stop looking at them. I quit Twitter after 12 years when they started censoring the site search. I was trying to research QAnon wackos and it turns out that the search box had been neutered. It’s one thing to tell people what they can post, it’s another to tell me what I’m not allowed to read (that is allowed to be posted). Fuck censorship.
- neglesaks 3y ago
  [dead]
- madamelic 3y ago
  > you can see a marked increase of far-right crap on your algorithmic timeline as well, with every little interaction you have with far-right content. And? I trust people to be intelligent enough to make their own decisions. If seeing an incredibly (or even mildly) racist tweet suddenly makes them proverbially goose-step around their home, they already were going to. One, ten, or hundred posts won't make them racist unless they were already predisposed to those ideas. In a healthy mind, viewing alternative views may broaden their view which might include disagreeing with their previous opinions. If viewing a gay marriage doesn't make you gay, neither does seeing someone complain about other races or LGBT people. I am on 'your' side politically but the opinion that all conservative opinion should be extinguished or somehow that it is inherently harmful because you disagree with is just as bad as conservatives saying the same about your opinion. There is no harm in reading and understanding other's opinions. All sides need to understand that. It only crosses into the need for 'deplatforming' when they are making implicit or explicit threats against a person or a group of people. "I think <x> race is less likely to be successful due to <x, y, z>" is not a bad opinion. It may be wrong, but it isn't hurtful beyond maybe to someone who is too sensitive. "I think <x> race should be exterminated" is beyond the line and shouldn't be allowed to be posted publicly.
  - logicalmonster 3y ago
    > If viewing a gay marriage doesn't make you gay, neither does seeing someone complain about other races or LGBT people. This is a great line that probably pisses off almost everybody. Love it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
chimprich 3y ago
> So does Google, Facebook, Tumblr, Cloudflare, GoDaddy, and Dreamhost. Those are all very different things. Only Facebook is somewhat similar in that it has an algorithm that surfaces emotionally engaging content. > I’m not going to become a white supremacist because Twitter showed me a racist tweet. How about if it showed you 50 racist tweets? If repetition and exposure didn't have any effect on our behaviour then there would be no advertising market and no one would bother to spend vast sums on political campaigning. > Information and ideology is not inherently dangerous. How about misinformation? As an example, I'd say the rise in anti-vaccination activity is an example of inherently dangerous information that has been spread primarily through social media.
- sneak 3y ago
  Neither is misinformation inherently dangerous. There are 400,000 churches in the US and every year fewer people identify as religious.
- neglesaks 3y ago
  [dead]
yareal 3y ago
[dead]
bsder 3y ago
> So does Google, Facebook, Tumblr, Cloudflare, GoDaddy, and Dreamhost. That is intentionally and maliciously obfuscating the issue by equating social media (Google, Facebook, Tumblr) with infrastructure hosting (Cloudflare, GoDaddy, and Dreamhost). Those two types of companies are very different and should be regulated very differently. > Should we stop linking to all information on all of these platforms because some of the information is undesirable to some people? Um, yes? Links to social media vaporize regularly. If it isn't worth the effort to pull and host onto a less ephemeral medium, was it really worth sharing at all?

by sneak 3y ago

mschuster91 3y ago

> Also, the idea that this sort of content is inherently dangerous doesn’t hold water. I’m not going to become a white supremacist because Twitter showed me a racist tweet. Information and ideology is not inherently dangerous. There's been enough work that suggests a close link between exposure to propaganda and getting funneled in to increasingly more radical material, e.g. [1]. Particularly regarding Twitter, it's noticeable that it's not just one racist tweet that gets shown to you when you deliberately click on one - the space below will be filled with similar kind of content, and you can see a marked increase of far-right crap on your algorithmic timeline as well, with every little interaction you have with far-right content. It was bad before Musk, but since his takeover it's gotten really really bad. [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/29/276000/a-study-of-youtube-comments-shows-how-its-turning-people-onto-the-alt-right/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/29/276000/a-study-o...

sneak 3y ago
Your link mentions YouTube. Under your logic, should we also stop using YouTube because its recommendations will radicalize us? This line of thinking doesn’t make sense to me. Furthermore, bad ideology and its ideologues won’t go away simply because we individually stop looking at them. I quit Twitter after 12 years when they started censoring the site search. I was trying to research QAnon wackos and it turns out that the search box had been neutered. It’s one thing to tell people what they can post, it’s another to tell me what I’m not allowed to read (that is allowed to be posted). Fuck censorship.
neglesaks 3y ago
[dead]
madamelic 3y ago
> you can see a marked increase of far-right crap on your algorithmic timeline as well, with every little interaction you have with far-right content. And? I trust people to be intelligent enough to make their own decisions. If seeing an incredibly (or even mildly) racist tweet suddenly makes them proverbially goose-step around their home, they already were going to. One, ten, or hundred posts won't make them racist unless they were already predisposed to those ideas. In a healthy mind, viewing alternative views may broaden their view which might include disagreeing with their previous opinions. If viewing a gay marriage doesn't make you gay, neither does seeing someone complain about other races or LGBT people. I am on 'your' side politically but the opinion that all conservative opinion should be extinguished or somehow that it is inherently harmful because you disagree with is just as bad as conservatives saying the same about your opinion. There is no harm in reading and understanding other's opinions. All sides need to understand that. It only crosses into the need for 'deplatforming' when they are making implicit or explicit threats against a person or a group of people. "I think <x> race is less likely to be successful due to <x, y, z>" is not a bad opinion. It may be wrong, but it isn't hurtful beyond maybe to someone who is too sensitive. "I think <x> race should be exterminated" is beyond the line and shouldn't be allowed to be posted publicly.
- logicalmonster 3y ago
  > If viewing a gay marriage doesn't make you gay, neither does seeing someone complain about other races or LGBT people. This is a great line that probably pisses off almost everybody. Love it.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

chimprich 3y ago

> So does Google, Facebook, Tumblr, Cloudflare, GoDaddy, and Dreamhost. Those are all very different things. Only Facebook is somewhat similar in that it has an algorithm that surfaces emotionally engaging content. > I’m not going to become a white supremacist because Twitter showed me a racist tweet. How about if it showed you 50 racist tweets? If repetition and exposure didn't have any effect on our behaviour then there would be no advertising market and no one would bother to spend vast sums on political campaigning. > Information and ideology is not inherently dangerous. How about misinformation? As an example, I'd say the rise in anti-vaccination activity is an example of inherently dangerous information that has been spread primarily through social media.

sneak 3y ago
Neither is misinformation inherently dangerous. There are 400,000 churches in the US and every year fewer people identify as religious.
neglesaks 3y ago
[dead]

yareal 3y ago

[dead]

bsder 3y ago

> So does Google, Facebook, Tumblr, Cloudflare, GoDaddy, and Dreamhost. That is intentionally and maliciously obfuscating the issue by equating social media (Google, Facebook, Tumblr) with infrastructure hosting (Cloudflare, GoDaddy, and Dreamhost). Those two types of companies are very different and should be regulated very differently. > Should we stop linking to all information on all of these platforms because some of the information is undesirable to some people? Um, yes? Links to social media vaporize regularly. If it isn't worth the effort to pull and host onto a less ephemeral medium, was it really worth sharing at all?