4 ms·

Another term for moderation is censorship. Something that has been well demonstrated in existing social networks. but as long as whatever is a node in BlueSky

Another term for moderation is censorship. Something that has been well demonstrated in existing social networks. but as long as whatever is a node in BlueSky is of limited reach / users then it is not much of a problem. I do see this creating a lot more safe spaces/ echo chambers and even more olarization for all forms of opinions, both politically correct and politically incorrect, unless the company enforces one side of the other in a specific way.

baq 3y ago
[flagged]
- frereubu 3y ago
  Although GP's comment feels like needless semantic nickpicking, what you've said isn't true: "Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship Essentially, any organisation can have a "censor".
- snapcaster 3y ago
  Not correct in any sense (reference a dictionary) but why would you even want to define it narrowly like this?
  - baq 3y ago
    I briefly lived in a country with censorship and the difference is substantial. A corporation can't put you in jail for writing bad things about it.
  - owisd 3y ago
    Seems obvious that we would want a way to distinguish speech that is completely suppressed for all platforms vs speech that’s outside of the parameters of what’s expected on a particular platform but that you’re free to conduct elsewhere. If I can’t publish a paper on cell microbiology in a computer science journal it seems unhelpful to lump that in the same category as Putin arresting people in Russia for reporting on the war in Ukraine. I guess ironically some of the people trying to equate the two are doing so to suppress discussion of moderation by shouting it down as censorship.
    - welshwelsh 3y ago
      You make a good point about on-topic moderation. But I think this misses something. Rejecting a cell microbiology paper from a computer science journal is not an attempt to suppress the paper. If anything, it is of benefit to the paper, since publishing it in the correct journal will increase it's visibility to the relevant audiences. In contrast, content moderation, particularly in political subreddits is often motivated by tribalism and a desire to suppress particular viewpoints. It's true that these people could just go to another subreddit, but by the same logic reporters in Russia could just go to another country. The effect of this type of moderation is that it creates tribes or "communities" of people who have similar opinions and never encounter opposing viewpoints. Moderating based on topic is different than censorship based on viewpoint. If an argument is allowed but it's counterargument is not, that's censorship, not moderation.
      - owisd 3y ago
        I agree tribal echo chambers is more of a problem than moderating to keep conversation on topic, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it was censorship because the people in these echo chambers still have access to opposing viewpoints if they choose to go looking for them. This contrasts with journalists in Russia “just going to another country”, their views still won’t be available to their intended audience.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  That isn't the distinction between censorship and moderation [1]. Censorship is the removal or blocking of speech, moderation is a broader term that can include practices like flagging content without removing or hiding it completely. The state actor distinction in the US is only important when deciding if a party is bound by the First Amendment. My speech is protected from government censorship, not from censorship by a private company. [1] https://publicknowledge.org/content-moderation-is-not-synonymous-with-censorship/ https://publicknowledge.org/content-moderation-is-not-synony...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
FireInsight 3y ago
Another term for no moderation is rampant abuse.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  That's only true if much of the content posted is deemed abusive. A better synonymous term would be free speech absolutism.
alkonaut 3y ago
The discussion of moderation always falls into the pit of discussion echo chambers. And while that's a problem, it's perhaps better to keep it first on the topic of objective abuse moderation (basically: how to prevent 99% of content from being spam that no human user wants). Since that has to be solved regardless of whether there is any further moderation beyond that, the moderation discussion can be about that first. There is no echo chamber created by removing botspam. Next, you can have moderation that is strictly legal. Basically how do you moderate things that courts are finding illegal. How do you reconcile that courts in different jurisdictions can disagree and so on. Finally - and optionally - comes the step of moderating for bad behavior, disinformation and so on. That is, human behavior that has a negative impact but falls short of being obviously illegal. And that's a difficult topic, as we have seen with facebook/twitter and elections for example. But it's important to remember that moderation isn't just this. By volume, the kind mentioned in the first paragraph is far larger.

baq 3y ago

[flagged]

frereubu 3y ago
Although GP's comment feels like needless semantic nickpicking, what you've said isn't true: "Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship Essentially, any organisation can have a "censor".
snapcaster 3y ago
Not correct in any sense (reference a dictionary) but why would you even want to define it narrowly like this?
- baq 3y ago
  I briefly lived in a country with censorship and the difference is substantial. A corporation can't put you in jail for writing bad things about it.
- owisd 3y ago
  Seems obvious that we would want a way to distinguish speech that is completely suppressed for all platforms vs speech that’s outside of the parameters of what’s expected on a particular platform but that you’re free to conduct elsewhere. If I can’t publish a paper on cell microbiology in a computer science journal it seems unhelpful to lump that in the same category as Putin arresting people in Russia for reporting on the war in Ukraine. I guess ironically some of the people trying to equate the two are doing so to suppress discussion of moderation by shouting it down as censorship.
  - welshwelsh 3y ago
    You make a good point about on-topic moderation. But I think this misses something. Rejecting a cell microbiology paper from a computer science journal is not an attempt to suppress the paper. If anything, it is of benefit to the paper, since publishing it in the correct journal will increase it's visibility to the relevant audiences. In contrast, content moderation, particularly in political subreddits is often motivated by tribalism and a desire to suppress particular viewpoints. It's true that these people could just go to another subreddit, but by the same logic reporters in Russia could just go to another country. The effect of this type of moderation is that it creates tribes or "communities" of people who have similar opinions and never encounter opposing viewpoints. Moderating based on topic is different than censorship based on viewpoint. If an argument is allowed but it's counterargument is not, that's censorship, not moderation.
    - owisd 3y ago
      I agree tribal echo chambers is more of a problem than moderating to keep conversation on topic, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it was censorship because the people in these echo chambers still have access to opposing viewpoints if they choose to go looking for them. This contrasts with journalists in Russia “just going to another country”, their views still won’t be available to their intended audience.
_heimdall 3y ago
That isn't the distinction between censorship and moderation [1]. Censorship is the removal or blocking of speech, moderation is a broader term that can include practices like flagging content without removing or hiding it completely. The state actor distinction in the US is only important when deciding if a party is bound by the First Amendment. My speech is protected from government censorship, not from censorship by a private company. [1] https://publicknowledge.org/content-moderation-is-not-synonymous-with-censorship/ https://publicknowledge.org/content-moderation-is-not-synony...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

FireInsight 3y ago

Another term for no moderation is rampant abuse.

_heimdall 3y ago
That's only true if much of the content posted is deemed abusive. A better synonymous term would be free speech absolutism.

alkonaut 3y ago

The discussion of moderation always falls into the pit of discussion echo chambers. And while that's a problem, it's perhaps better to keep it first on the topic of objective abuse moderation (basically: how to prevent 99% of content from being spam that no human user wants). Since that has to be solved regardless of whether there is any further moderation beyond that, the moderation discussion can be about that first. There is no echo chamber created by removing botspam. Next, you can have moderation that is strictly legal. Basically how do you moderate things that courts are finding illegal. How do you reconcile that courts in different jurisdictions can disagree and so on. Finally - and optionally - comes the step of moderating for bad behavior, disinformation and so on. That is, human behavior that has a negative impact but falls short of being obviously illegal. And that's a difficult topic, as we have seen with facebook/twitter and elections for example. But it's important to remember that moderation isn't just this. By volume, the kind mentioned in the first paragraph is far larger.