3 ms·

After reading on /pol/ horrible takes on Jewish slurs, and horrible takes on BiPOC folk, and horrible takes on homosexuals.... And it's the 1st post... Yeah th

by pierat 3y ago

After reading on /pol/ horrible takes on Jewish slurs, and horrible takes on BiPOC folk, and horrible takes on homosexuals.... And it's the 1st post... Yeah that's going to end badly.

whatshisface 3y ago
The OP's point is that since the case hinges on the question of whether social media platforms are "mere messageboards," or if they are, "products," the presence of hate content (like you'd find inside the telephone switching network) and the absence of any kind of algorithmic management is helpful to Nishimura, while the complex recommendation systems on YouTube will serve as an obstacle for that defendant.
- pierat 3y ago
  So there definitely IS algorimithic removers and such. The difference is that posts don't even make it past the gate if they get blocked. And certain content is also ban-worthy. Again, they very much do censor stuff. You just don't see the censoring.
  - xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
    Moderation as censorship typically does not cater to, or curate content for, distinct individual users, let alone audience groups. There are of course exceptions but this is about a different extreme. This all started with ads. Now all content is an ad, so that you can be served more ads. It's ingenious but also evil.
brickteacup 3y ago
hate speech is still protected speech
- pierat 3y ago
  Threatening to "go kill ni**ers for a high score" is likely illegal. That shits on /pol/ right now, and is the root of supporting extremism to the point of violence and murder. And last I checked, making death threats is explicitly not protected speech.
  - samatman 3y ago
    In the US? It absolutely is protected speech. Your test sentence fails the Brandenburg test: it is not "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action", nor "likely to incite or produce such action." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test
  - tekla 3y ago
    Thankfully, the US system does not agree with you.
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    True threats are illegal. However, "go kill ni*ers for a high score" is not only not a true threat, it's the kind of speech that Brandenburg v Ohio, which established the current incitement-to-imminent-lawless-action test, explicitly said was 100% protected free speech. Pretty much anything less than leading a mob and telling them who is their next lynching target will be ruled protected speech.

by pierat 3y ago

After reading on /pol/ horrible takes on Jewish slurs, and horrible takes on BiPOC folk, and horrible takes on homosexuals.... And it's the 1st post... Yeah that's going to end badly.

whatshisface 3y ago

The OP's point is that since the case hinges on the question of whether social media platforms are "mere messageboards," or if they are, "products," the presence of hate content (like you'd find inside the telephone switching network) and the absence of any kind of algorithmic management is helpful to Nishimura, while the complex recommendation systems on YouTube will serve as an obstacle for that defendant.

pierat 3y ago
So there definitely IS algorimithic removers and such. The difference is that posts don't even make it past the gate if they get blocked. And certain content is also ban-worthy. Again, they very much do censor stuff. You just don't see the censoring.
- xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
  Moderation as censorship typically does not cater to, or curate content for, distinct individual users, let alone audience groups. There are of course exceptions but this is about a different extreme. This all started with ads. Now all content is an ad, so that you can be served more ads. It's ingenious but also evil.

brickteacup 3y ago

hate speech is still protected speech

pierat 3y ago
Threatening to "go kill ni**ers for a high score" is likely illegal. That shits on /pol/ right now, and is the root of supporting extremism to the point of violence and murder. And last I checked, making death threats is explicitly not protected speech.
- samatman 3y ago
  In the US? It absolutely is protected speech. Your test sentence fails the Brandenburg test: it is not "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action", nor "likely to incite or produce such action." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test
- tekla 3y ago
  Thankfully, the US system does not agree with you.
- jcranmer 3y ago
  True threats are illegal. However, "go kill ni*ers for a high score" is not only not a true threat, it's the kind of speech that Brandenburg v Ohio, which established the current incitement-to-imminent-lawless-action test, explicitly said was 100% protected free speech. Pretty much anything less than leading a mob and telling them who is their next lynching target will be ruled protected speech.