5 ms·

> People, and particularly advertisers, wanted a curated environment Then give the choice to the user. If a user wants to opt in, or change their moderation p

by stale2002 2y ago

> People, and particularly advertisers, wanted a curated environment Then give the choice to the user. If a user wants to opt in, or change their moderation preferences then they should be allowed. By all means offer a choice of moderation decisions. And let the user change them, opt out conditionally and ignore them if they so choose.

cbsmith 2y ago
You say that like that choice doesn't exist.
- stale2002 2y ago
  > You say that like that choice doesn't exist. You said this: "People, and particularly advertisers, wanted a curated environment." If moderation choices are put in the hands of the user, then what you are describing is not a problem, as the user can have that. Therefore, you saying that this choice exists, means that there isn't a problem for anyone who chooses to not have the spam, and your original complaint is refuted.
  - cbsmith 2y ago
    There absolutely can be a problem despite choice existing. I'm not saying otherwise. I'm saying the choice exists. The choices we make are the problem.
    - stale2002 2y ago
      > I'm saying the choice exists. The choices we make are the problem. Well then feel free to choose differently for yourself. Your original statement was this: "People, and particularly advertisers, wanted a curated environment." You referencing what people "want" is directly refuted by the idea that they should be able to choose whatever their preferences are. And your opinion on other people's choices doesn't really matter here.
      - cbsmith 2y ago
        > You referencing what people "want" is directly refuted by the idea that they should be able to choose whatever their preferences are. > > And your opinion on other people's choices doesn't really matter here. I think maybe we're talking past each other. What I'm saying what people "want" is a reflection of the overwhelming choices they make. They're choosing the curated environments. The "problem" that is being referenced is the curation. The claim is that the curation is a problem; my observation is that it is the solution all the parties involved seem to want, because they could, at any time, choose otherwise.
        stale2002 2y ago
        > They're choosing the curated environments Ok, and if more power is given to the user and the user is additionally able to control their current curation, then that's fine and you can continue to have your own curated environment, and other people will also have more or less control over their own curation. Problem solved! You get to keep your curation, and other people can also change the curation on existing platforms for their own feeds. > The claim is that the curation is a problem Nope. Few people have a problem with other people having s choice of curation. Instead the solution that people are advocating for is for more curating powers to be giving to individual users so that they can choose, on current platforms, how much is curated for themselves. Easy solution.
        cbsmith 2y ago
        > Instead the solution that people are advocating for is for more curating powers to be giving to individual users so that they can choose, on current platforms, how much is curated for themselves. When you say "on current platforms", I presume you mean on existing social media. No, that isn't a solution. There's a reason advertising dollars eschew platforms without curation, and they're the one paying for it. Similarly, the people choosing the platform are choosing it because of the curation. If you don't like it, you're going to have to pay for your own platform and convince other people to participate in it. Good luck.
habinero 2y ago
You're free to to make your own site with your own moderation controls. And nobody will use it, because it'll rapidly become 99.999% spam, CSAM and porn.
- stale2002 2y ago
  > You're free Actually it seems like with these recent rulings, we will be free to use major social media platforms where the choice of moderation is given to the user, lest those social media platforms are otherwise held liable for their "speech". I am fully fine with accepting the idea that if a social media platform doesn't act as a dumb pipe, then their choice of moderation is their "speech" as long as they can be held fully legally liable for every single moderation/algorithm choice that they make. Fortunately for me, we are commenting on a post where a legal ruling was made to this effect, and the judge agrees with me that this is how things aught be.

cbsmith 2y ago

You say that like that choice doesn't exist.

stale2002 2y ago
> You say that like that choice doesn't exist. You said this: "People, and particularly advertisers, wanted a curated environment." If moderation choices are put in the hands of the user, then what you are describing is not a problem, as the user can have that. Therefore, you saying that this choice exists, means that there isn't a problem for anyone who chooses to not have the spam, and your original complaint is refuted.
- cbsmith 2y ago
  There absolutely can be a problem despite choice existing. I'm not saying otherwise. I'm saying the choice exists. The choices we make are the problem.
  - stale2002 2y ago
    > I'm saying the choice exists. The choices we make are the problem. Well then feel free to choose differently for yourself. Your original statement was this: "People, and particularly advertisers, wanted a curated environment." You referencing what people "want" is directly refuted by the idea that they should be able to choose whatever their preferences are. And your opinion on other people's choices doesn't really matter here.
    - cbsmith 2y ago
      > You referencing what people "want" is directly refuted by the idea that they should be able to choose whatever their preferences are. > > And your opinion on other people's choices doesn't really matter here. I think maybe we're talking past each other. What I'm saying what people "want" is a reflection of the overwhelming choices they make. They're choosing the curated environments. The "problem" that is being referenced is the curation. The claim is that the curation is a problem; my observation is that it is the solution all the parties involved seem to want, because they could, at any time, choose otherwise.
      - stale2002 2y ago
        > They're choosing the curated environments Ok, and if more power is given to the user and the user is additionally able to control their current curation, then that's fine and you can continue to have your own curated environment, and other people will also have more or less control over their own curation. Problem solved! You get to keep your curation, and other people can also change the curation on existing platforms for their own feeds. > The claim is that the curation is a problem Nope. Few people have a problem with other people having s choice of curation. Instead the solution that people are advocating for is for more curating powers to be giving to individual users so that they can choose, on current platforms, how much is curated for themselves. Easy solution.
        cbsmith 2y ago
        > Instead the solution that people are advocating for is for more curating powers to be giving to individual users so that they can choose, on current platforms, how much is curated for themselves. When you say "on current platforms", I presume you mean on existing social media. No, that isn't a solution. There's a reason advertising dollars eschew platforms without curation, and they're the one paying for it. Similarly, the people choosing the platform are choosing it because of the curation. If you don't like it, you're going to have to pay for your own platform and convince other people to participate in it. Good luck.

habinero 2y ago

You're free to to make your own site with your own moderation controls. And nobody will use it, because it'll rapidly become 99.999% spam, CSAM and porn.

stale2002 2y ago
> You're free Actually it seems like with these recent rulings, we will be free to use major social media platforms where the choice of moderation is given to the user, lest those social media platforms are otherwise held liable for their "speech". I am fully fine with accepting the idea that if a social media platform doesn't act as a dumb pipe, then their choice of moderation is their "speech" as long as they can be held fully legally liable for every single moderation/algorithm choice that they make. Fortunately for me, we are commenting on a post where a legal ruling was made to this effect, and the judge agrees with me that this is how things aught be.