3 ms·
No it’s not. More moderation, more false positives, less free speech. Just having ‘moderation’ means the speech is not ‘free’.
by jrvarela56 2y ago
No it’s not. More moderation, more false positives, less free speech.
Just having ‘moderation’ means the speech is not ‘free’.
- linotype 2y agoMost people would be OK with suppressing CSAM. At least I hope most people are.
- erulabs 2y ago[flagged]
- DrillShopper 2y ago[flagged]
- erulabs 2y agoNaive? Or a liar?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- almatabata 2y ago> I am very okay with not seeing CSAM, but your argument doesn’t hold water. By this you mean that its very easy to define a clear set of rules for moderation?
- erulabs 2y agoIn the case of CSAM, yes. In the case of other material? No. Again, I side heavily on the side of freedom of speech, but the argument that limiting speech and limiting some specific kinds of widely condemned speech are orthogonal does not stand up to the most basic scrutiny.
- majorchord 2y agoI don't think it's possible to have a clear set of rules that cannot be interpreted maliciously.
- DrillShopper 2y agoSo if I posted your home address, social security number, bank account and routing numbers, your work address, pictures of you, your spouse, your kids, the schools they go to, your license plate numbers, pictures of your car and its real time location that moderators can't take that down if they believe in free speech? Interesting world we live in then.
- ben_w 2y agoCounterpoint: while True: requests.post(api_url, json={"username": "@jrvarela56", "message": "hello"}) If this was allowed to run without moderation, targeting your account on some social network, it would effectively jam you from receiving any other messages on that network. Moderation is noise reduction, undesirable content (junk mail, male junk, threats, even just uninteresting content) is noise, the stuff you want is signal, usability requires a good signal to noise ratio. Speech can be either signal or noise.