3 ms·

"What about?"

by piva00 2y ago

"What about?"

inglor_cz 2y ago
The thing is, "deplatforming" is always popular with people as long as the thoughts unpopular among those people are being deplatformed. But once the mechanism for systemic deplatforming has been built, it can be captured by other groups. I suspect that after 15-20 years of the pendulum swinging to a fro, the "freeze peach" crowd may reconsider the value of, again, systemic tolerance.
- piva00 2y ago
  The whole "deplatforming" has always been a stupid whack-a-mole. The core issue is the media itself, social media as it is will always tend to make bullshit spread fast and wild because that's the entire nature of bullshit. It's broken in its core, I don't see any way to patch what social media has developed into. Reactionary ideas are more viral, hatred is more viral, the metric is always "engagement" and there's no primal drive in humans to be more engaged with boring stuff like truthful, nuanced, and commeasured discussion rather than ragebait (on both sides). It feels to me we actually devolved to a world where norms, morals, etc. are defined by amoral virtual entities feeding people with content to make them engage more with the virtual entities... It's fucking dark and absurd the deeper I think about it, we're already being controlled by the machines we created.
mardifoufs 2y ago
Yes, precedent is actually important. Using "whataboutism" because it's a trendy buzzword doesn't make precedent any less important.
- piva00 2y ago
  It's not a buzzword, using the precedent to actually expose how it applies is valid, using whataboutism to deflect from the main point as a red herring is just a fallacy. It creates the false equivalence that because there was censorship against actual harmful speech then it's valid to censor a neutral term like "Democrats", without ever trying to differentiate how the level and degree of what was censored before is quite different from this instance. If you don't see that I'm quite disappointed, whataboutism is a deflection, it's a "you too" argument which is rather pathetic.
  - mardifoufs 2y ago
    Well, it's a matter of what's actually harmful speech. Like I'd agree if it was just hate speech that was getting removed (I agree that there's no equivalence between this and say, removing someone that's spamming the n-word). But that's not the case really. I know it's a dead horse but you had hashtags related to hunter Biden's laptop getting completely hidden, to the point where articles were blacklisted from getting shared. And I'm not even arguing about if the story is true or not, it's just that it objectively wasn't harmful speech in any sense of the word (it was harmful to Democrats but that's it), yet the precedent has been set, with very strong support from the side that's now crying about censorship. Again, this is just an example but that's why setting precedents is dangerous, especially when the tables turn. This isn't coming from a position of support for Trump, quite the opposite.

"What about?"

by piva00 2y ago

"What about?"

The thing is, "deplatforming" is always popular with people as long as the thoughts unpopular among those people are being deplatformed. But once the mechanism for systemic deplatforming has been built, it can be captured by other groups. I suspect that after 15-20 years of the pendulum swinging to a fro, the "freeze peach" crowd may reconsider the value of, again, systemic tolerance.

piva00 2y ago
The whole "deplatforming" has always been a stupid whack-a-mole. The core issue is the media itself, social media as it is will always tend to make bullshit spread fast and wild because that's the entire nature of bullshit. It's broken in its core, I don't see any way to patch what social media has developed into. Reactionary ideas are more viral, hatred is more viral, the metric is always "engagement" and there's no primal drive in humans to be more engaged with boring stuff like truthful, nuanced, and commeasured discussion rather than ragebait (on both sides). It feels to me we actually devolved to a world where norms, morals, etc. are defined by amoral virtual entities feeding people with content to make them engage more with the virtual entities... It's fucking dark and absurd the deeper I think about it, we're already being controlled by the machines we created.

mardifoufs 2y ago

Yes, precedent is actually important. Using "whataboutism" because it's a trendy buzzword doesn't make precedent any less important.

piva00 2y ago
It's not a buzzword, using the precedent to actually expose how it applies is valid, using whataboutism to deflect from the main point as a red herring is just a fallacy. It creates the false equivalence that because there was censorship against actual harmful speech then it's valid to censor a neutral term like "Democrats", without ever trying to differentiate how the level and degree of what was censored before is quite different from this instance. If you don't see that I'm quite disappointed, whataboutism is a deflection, it's a "you too" argument which is rather pathetic.
- mardifoufs 2y ago
  Well, it's a matter of what's actually harmful speech. Like I'd agree if it was just hate speech that was getting removed (I agree that there's no equivalence between this and say, removing someone that's spamming the n-word). But that's not the case really. I know it's a dead horse but you had hashtags related to hunter Biden's laptop getting completely hidden, to the point where articles were blacklisted from getting shared. And I'm not even arguing about if the story is true or not, it's just that it objectively wasn't harmful speech in any sense of the word (it was harmful to Democrats but that's it), yet the precedent has been set, with very strong support from the side that's now crying about censorship. Again, this is just an example but that's why setting precedents is dangerous, especially when the tables turn. This isn't coming from a position of support for Trump, quite the opposite.