rhaksw

18 ms·

151.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> Only collectivists and authoritarians would start going off on "society" values as if their values are superior enough to warrant forcing. Individuals can have values. I have disagreements with the parent comment [1], but fre
152.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> I have not argued for any particular movement. What I'm asking for is a argument that the status quo is optimal Why? Nobody said it's written in stone. Laws remain open to interpretation for as long as a judiciary exists. &gt
153.
by rhaksw 4y ago
I'm quite lost on your overarching point. Do you agree with how US jurisprudence has drawn the lines on free speech? If not, what would you do differently?
154.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> The "Defend Women" line is a perfect tactic for TERFs to use, and they use it early and often. Yeah, it's wild. Meghan Murphy [1] has a lot of guests on who discuss this topic. Some of it is pretty eye opening because th
155.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> Facebook are notorious for basically doing zero content moderation in Asian countries (see Myanmar) None of us know what kind of content moderation went on there. There is no public index of what gets removed, and according to Brandon
156.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> The concern that people have is that the definition of what is "extreme" tends to creep, in one direction or another, in western democracies. Perhaps that's a feature of democracy itself It's a feature of humanity f
157.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> This is an argument against laws, corruption, and government. No, it's an argument for studying the history of law and understanding that some are good and some are bad. They don't come with a cover sheet saying so. You need
158.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> This isn't empirically true though, as someone else mentions in this thread there's a fair amount of evidence that past a certain point, more free speech makes fomenting a populist revolt to end democracy easier, not harder,
159.
by rhaksw 4y ago
How laws are sold to the public are not how they get applied. Nixon's 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act, meant to regulate campaign finance, was immediately used to curtail speech critical of Nixon. Here's former ACLU executive d
160.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> But I am not a historian and cannot reconcile the articles content with what you’re stating here. You're as free as any historian to form an opinion and share it. The rest of us can take the fact that you're not one into acco
161.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> Just FYI, hate speech being free speech is an American thing. Other democracies in the world have frameworks for limiting/prioritizing basic rights, right to free speech included (take, for example, German moderation laws) and hav
162.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> Yes, yes, but The refrain "I believe in free speech, BUT" is so common that first amendment lawyers regularly joke about it [0] [1] [2]. "Free speech for me— but not for thee" is also the title of an excellent boo
163.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> That’s why people opt for moderated communities, actually learning to handle content and ignore repugnant or vile content takes diligence and building that up is time-consuming, so they’ll happily pay money (via ads or directly) to off
164.
by rhaksw 4y ago
Yeah Jonathan Rauch is great, he talks a lot about free speech. See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0T9XSG73kY&t=1774s I wish del.icio.us still existed. I just want to put links in folders and share them.
165.
by rhaksw 4y ago
Greg Lukianoff also suggested drawing the content moderation line at legal speech [1]. > Why does this matter? Because free speech, free expression in general, is a means to express values and beliefs. Saying this does not convince peopl
166.
by rhaksw 4y ago
Indeed, Twitter has a legal right to moderate how it pleases. The question we should be asking is HOW content is being moderated. Shadow moderation, when a forum tricks authors into thinking their removed or demoted content is publicly
167.
by rhaksw 4y ago
The original project does that, https://youtu.be/cPC2o262TfQ?t=26 https://github.com/MyOwnClone/quake_watch
168.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> no mod has bothered to turn it on. Glad to hear it. Some of this, such as the way user blocks now work, isn't controlled by mods.
169.
by rhaksw 4y ago
You're right, and that's an important point. The message that "they do it for free" may be propaganda itself. We don't know that to be true, so it's wrong to assert that any given mod either is not or is
170.
by rhaksw 4y ago
I found some time and wanted to respond to more of your comment, > So there seems to be a nearly insurmountable chicken and egg issue with making real change, short of convincing someone with vast resources or someone with vast reach to
171.
by rhaksw 4y ago
Thanks, I largely agree with all of this except for concerns about me being banned or whatever. I'm not worried about that at all. Reddit banning Reveddit would probably shoot it to the moon because there's absolutely a story ther
172.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> No. I have explicitly mentioned that a single comment by someone doesn’t amount to anything. When 60% of the comments are like that, that is when this becomes a problem. Then it simply isn’t science any more. Just like when my site was
173.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> the more secrecy about removals, the less signal that favored users get that their opinions were published because the mods approved of them That's deep. I hadn't thought about what happens to the ego of users whose content i
174.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> And the moderation being correct or not isn't the concern-- just the fundamental dishonesty of shadow banning. Exactly. The dishonesty is the part that bugs me. > (though, ironically, outright spammers might have an easier time
175.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> I know the opacity is ultimately reddit's fault (and I've complained to them about it), but reddit these days seems almost completely unresponsive to small scale public feedback. Then let's make it big! Can do #ShadowMod
176.
by rhaksw 4y ago
Yeah, I'd say another thing is to be aware that some might like to troll and steal your attention in order to distract. And to be like, okay, you got me haha, and just move on. For example, the reply to me in this thread [1] is not the
177.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> Also some of the links on your slide-deck are just as eye-popping (eg. the public-private discourse document with crosstabs). Lots of good info in there. Thank you for going through it! Yours is the first comment I've seen mention
178.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> Unfortunately, reveddit has stopped showing content that was removed by reddit administration Technically, I never showed it. The change is that Reddit changed the way they were doing comment removals, and I declined to update Reveddit
179.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> I'm of the view that users subjected to an outright shadow ban should at least have a civil cause of action available for all the time they unnecessarily wasted writing comments that no one else will ever see. And for shadow remov
180.
by rhaksw 4y ago
I'm sure you can find her story elsewhere.

More ›