Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MaxTheFox]

The problem is with Russia and Facebook's admins appointing Russian shills, not with censorship in general. It works fine in other regions. Nice cherry picking.

That's not cherry picking. That's the whole point of the anti-censorship argument. Or, more generally, of the >liberal< bit in liberal democracy. One shouldn't put in place any systems whose protective coverage is contingent on the current ruling political majority. The system should be a compromise that protects the rights of everyone, regardless of who is in power. Otherwise the 'wrong' people will eventually grab the reins, and use the system to oppress you.

They will not, that is simple paranoia. They are a small, yet dangerous, fringe, so they are safe to harass. Fascism is discredited by the majority of the population.

Hate speech is not free speech. I don't care for the "free speech" of those who want me dead anyways. I refuse to fold and wish to allow them to keep calling for my death or "conversion therapy".

[Strongpoint]

The problem is with Russia and Facebook's admins appointing Russian shills, not with censorship in general. It works fine in other regions. Nice cherry picking.

Y can cause X, here is an example of X already happening in this particular case. This is not cherry-picking.

Cherry-picking would be if I took this particular case and said "here, this is a typical current situation in all social networks."

And how exactly can you be so sure about other regions? I'd love to know your sources about, let's say, the Arabic segment. I sincerely doubt that there are no similar problems.

Hate speech is not free speech. I don't care for the "free speech" of those who want me dead anyways. I refuse to fold and wish to allow them to keep calling for my death or "conversion therapy".

I noticed a trend in your arguments. You always say "I, me, my." Interests of the society seem to be not of your concern. Are you sure you are a collectivist?

[Quarque]

One shouldn't put in place any systems whose protective coverage is contingent on the current ruling political majority. The system should be a compromise that protects the rights of everyone, regardless of who is in power. Otherwise the 'wrong' people will eventually grab the reins, and use the system to oppress you.

This is where moderators online are a lot like the police. In states where tyrants grabbed power, the police turns into a tool of oppression; they become a force of evil rather than good. That doesn't mean that the ideal society is one without any police.

Of course we should always try to engage people, rather than isolate. But if someone just keeps spreading hate, intimidating others and / or encouraging violence, at a certain point there is no better option than to silence them. If the worst trolls never face any consequences, it actually limits the free speech of their victims.

[brewer bob]

If the worst trolls never face any consequences, it actually limits the free speech of their victims.

Exactly. This is why online forums have turned into complete shitholes: sensible people start leaving the forums (or stay quiet) when everything gets flooded under a pile of toxic vomit with nobody putting an end to it. And when the hate-mongers notice that they can get away with it, what's to stop them from invading other online communities?

That said, I wouldn't trust any government or governmental institution (especially the police) to handle the situation. They will eventually use any passed laws to suppress dissent (and this can happen in "Western democracies" too).

[eerr]

Eh, I'm sure there is an abuse or two. but you have to compromise to allow some amount of free speech.

I bet there might even be a technique or two that would solve the issue slightly better in a handful of cases.

For instance, if someone finds themselves banned on twitter, they just get angry and make a new account. But if they are shadowbanned, aka it looks to them like they can still post, then people don't react the same way.
and people who aren't state sponsored entities generally aren't persistent enough to make a second account preemptively.

[MaxTheFox]

The problem is with Russia and Facebook's admins appointing Russian shills, not with censorship in general. It works fine in other regions. Nice cherry picking.

Y can cause X, here is an example of X already happening in this particular case. This is not cherry-picking.

Cherry-picking would be if I took this particular case and said "here, this is a typical current situation in all social networks."

And how exactly can you be so sure about other regions? I'd love to know your sources about, let's say, the Arabic segment. I sincerely doubt that there are no similar problems.

Hate speech is not free speech. I don't care for the "free speech" of those who want me dead anyways. I refuse to fold and wish to allow them to keep calling for my death or "conversion therapy".

I noticed a trend in your arguments. You always say "I, me, my." Interests of the society seem to be not of your concern. Are you sure you are a collectivist?

1. The thing is, Y only causes X if Y is done poorly. That is not a strong argument against Y.
2. You used it to argue against censorship in general.
3. I don't know. But I was focusing on the West and Eastern Europe.
4. Simply a shorthand for "people like me", "LGBT", etc. No shit the interests of the society concern me. You are arguing in bad faith.

If the worst trolls never face any consequences, it actually limits the free speech of their victims.

Exactly. This is why online forums have turned into complete shitholes: sensible people start leaving the forums (or stay quiet) when everything gets flooded under a pile of toxic vomit with nobody putting an end to it. And when the hate-mongers notice that they can get away with it, what's to stop them from invading other online communities?

That said, I wouldn't trust any government or governmental institution (especially the police) to handle the situation. They will eventually use any passed laws to suppress dissent (and this can happen in "Western democracies" too).

1. Yep.
2. See, that happens if the law is vague. I'm not saying every law should be objective, but there should be a hard line at encouraging violence or discrimination against minorities. That way you can't really use it to suppress dissent. I guess the far-right gets shafted but that's inherent to it, and honestly I'm not sorry at all for them.

[Strongpoint]

but there should be a hard line at encouraging violence or discrimination against minorities

Perhaps... Just perhaps. It should be but there should be a hard line at encouraging violence or discrimination against people

[MaxTheFox]

but there should be a hard line at encouraging violence or discrimination against minorities

Perhaps... Just perhaps. It should be but there should be a hard line at encouraging violence or discrimination against people

Yeah fair enough.

[Starver]

But if they are shadowbanned, [...]

Not to wade into the actual Shadowbanning arena, but just to say that I bet most of those who suspected they were shadowbanned were just not doing the right things to get the right message through the right algorithm to get to the right sort of people to stoke their ego (either by agreeing with them, and effusively saying so, or disagreeing with them, and ditto but more with insults).

When your message just gets lost like an echo in a distant canyon, your own opinion that you should attract all of the attention tends to override any good sense about these things and you invent reasons (as I said recently[1], "the problem can't be me, it must be <some grand conspiracy theory....>"), including the misconception of a Shadowban enacted upon poor persected you.


Not that I'd prefer that everyone tries hard(er) to say the most quotable, and thus most extreme, things they can get away with to get out of the "meh... nothing to see here" doldrums and right up to the edge of a true ban (which some might also accept as a valid result, being a much more tangible evidence that they've been Sticking It To The Man, for whatever version of Man they think they should be Sticking It to). And, though the evidence was that the mythically-singular Algorithm does of course quite like to increase the extremities of viewpoints expressed and shown (but only as an unintentional means to a different end, generally), I imagine that this has been held back a bit, so...

Yeah, I think some people are being less exposed, but 'silently', at least in their opinion - and all for the best. Doesn't seem to be holding back many other, though, so it's obviously one of these strangely inept 'omnipotent cabal' things where there is a huge all-powerful 'secret' society which is apparently controlling all the world's media but for some reason letting people freely discuss their whole mechanism of control in exquisite detail, rather than just sending round the 'heavies' to quietly disappear anyone who even tries to mention them.


(No need to reply, BTW. I'm not that *twitch* needy. And, anyway, I just need to go an answer that ominous and heavy knock at the door... Which is odd, as I've got a doorbell.)



[1] And nobody even commented about!!! Waaaahh! Unfair!!111!!!  (...just kidding. Honest!)

[King Zultan]

2. That's why I said it needs to go further.

But I highly doubt they will as I figure it's more there to make it seem like they did something while in fact they did fuck all, it was probably just done to get them reelected.

This sounds and looks incredibly similar to stuff immature teenagers say

It was a mockery of some of the stuff that was said to me.

I'm gonna assume that was somewhere else as I haven't seen anyone here say anything like that.

Since everyone involved is deeply entrenched in their stance on the topic of internet Nazis that never seem to do anything outside the internet, I what to know what you think of the actual Nazis from Russia that are currently killing people in the Ukraine and since you've said what you want to happen to the internet Nazis what about the actual ones?

Kill 'em. Or imprison 'em for life with no possibility of parole.

Do you have any plans to aid in making that a reality?

It also points out the trouble with banning Nazis is that everyone calls people they don't like Nazis, which means everyone gets banned.

This would apply if reports were not reviewed by moderators. As long as actual fascists get banned, I'm fine with online censorship.

The thing is from what I've noticed is that most social media platforms seem to automate shit like this so instead of a real person you get some half assed AI thing that'd go around banning anything that even barely met it's criteria.

[MaxTheFox]

2. That's why I said it needs to go further.

But I highly doubt they will as I figure it's more there to make it seem like they did something while in fact they did fuck all, it was probably just done to get them reelected.

This sounds and looks incredibly similar to stuff immature teenagers say

It was a mockery of some of the stuff that was said to me.

I'm gonna assume that was somewhere else as I haven't seen anyone here say anything like that.

Since everyone involved is deeply entrenched in their stance on the topic of internet Nazis that never seem to do anything outside the internet, I what to know what you think of the actual Nazis from Russia that are currently killing people in the Ukraine and since you've said what you want to happen to the internet Nazis what about the actual ones?

Kill 'em. Or imprison 'em for life with no possibility of parole.

Do you have any plans to aid in making that a reality?

It also points out the trouble with banning Nazis is that everyone calls people they don't like Nazis, which means everyone gets banned.

This would apply if reports were not reviewed by moderators. As long as actual fascists get banned, I'm fine with online censorship.

The thing is from what I've noticed is that most social media platforms seem to automate shit like this so instead of a real person you get some half assed AI thing that'd go around banning anything that even barely met it's criteria.

1. This is a hypothetical anyways, none of us will ever affect policy of anything.
2. Not here, except for one person railing against me, who isn't you or Strongpoint.
3. No because not only do I have no power over this, I am not anywhere near Ukraine.
4. This is also not a problem with the concept of censorship. Either improve the AI (AI technology is... not really in its infancy anymore, but more like in its childhood) or hire actual moderators.

[King Zultan]

2. Not here, except for one person railing against me, who isn't you or Strongpoint.

I don't think I've been doing any kind of railing.

3. No because not only do I have no power over this, I am not anywhere near Ukraine.

You could if you find any names of these soldiers you could turn them to someone that can.

4. This is also not a problem with the concept of censorship. Either improve the AI (AI technology is... not really in its infancy anymore, but more like in its childhood) or hire actual moderators.

Just gonna say that most of the people in charge of social media seem more interest in money than anything, which means they'll do whatever's the cheapest so instead of people they'll get the cheapest crappiest AI they can get.

[MaxTheFox]

3. No because not only do I have no power over this, I am not anywhere near Ukraine.

You could if you find any names of these soldiers you could turn them to someone that can.

4. This is also not a problem with the concept of censorship. Either improve the AI (AI technology is... not really in its infancy anymore, but more like in its childhood) or hire actual moderators.

Just gonna say that most of the people in charge of social media seem more interest in money than anything, which means they'll do whatever's the cheapest so instead of people they'll get the cheapest crappiest AI they can get.

1. And how do you think I would do that? Ukraine presumably has people better skilled at gathering intel doing that already.
2. Well, honestly, the AI does an okay job most of the time even now. Sure there are false positives, but what the hell do you expect. I'm mostly content with the current state of censorship on the Western Facebook. I still don't use it aside from lurking because I don't need it.

[King Zultan]

1. And how do you think I would do that? Ukraine presumably has people better skilled at gathering intel doing that already.

Loose lips sink ships and all that, I'm sure some body will say something about some soldier doing something at some point and you could report that.


Also I'm still not sure what the point of social media is, or why anyone would want it.

[Starver]

Also I'm still not sure what the point of social media is, or why anyone would want it.

Isn't it something to do with electrofishing a river?