This isn't some anime or Steven Universe or My Little Pony where trying to change someone's mind hard enough will work.
I’m well aware that this is reality and not the world of Dream Obama.
We're running out of options, and "Incrementalism and Decorum in the face of liars who have never had any intention of playing by the rules" is an option that's been tried and failed numerous times.
But even in reality, violence for violence is the rule of beasts.
What am I supposed to do?
Anything short of actual political violence. If you disagree with what the insurrectionists did on the 6th of January, doing it yourself for a wholly different cause won’t make you much better than them.
I know it can be disheartening to watch the moral arc of the universe bend towards the obscene, the hateful, and the sociopathic. I know it hurts to watch the righteous fall to the wicked—to see the flourishing of that which causes despair. But that can’t excuse political violence. That can’t excuse the violent oppression of those with whom we disagree, even if their ideologies and their politics may cause harm to others. That isn’t a humane way to deal with the problem.
you're the kind of person who'd say "I don't like what you have to say but I'll defend you're right to say it" and "If we hurt them, we'll be just as bad as them!" as you're being marched into the GOP death cult's re-education camps
On the first point: Yes, they do have a right to say heinous things—but nobody has to listen or give them a platform. Anyone who does that shit will have to deal with the social (and possibly legal) consequences.
One the second point: As I implied above, violence for its own sake is bullshit. Violence in response to a direct and imminent threat against one’s self or others is the only justifiable violence. If and when such violence is genuinely needed, I would be on board with it. But I cannot condone political violence, even for shitheels like Greg Abbott, Ron DeSantis, and their Dear Leader himself.
(Would I like to punch them in the face if I could get away with it scot-free? I’d be lying if I said no. That said: I’d still feel like shit because that punch won’t accomplish anything. It might even make them martyrs.)
I'm just so tired and angry from seeing fascists and ignorance gain so much ground here in the U.S.
So am I. But violence will only strengthen their resolve—and result in more violence. I can’t, and won’t, be on board with the idea of hurting (or killing) people who hold heinous or even dangerous political ideologies only for the fact that they hold those ideologies.
I'd be glad to see Dems first off try to push forward laws that ban fascism and Nazism, ensure that that speech isn't deemed as equal to other speech.
Unfortunately, that would require a change to the First Amendment that Republican lawmakers would agree with or a ruling from the conservative-leaning Supreme Court that says such speech isn’t 1A-protected. I wouldn’t bet on either one happening any time soon.
We still have like, one or two options to go before option 3: forced ostracization & violent oustering, in my estimation, but if none of those work, then I'd be fine with taking the third option.
You’re free to make that decision. But don’t be surprised if the FBI ends up turning you into one of their homegrown terrorists as a result.
I understand the urge to hurt those who have (or would) hurt you. Hell, for a while after I dropped out of high school due to bullying, I thought about revenge for those who drove me out. (Sometimes violent, sometimes not.) So trust me when I admit that your position is sympathetic. But I am not the person I was back then—I can’t, won’t, and don’t allow myself to be consumed by the thought of political violence as a righteous ideology.
We don’t have an easy solution to the problem of American fascism—or, at least, an easy non-violent solution. Again: I get that. But I can’t condone political violence as anything other than an absolute last resort when every other conceivable option has been cut off. Violence is not my ideology; whether it is yours is a decision only you can make. All I can do is ask you to rethink that decision. What you do after that is out of my hands.
Maybe we should inflict violence upon far-right shitheads because they want marginalized groups to die and won't play by any of the same rules or decorum that we've wanted and hoped for over the last 5 years.
Where, then, does this road end? As I said, violence is an ideology—so I want to know how far you’ll go for your ideology. Will you merely punch “far-right shitheads” in the face, or will you do worse? How many people should face this violence? How often should they face it? And if a far-right shithead happens to sit in elected public office, exactly how far will you go to get them out of office?
I know the temptation to go lower than their low is strong. Hell, even I understand that feeling of wanting to pop one of those assholes in the mouth. That said: unprovoked irrational violence against those shitheads will make them martyrs and make you someone serving a prison sentence. We have many ways of dealing with right-wing nutjobs; violence should be the absolute last resort.
Violence is an ideology. Saying shit like “certain views need to be violently excised from humanity” exposes that ideology for what it is: “might makes right” reasoning, or—to quote a famous Tumblr shitpost—“violence for violence is the rule of beasts”. To want to inflict violence upon those you dislike only because you dislike them is to become an animal driven by rage and hatred. It is to become that which you hate by going down a different road.
Do I believe we’d be better off without Nazis and Nazism in the world? Yes. Do I believe we need to “violently excise” such people and such views from the world? No. We’ve seen someone try something like that before, after all. We call what he did “the Holocaust”.
Companies like YouTube are far from perfect at their curation of community. (Hell, they’re barely good at it on a good day.) But they’re not exactly putting out a welcome mat for bigots and assholes in the same way places like Gab and Parler have done. YouTube can always do better, but it can also do much worse. That it’s chosen to at least try the “better” option must be worth something.
What I want to discuss is whether it's a good idea to give users more of a say in policy and moderation decisions.
Do you want bigots brigading such discussions and pushing for rules that are more lenient towards their bigotry? Your answer to that question is also the answer to yours.
public pressure already has some influence in the platform's policy/moderation decisions, but that's more in an abstract way
Public pressure is the only way a userbase should have a say in a platform’s decision-making—and even then, they shouldn’t get the final say.
That's actually not quite accurate
It was a metaphor; it wasn’t meant to be wholly accurate.
business-wise, it is in their best interests to moderate as little as possible
No. No, it is not.
Anyone who owns a platform that they intend to make a business out of will want to make it appealing to as many people as possible. That can mean moderating a hell of a lot of speech that a hell of a lot of people find…well, let’s say “distasteful” to be generous. A platform may initially land a large userbase by embracing the Worst People Problem, but it won’t keep that userbase for long precisely because of its embracing of the Worst People.
Advertisers thrive on controversy; that much is true. But no company worth a damn wants its name attached to bigotry and hatred—to racial slurs, anti-queer propaganda, and blatant anti-Semitism. The only way to make sure such content stays off a platform is to moderate that content…and to do so heavily.
I mean, what platform do you really think Coca-Cola would want its products associated with: a platform that welcomes bigots or a platform that rejects bigots?
Their rules are often called "Community Guidelines" or something to that effect.
The rules refer not to who gets to make the guidelines, but to whom the guidelines apply. Letting the community make the guidelines is asking for trouble.
I think it wouldn't be so ridiculous to say "I live on Facebook/Twitter/Youtube" - in fact such people already exist: you may have heard of them referred to as the "Extremely Online".
It is ridiculous now and will be ridiculous in the future. Moreover, I don’t care what you call them—they don’t get to make the rules if they don’t own the platform.
the idea of platforms as virtual places where people "live" (as opposed to businesses that people patronize) might not seem so far-fetched
Watching rich assholes spend millions of dollars on expensive-ass VR meetings won’t make that technology any more palatable to the general public—or create the level of Internet infrastructure necessary for that technology to work without severe issues.
Social media platforms are already referred to as "virtual communities", and if the creators of said communities want me to "live" there, then I sure do hope that I get to do so as the "citizen" of a democracy
Therein lies your problem: Platforms are tyrannies, not democracies. You don’t get, or deserve, a right to vote on the policies of a given platform. You may not even get the chance to have a say in whether a given policy sucks. That’s the deal to which you agreed when you asked for a spot on a platform you don’t own/control.
You want to “live” on Twitter? Go right ahead. But doing so means you live by the rules of the “landlords”, not the rules you think they should enact for you.
that's not really a wish - that's a fantasy
Stop living in the dream world and accept reality: Twitter isn’t, and shouldn’t ever be, a democracy.
the answer also varies depending on what you consider the primary goal of content moderation to be
The goal of any form of content moderation is the same across the board: curating a community. Communities that don’t care how shitty they are won’t moderate much speech; communities that care about normally marginalized voices will moderate a hell of a lot of speech to make sure those voices don’t get drowned out. Moderation is the only way to curate a community of any real quality. A refusal to moderate gets you shitpits like Parler and Gab.
Given how conservative assholes would try their hardest to rig such polls in favor of policies that would favor conservative voices and spit in the face of marginalized voices? Yes, it would be a bad idea. Besides, the final say on such matters should always be up to the people who own the property, not the people who are given the privilege of using it.
On the post: Bad Faith Politicians Are Using Social Media Suspension To Boost Their Own Profiles
And I’m here, too.
On the post: Bad Faith Politicians Are Using Social Media Suspension To Boost Their Own Profiles
I’m well aware that this is reality and not the world of Dream Obama.
But even in reality, violence for violence is the rule of beasts.
Anything short of actual political violence. If you disagree with what the insurrectionists did on the 6th of January, doing it yourself for a wholly different cause won’t make you much better than them.
I know it can be disheartening to watch the moral arc of the universe bend towards the obscene, the hateful, and the sociopathic. I know it hurts to watch the righteous fall to the wicked—to see the flourishing of that which causes despair. But that can’t excuse political violence. That can’t excuse the violent oppression of those with whom we disagree, even if their ideologies and their politics may cause harm to others. That isn’t a humane way to deal with the problem.
On the first point: Yes, they do have a right to say heinous things—but nobody has to listen or give them a platform. Anyone who does that shit will have to deal with the social (and possibly legal) consequences.
One the second point: As I implied above, violence for its own sake is bullshit. Violence in response to a direct and imminent threat against one’s self or others is the only justifiable violence. If and when such violence is genuinely needed, I would be on board with it. But I cannot condone political violence, even for shitheels like Greg Abbott, Ron DeSantis, and their Dear Leader himself.
(Would I like to punch them in the face if I could get away with it scot-free? I’d be lying if I said no. That said: I’d still feel like shit because that punch won’t accomplish anything. It might even make them martyrs.)
So am I. But violence will only strengthen their resolve—and result in more violence. I can’t, and won’t, be on board with the idea of hurting (or killing) people who hold heinous or even dangerous political ideologies only for the fact that they hold those ideologies.
Unfortunately, that would require a change to the First Amendment that Republican lawmakers would agree with or a ruling from the conservative-leaning Supreme Court that says such speech isn’t 1A-protected. I wouldn’t bet on either one happening any time soon.
You’re free to make that decision. But don’t be surprised if the FBI ends up turning you into one of their homegrown terrorists as a result.
I understand the urge to hurt those who have (or would) hurt you. Hell, for a while after I dropped out of high school due to bullying, I thought about revenge for those who drove me out. (Sometimes violent, sometimes not.) So trust me when I admit that your position is sympathetic. But I am not the person I was back then—I can’t, won’t, and don’t allow myself to be consumed by the thought of political violence as a righteous ideology.
We don’t have an easy solution to the problem of American fascism—or, at least, an easy non-violent solution. Again: I get that. But I can’t condone political violence as anything other than an absolute last resort when every other conceivable option has been cut off. Violence is not my ideology; whether it is yours is a decision only you can make. All I can do is ask you to rethink that decision. What you do after that is out of my hands.
On the post: Bad Faith Politicians Are Using Social Media Suspension To Boost Their Own Profiles
Even if he paid for the punch, Spencer never stood a chance of being anything but a punchline.
On the post: Bad Faith Politicians Are Using Social Media Suspension To Boost Their Own Profiles
Where, then, does this road end? As I said, violence is an ideology—so I want to know how far you’ll go for your ideology. Will you merely punch “far-right shitheads” in the face, or will you do worse? How many people should face this violence? How often should they face it? And if a far-right shithead happens to sit in elected public office, exactly how far will you go to get them out of office?
I know the temptation to go lower than their low is strong. Hell, even I understand that feeling of wanting to pop one of those assholes in the mouth. That said: unprovoked irrational violence against those shitheads will make them martyrs and make you someone serving a prison sentence. We have many ways of dealing with right-wing nutjobs; violence should be the absolute last resort.
On the post: Bad Faith Politicians Are Using Social Media Suspension To Boost Their Own Profiles
Violence is an ideology. Saying shit like “certain views need to be violently excised from humanity” exposes that ideology for what it is: “might makes right” reasoning, or—to quote a famous Tumblr shitpost—“violence for violence is the rule of beasts”. To want to inflict violence upon those you dislike only because you dislike them is to become an animal driven by rage and hatred. It is to become that which you hate by going down a different road.
Do I believe we’d be better off without Nazis and Nazism in the world? Yes. Do I believe we need to “violently excise” such people and such views from the world? No. We’ve seen someone try something like that before, after all. We call what he did “the Holocaust”.
On the post: Bad Faith Politicians Are Using Social Media Suspension To Boost Their Own Profiles
Companies like YouTube are far from perfect at their curation of community. (Hell, they’re barely good at it on a good day.) But they’re not exactly putting out a welcome mat for bigots and assholes in the same way places like Gab and Parler have done. YouTube can always do better, but it can also do much worse. That it’s chosen to at least try the “better” option must be worth something.
On the post: Louisiana & Alabama Attorneys General Set Up Silly Hotline To Report 'Social Media Censorship' They Can't Do Anything About
Do you want bigots brigading such discussions and pushing for rules that are more lenient towards their bigotry? Your answer to that question is also the answer to yours.
Public pressure is the only way a userbase should have a say in a platform’s decision-making—and even then, they shouldn’t get the final say.
It was a metaphor; it wasn’t meant to be wholly accurate.
On the post: Bad Faith Politicians Are Using Social Media Suspension To Boost Their Own Profiles
See also: the “Worst People” Problem
On the post: Bad Faith Politicians Are Using Social Media Suspension To Boost Their Own Profiles
No. No, it is not.
Anyone who owns a platform that they intend to make a business out of will want to make it appealing to as many people as possible. That can mean moderating a hell of a lot of speech that a hell of a lot of people find…well, let’s say “distasteful” to be generous. A platform may initially land a large userbase by embracing the Worst People Problem, but it won’t keep that userbase for long precisely because of its embracing of the Worst People.
Advertisers thrive on controversy; that much is true. But no company worth a damn wants its name attached to bigotry and hatred—to racial slurs, anti-queer propaganda, and blatant anti-Semitism. The only way to make sure such content stays off a platform is to moderate that content…and to do so heavily.
I mean, what platform do you really think Coca-Cola would want its products associated with: a platform that welcomes bigots or a platform that rejects bigots?
On the post: Louisiana & Alabama Attorneys General Set Up Silly Hotline To Report 'Social Media Censorship' They Can't Do Anything About
The rules refer not to who gets to make the guidelines, but to whom the guidelines apply. Letting the community make the guidelines is asking for trouble.
It is ridiculous now and will be ridiculous in the future. Moreover, I don’t care what you call them—they don’t get to make the rules if they don’t own the platform.
Watching rich assholes spend millions of dollars on expensive-ass VR meetings won’t make that technology any more palatable to the general public—or create the level of Internet infrastructure necessary for that technology to work without severe issues.
Therein lies your problem: Platforms are tyrannies, not democracies. You don’t get, or deserve, a right to vote on the policies of a given platform. You may not even get the chance to have a say in whether a given policy sucks. That’s the deal to which you agreed when you asked for a spot on a platform you don’t own/control.
You want to “live” on Twitter? Go right ahead. But doing so means you live by the rules of the “landlords”, not the rules you think they should enact for you.
Stop living in the dream world and accept reality: Twitter isn’t, and shouldn’t ever be, a democracy.
On the post: Bad Faith Politicians Are Using Social Media Suspension To Boost Their Own Profiles
Those for whom grievance is a way of life will never be soothed by any balm.
On the post: Bad Faith Politicians Are Using Social Media Suspension To Boost Their Own Profiles
The goal of any form of content moderation is the same across the board: curating a community. Communities that don’t care how shitty they are won’t moderate much speech; communities that care about normally marginalized voices will moderate a hell of a lot of speech to make sure those voices don’t get drowned out. Moderation is the only way to curate a community of any real quality. A refusal to moderate gets you shitpits like Parler and Gab.
On the post: Louisiana & Alabama Attorneys General Set Up Silly Hotline To Report 'Social Media Censorship' They Can't Do Anything About
Given how conservative assholes would try their hardest to rig such polls in favor of policies that would favor conservative voices and spit in the face of marginalized voices? Yes, it would be a bad idea. Besides, the final say on such matters should always be up to the people who own the property, not the people who are given the privilege of using it.
On the post: Bad Faith Politicians Are Using Social Media Suspension To Boost Their Own Profiles
Please define this initialism in clear, concise, and specific terminology that can’t be changed for the sake of a given argument.
How does it feel to be a Nazi supporter?
On the post: Louisiana & Alabama Attorneys General Set Up Silly Hotline To Report 'Social Media Censorship' They Can't Do Anything About
How much of a say should they have beyond reporting posts they believe break the rules?
On the post: Laura Loomer Owes $124k In Legal Fees After Losing Lawsuit Over Having Her Twitter Account Reported And Banned
Loomer, probably: “Oh no, consequences—the one thing I didn’t expect my actions to have!”
On the post: The End Of Ownership: How Big Companies Are Trying To Turn Everyone Into Renters
You can only read one ebook at a time, though. And your access to those ebooks can be revoked by the company from whom you bought the ebooks.
I’ll take the physical item that I can own forever over the digital item I can rent until someone says “nope, taking it back now” every time.
On the post: It Happened Again: Antipiracy Outfit Asks Google To Delist 127.0.0.1 On Behalf Of Ukrainian TV Station
To wit: Prenda.
On the post: Not-So-Anonymous Cop Continues To Argue Courts Should Violate The First Amendment To Protect Him From The Consequences Of His Actions
Given this story? I’ll go with: “This really resists my arrest.”
On the post: NY Legislators Offer Up Bill That Would Allow Cops To Sue People For Not Doing Enough Bootlicking
Ego and entitlement.
Next >>