If you have lived your whole life in water you would never know what the sensation of being dry is.
For some people they honestly don't know when something is happening despite other people trying to tell them it's happening. Because they have never experienced such a thing they cannot accept it exists.
How would you describe colour to a blind person, or music to a deaf person.
Let us know when Trump himself has been found guilty, instead of people that associate with him.
Guilt by association is not a crime. Unless you believe in what twitter thinks.
"In what amounts to a major shift in Twitter policy, the company announced on Friday that it will be monitoring user's behavior "on and off the platform" and will suspend a user's account if they affiliate with violent organizations"
I am sure it's just a coincidence conservatives keep getting banned for what they say while the radicals on the democrat side are allowed to say whatever they want.
For example recently a vet was banned from twitter for daring to criticize Obama's speech about benghazi being a conspiracy theory.
Verus Twitter allowing the official Hamas group to stay up. Nevermind that group publicly advocates terrorist actions.
The real danger of course is someone criticizing Obama, not advocating terrorist attacks on people. When i see that double standard I don't believe it is a coincidence. That is a deliberate choice by whoever is in charge of deciding what is and is not worth being censored.
Saying they are not biased is silly, it doesn't mean they can be forced to regulate what they censor fairly. But let's not pretend the bias does not exist.
My solution is no moderation at all, let the communities moderate themselves. the upvote downvote system works rather well for burying unpleasant posts in commenting sections.
When it comes to disgusting and hateful websites, again don't bother to try and shut them down unless they are breaking laws. It will not shut them down, it will only make what they are saying more credible to people.
My question to you would be, why is no moderation not a solution?
When the options are burn it to the ground or selective clear cutting. Which option would you choose?
Neither is healthy long term. Both will cause massive short term damage. Do you allow all speech, selectively picking and choosing at random the disgusting and hateful speech that you decide violates your principles. Or do you shut down all speech, since you cannot moderate evenly.
I would think we would be able to pick out for ourselves what is hate speech and just ignore it, rather than rely on someone else to pick and choose what we are allowed to say.
Or are people somehow incapable of ignoring hate speech and need a big brother to tell them what to think and believe in.
Alex jones is a loonatic, the best way to shut him down is to let him speak and discredit himself.
Censoring him makes it look like he is right. Rather than engage in discourse with him they went and caused the streisand effect which always makes things worse.
The conservative websites let those that disagree with them speak, they don't ban them because it is easier to let them discredit themselves.
While the liberal sites seem to enjoy banning anyone who disagrees with their views. Hence why It seems like there is a bias.
1 side allows their political enemies to argue against them and the other just bans them from speaking. This causes the effect to make it look like this problem is more widespread than it actually is.
I suspect it is a small group in charge doing this across multiple platforms.
I do not mean every platform when I say this, but there is a growing number of commenting sites that are shutting down heir comments systems or banning people for disagreeing views.
I find it highly unlikely that it is all just a coincidence that conservatives are having their voices silenced just because these platforms are bad at moderating equally and fairly.
Especially when those self same platforms have openly stated their hate and dislike of conservatives simply for having an opposing political view. Is it still just a coincidence when the person in charge says they see nothing wrong with violent hate groups on their site calling for violence against conservatives, but the moment someone says something negative about said group they are banned or disciplined for having an opposing view.
Moderating equally is hard if not impossible, but it doesn't help when those in charge of moderation openly state they are biased against people they disagree with politically.
The problem I think many including myself have is the selective enforcement they did.
Where they let other groups stay up for the exact same type of hate speech as jones, only they see nothing wrong with it because it's directed at people those in charge don't like.
If they are picking and choosing who they ban based on if they dislike their targets or not, that seems like censorship based on personal views instead of the rules.
My apologies for not commentating on the article, but i don't know where else to ask a question on this site.
I find it disturbing that as a technews site there has been no comments about the censoring of infowars. I think alex jones is a lunatic, but it should terrify every independant website that such a thing can happen.
I thought brexit wasn't such a sure thing anymore with the EU demanding it be repealed and the british government bending over backwards to appease them.
On the post: Couple Get Back $10,000 Seized By State Trooper After Local Media Starts Asking Questions
Re:
On the post: Couple Get Back $10,000 Seized By State Trooper After Local Media Starts Asking Questions
On the post: Actual Research On Political Bias In Search Results Would Be Useful, But So Far It Doesn't Show Anything
For some people they honestly don't know when something is happening despite other people trying to tell them it's happening. Because they have never experienced such a thing they cannot accept it exists.
How would you describe colour to a blind person, or music to a deaf person.
On the post: Google Moderation Team Decides My Piece About The Impossible Nature Of Content Moderation Is 'Dangerous Or Derogatory'
On the post: DOJ And State Attorneys General Threatening Social Media Companies Over Moderation Practices Is A First Amendment Issue
Re: Re: Re:
Guilt by association is not a crime. Unless you believe in what twitter thinks.
"In what amounts to a major shift in Twitter policy, the company announced on Friday that it will be monitoring user's behavior "on and off the platform" and will suspend a user's account if they affiliate with violent organizations"
https://mashable.com/2017/11/17/twitter-hate-speech-symbols-december-18/#nE0FPlnRBOqt
On the post: DOJ And State Attorneys General Threatening Social Media Companies Over Moderation Practices Is A First Amendment Issue
For example recently a vet was banned from twitter for daring to criticize Obama's speech about benghazi being a conspiracy theory.
Verus Twitter allowing the official Hamas group to stay up. Nevermind that group publicly advocates terrorist actions.
The real danger of course is someone criticizing Obama, not advocating terrorist attacks on people. When i see that double standard I don't believe it is a coincidence. That is a deliberate choice by whoever is in charge of deciding what is and is not worth being censored.
Saying they are not biased is silly, it doesn't mean they can be forced to regulate what they censor fairly. But let's not pretend the bias does not exist.
On the post: ISPs Push Employees To Urge Governor Brown Veto New California Net Neutrality Bill
Re: Eloquence vs brevity
On the post: Internet Content Moderation Isn't Politically Biased, It's Just Impossible To Do Well At Scale
Re: Re: Absolute Position
My solution is no moderation at all, let the communities moderate themselves. the upvote downvote system works rather well for burying unpleasant posts in commenting sections.
When it comes to disgusting and hateful websites, again don't bother to try and shut them down unless they are breaking laws. It will not shut them down, it will only make what they are saying more credible to people.
My question to you would be, why is no moderation not a solution?
On the post: Internet Content Moderation Isn't Politically Biased, It's Just Impossible To Do Well At Scale
Re: Absolute Position
Neither is healthy long term. Both will cause massive short term damage. Do you allow all speech, selectively picking and choosing at random the disgusting and hateful speech that you decide violates your principles. Or do you shut down all speech, since you cannot moderate evenly.
I would think we would be able to pick out for ourselves what is hate speech and just ignore it, rather than rely on someone else to pick and choose what we are allowed to say.
Or are people somehow incapable of ignoring hate speech and need a big brother to tell them what to think and believe in.
On the post: Internet Content Moderation Isn't Politically Biased, It's Just Impossible To Do Well At Scale
Re:
Censoring him makes it look like he is right. Rather than engage in discourse with him they went and caused the streisand effect which always makes things worse.
On the post: Internet Content Moderation Isn't Politically Biased, It's Just Impossible To Do Well At Scale
While the liberal sites seem to enjoy banning anyone who disagrees with their views. Hence why It seems like there is a bias.
1 side allows their political enemies to argue against them and the other just bans them from speaking. This causes the effect to make it look like this problem is more widespread than it actually is.
I suspect it is a small group in charge doing this across multiple platforms.
I do not mean every platform when I say this, but there is a growing number of commenting sites that are shutting down heir comments systems or banning people for disagreeing views.
I find it highly unlikely that it is all just a coincidence that conservatives are having their voices silenced just because these platforms are bad at moderating equally and fairly.
Especially when those self same platforms have openly stated their hate and dislike of conservatives simply for having an opposing political view. Is it still just a coincidence when the person in charge says they see nothing wrong with violent hate groups on their site calling for violence against conservatives, but the moment someone says something negative about said group they are banned or disciplined for having an opposing view.
Moderating equally is hard if not impossible, but it doesn't help when those in charge of moderation openly state they are biased against people they disagree with politically.
On the post: US Trade Rep Appears To Misreport Its Own Trade Agreement To Include Copyright Extension
On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices
Re:
Where they let other groups stay up for the exact same type of hate speech as jones, only they see nothing wrong with it because it's directed at people those in charge don't like.
If they are picking and choosing who they ban based on if they dislike their targets or not, that seems like censorship based on personal views instead of the rules.
On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices
The more sites that talk about this, the more people will hear of it.
On the post: Voting By Cell Phone Is A Terrible Idea, And West Virginia Is Probably The Last State That Should Try It Anyway
I find it disturbing that as a technews site there has been no comments about the censoring of infowars. I think alex jones is a lunatic, but it should terrify every independant website that such a thing can happen.
On the post: School Sells Out Students' First Amendment Rights, Apologizes And Deletes Article Containing Controversial Images
Supporting the silencing of anyone, will only lead to themselves being silenced.
On the post: Malaysian Government Pushes 'Fake News' Bill Aimed At Curb-Stomping Reporting About Its Corruption
On the post: It Took All Of Three Hours To Code A Plugin That Makes News Comments More Civil
On the post: Gov't Committee: UK Should Move To Holding Platforms Liable For Third-Party Content Post-Brexit
On the post: Manhattan DA Cy Vance Makes His Annual Pitch For Anti-Encryption Legislation
Getting rid of what protects people from harm will surely stop all confrontations from now on, said no one ever.
Next >>