zlacker

[return to "Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content"]
1. chasd0+u8[view] [source] 2024-08-27 11:30:31
>>southe+(OP)
When the platforms starting censoring during the pandemic and last election cycle I remember saying they better get it right 100% of the time because the moment they get it wrong their credibility is shot. Hear we are.

Censorship, beyond what’s required by law, is doomed to fail.

◧◩
2. Eddy_V+Db[view] [source] 2024-08-27 11:58:05
>>chasd0+u8
They were already doing censorship, just for different things - there was never a free for all because that eventually ends up like 4chan which is not advertiser-friendly.

So you can lose credibility two ways, one by not doing any censorship because people on the internet will be the worst if you let them. Doing too much censorship is also bad because people don't like that either. Of the big causes of censorship currently, I think of things like youtubes copyright claim process and how that is routinely used as a censorship backdoor by anyone - including the police. Sometimes its not even for any good reason and done by unthinking bots. This is banning more perfectly fine content than anything the government has done. I don't understand why there isn't more pushback against that process to punish people for frivolous claims.

◧◩◪
3. ryandr+wt[view] [source] 2024-08-27 14:08:43
>>Eddy_V+Db
> They were already doing censorship, just for different things - there was never a free for all because that eventually ends up like 4chan which is not advertiser-friendly.

If you look at every attempt to create "The Uncensored Free Speech Version Of [ANY_SERVICE]," they all, inevitably turned into a 4chan-like trashfire. You've got to have some kind of moderation.

◧◩◪◨
4. dimitr+sR[view] [source] 2024-08-27 16:16:08
>>ryandr+wt
This is where I really feel my age. Every message board and chatroom (bbs, forums, irc, icq, aol, et all) on the young internet was virtually uncensored and a 100% free for all, yet we all mostly got by. You went to the places you knew to go to. The communities mostly self moderated by kicks/bans. It worked really well.

So whats changed?

Well, I have my thoughts, but one thing is for sure, as soon as the platform itself tried to start moderating, that's when things really started changing.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. dingnu+7T[view] [source] 2024-08-27 16:22:59
>>dimitr+sR
>on the young internet was virtually uncensored and a 100% free for all, yet we all mostly got by

boys did. the girls left those spaces (and the internet more generally, until social media became mainstream) because all the public spaces were disgusting, and all the boys sat around posting vulgarity, laughing, and wondering why there were no girls in our online spaces.

Those spaces were/are absolutely appalling sausage fests and while I don't think they should be shut down, saying "we all mostly got by" is some kind of selection or survivorship bias. YOU didn't mind. YOU got by. Polite company DID mind, and there wasn't a space online for them. You just didn't notice.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. Nuzzer+6U[view] [source] 2024-08-27 16:27:04
>>dingnu+7T
I wonder if that was the secret sauce. Just kidding, I don’t remember that happening at all. There were plenty of girls on the internet back in the day. Maybe not as far back as the 90s but definitely starting 2000. That’s how I met most of them!

That being said, as a male I was on the receiving end of the same kind of garbage back then. I had a guy who was sending my mother very creepy emails with her real information just to screw with me, and this was in 98. It affected me worse than it did her, I thought he was going to ruin my life as a kid. Another guy got my email account deleted when I was 14 because I drew a picture that made fun of his art as a joke. I knew it was him because he emailed me saying he was going to do it.

I still would rather trade this internet for that one. It’s too Orwellian now.

I don’t think it’s correct to claim a sense of victimhood over your sex. Shitty people are going to be a problem for you one way or another.

I also found many more great positive experiences back then with people online than more recently. You had downs but a lot of ups. People you meet online these days tend to be more busy, edgy, creepy, or too arrogant to grace you with acknowledgement. There’s also a noticeable degree of mental illness, which lines up with the statistical trends. Which is fine but you really never know what kind of mental illness it is until it’s too late (can be genuinely dangerous). The good people are around but mostly keep to themselves.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. kmeist+p21[view] [source] 2024-08-27 16:59:06
>>Nuzzer+6U
The secret sauce was not having five monopolistic megacorporations running all our communications. The toxic assholes have always been here, but Facebook and Twitter is extremely good at platforming them and profiting off of them. This is why Facebook and Twitter had "world leaders policies" intended to keep Trump on their platforms - because Trump's fascist rhetoric made them money.

As for the standard pop-feminist take, I should point out that it's not so much a matter of gender or victimhood, it's a matter of how people are conditioned to respond to hostility. If your culture socializes boys[0] to respond to toxicity with more toxicity, then they will naturally push everyone else not so socialized out of the space. This creates "male spaces" that are just where the most toxic people happen to concentrate. The interests they concentrate around do not matter aside from them happening to be the color of the tile on the floor being stepped on.

[0] Or just some subset of boys

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. Nuzzer+R31[view] [source] 2024-08-27 17:05:23
>>kmeist+p21
Yeah I’d say Twitter was probably what made it go downhill the most…
[go to top]